The latest news from United Kingdom’s major retail bankers says that if your online bank account has been compromised and you didn’t use any Internet computer security software such as antivirus and antispyware (e.g. Norton 360), you solely bear the responsibility for the loss, and they won’t compensate you a dime. A clause has been added to the newly updated Banking Code to make this very clear.

According to recent Internet safety and online identity fraud research, the British Police are being informed of a new cybercrime event every 10 seconds. This accounted for over GBP 300 million in financial loss for private and business bank customers in England in 2007. However, many online computer safety specialists claim that the vast majority of online crimes are never reported because they haven’t been detected or were of a lesser severity.

They don’t risk their lives to get money, they don’t shoot at anyone any more, and they don’t do any physical harm to their victims. Today’s crime is online crime and uses computer safety holes and threats in software and equipment to sneak money from peoples’ pockets while they’re sitting right in front of their laptops. No need to shoot nor to threaten anybody. Just a few smart code snippets smuggled into the victim’s PC via email or a booby-trapped website and you are done. Simple as that.

As Marcus Ranum, the author of The Myth of Homeland Security, explains, cybercrime delivers a criminal with a means of automation and the advantage of being anonymous. The criminal needs very little in terms of information technology knowledge or hardware and can cross global borders very fast, making it more effortless to hide and harder to be prosecuted.

So remember that you, the web user, are alone responsible for your doings online. And if you get your online banking password stolen and money robbed by cybercriminals, chances are no one except you will pay for this. Your identity is already an easy enough target for those knowing how to steal it. To minimize the chance of this happening, be sure to get yourself a copy of at least some of the free antivirus and antispyware software available.

Just look at what has happened with CableCard, and especially as it affects Vista Media Center. When I upgraded to Vista (and I actually do consider it an upgrade FWIW) one of the main selling points was Media Center, and the integration it offers for my Xbox 360. I have to say Vista Media Center is awesome. By far the best DVR interface I have used, and I love how it works on my Xbox 360. There is one major gaping hole in it though: getting high-quality digital (HD or standard-def) content. It isn’t Microsoft’s fault either, as all the reliable unencrypted sources (NTSC, and OTA ATSC) work great.

Content producers require DRM, and that leads to pretty much all of the technological problems. In fact, all of the technical problems I encountered in my previous posts were DRM related. I won’t use (read: pay for) Vongo or CinemaNow again because it was too much trouble to always troubleshoot the DRM issues, and I’m someone who can actually troubleshoot it, what about regular people like my wife? Here I am, a paying customer who just wants to hand over my money for some entertainment, and the content provider’s arbitrary decision to force DRM is stopping me! I know it makes sense to all of us “regular” people why this is incredibly stupid, but the content people still haven’t gotten it. They should read this paragraph ten times.

So what about getting my content fix through my digital cable subscription? Well, again even though I am a paying customer, that doesn’t really matter. The content providers require encryption, so CableCard came into existence. But CableCard is done by CableLabs, which is basically owned by all of the cable companies, who have their own interests to protect. The net effect? I can’t get digital cable on VMC without buying a new PC (instead of just a USB/PCIe/Firewire add-on) with a special $300 tuner that handles encrypted QAM channels because CableLabs says they have to “certify” the entire setup.

My PC’s TV tuner (AverTV Combo PCIe ~$90) can handle non-encrypted digital cable (unencrypted/clear QAM) without a problem, but that only covers the networks (ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox) because the FCC requires it. To get around that, the cable companies constantly change the channel location on the clear QAM channels so that it continueally messes up the programming guide. Again, I’m a paying customer just wanting to enjoy the entertainment I have paid for and arbitrary technical requirements are stopping me. The only thing stopping me from just dropping my cable and stealing all of the same content is my ethics. So the content business model is relying on the ethics of their customers and DRM? Sounds like a good plan… Honestly, I would love to have someone try to explain that one to me.

So the technology is there for affordable and convenient digital cable to my PC, but it won’t work because they require encryption. The technology is also there to easily consume video from the internet, but you either have to pay for DRM’d junk, or you can steal the video via P2P. Think about how convenient Divx formatted videos on P2P are. They will play on the Xbox 360, Playstation 3, Windows, Linux, and Mac, and even some DVD players. The same holds true for MP3, it plays anywhere because it has no DRM. Using RSS and BitTorrent I could even have my computer automatically download all the shows I want to watch, it just isn’t legal. If there wasn’t the arbitrary technological requirement to have DRM, companies such as Tivo or Netflix would be able to deliver the true mass-market media consumption products that would actually deliver what people want.

In the startup world, it is really common to run into entrepreneurs (or probably wantrepreneurs) who are so worried about giving up equity to partners or investors that their business fails. Essentially they ended up owning 100% of nothing, instead of 10% of something. The content producers are the same as these naive entrepreneurs, and if they don’t change their ways they are going to end up owning 100% of nothing. They will be continuing in that trajectory so long as it is more convenient to consume stolen content than to willingly pay for it. Final note to the content companies: get your head out of the ground and stop worrying about keeping people from copying your content, and start worrying about getting people to pay for it; they are two very different things!

Note: This article is cross-posted at PseudoSavant.

Nielsen, the company known for telling us which TV shows are popular, has a new technology that uses sounds from videos uploaded online and matches them with its database that already has 95% of TV shows indexed. Nielsen is rolling out the service as early as today and is hoping to work with companies like NBC, News Corp., and Google. Here’s how it would work:

When you try to upload a video clip onto a site that uses the Nielsen service (for example, think YouTube), the video will first be scanned and identified using watermarking or fingerprinting technology. Once identified, it will be checked against a database that holds information on video-distribution rules given by the media company that produced the clip. Right now, there seems to be three options: the video will be allowed to upload, it will upload but only after first attached to a piece of advertising, or it will not be allowed to upload at all.

The biggest distinction between this technology and what Google-owned YouTube is doing on its own is that YouTube never blocks content at the upload stage. Rather, it waits until after it has been uploaded and has been online (for who knows how long) before analyzing. Hollywood, of course, is likely to prefer the Nielsen method while consumer advocates are not pleased with the idea of automatic blockage of content, claiming it goes too far and possibly infringes on free speech rights based on the fair use doctrine of copyright laws which permit some replication of copyrighted content.

Having digitized 95% of national TV programming for its ratings service, Nielsen does have a bit of an advantage over the technology currently available. But will this advantage be enough to make up for its likely-to-be-unpopular methods?

I guess I wouldn’t know much about this. I use Google’s gmail and rarely see any spam.

Purdue spokesperson Jeanne Norberg said: “As an Internet service provider, Purdue will forward these letters when the user can be accurately identified.” “Purdue will not voluntarily provide names to the RIAA. However, should those notified choose not to pay the settlement, the RIAA may obtain court-ordered subpoenas to obtain the individuals’ names.”

21 subpoenas were issued this summer out of the 37 who received settlement letters last semester. “Purdue [provided] the names of 19 individuals, and subsequently the RIAA reduced its total request for names to 17.”

Am I the only one who is just a little disturbed by the line “…should those notified choose not to pay the settlement?” I do not condone peer-to-peer sharing stealing of music, but I think the record companies’ resources would be better spent working on a new business model that leverages digital music and the Internet instead of suing four-dozen kids in one of their key customer demographics. Hopefully we’ll see some more creativity in music distribution business models such as SpiralFrog, and more consumer-friendly technology advancements like Microsoft’s new watermarking technology in the future.

Full Disclosure: I am a grad student at Purdue. See our previous coverage here.

Note: This article is cross-posted at PseudoSavant.

Just what is DTV and why the switch?

TV has historically been broadcast via analog radio waves. On February 17, 2009 (scheduled just after the Super Bowl to avoid confusion for last-minute TV buyers), all over-the-air broadcast TV will be transmitted digitally. The digital signal will enable increased picture and sound quality and additional features like HDTV and multicasting, and will at the same time be more efficient than analog transmission, freeing extra spectrum for other uses.

Who will the change affect? The switch from analog to digital will be mandated for over-the-air TV broadcasts only, so those who receive their television signal using an antenna will need to make sure they’re prepared. (Cable and satellite providers will not be subject to the requirement, but much cable and satellite transmission already comes digitally.) To receive digital broadcasts consumers will need a TV with a built-in digital tuner or a converter. The FCC has a page with more details to make sure you’re ready.

On one hand, the switch is great. DTV represents a substantial, noticeable increase in TV technology. On the other hand, the change will require the millions of broadcast viewers to upgrade to the new standard whether they want to or not. At least some of these are likely to find the change an unnecessary expense in time and money. Another problem is that knowledge of the impending switch doesn’t seem very widespread. Consider this article our attempt to do our part in helping consumers have the knowledge they need.

1) I write books. Those books are published by a publisher and are sold in a store near you. (Or at least on Amazon).

2) I don’t like copyright laws. Maybe “don’t like” isn’t a strong enough word. I hate them. I loath them. I feel shovels-ful of repugnance toward them. I feel that they do a better job of protecting the interests of publishers and music labels, not the artists. They keep valuable, worthwhile, and useful material out of the hands of people who could really benefit from it. These laws bind the hands instead of freeing the mind.

So when I came across this article, written by Cambridge University PhD candidate Rufus Pollock, I couldn’t help but share. The gist of the article is that “(a) optimal protection decreases as the cost of production falls (and vice-versa); and (b) the level of optimal protection, in general, declines over time. ”

Pollock argues that since production costs have gone down, the length of copyright protection should also go down. Isn’t the purpose of copyright law to ensure that publishers (oh yeah, and I guess we can throw artists and authors in there too) make a return on their investment? Nobody would spend the money to record music or print a book unless there was some hope that they could get that money back. But as copying, distribution and production costs fall, copyright laws have only increase and been extended.

In his conclusion, Pollock argues that the optimal copyright term is 14 years. That’s a little shorter than the “life plus 70 years” (for individuals) that we currently have.

As a published author, I’d personally love to see a 14 year copyright law on the books. Heck, I’d love to see a 14-month copyright law, but I’ll take what I can get.

There has been quite a lot of press lately about Google’s new Street View service. Street View allows you to pick a street and see it how it really is. This isn’t a satellite image, but rather pictures taken right on the street. So for example, here is a picture of the Bellagio in Las Vegas, taken right from the strip.

Great service, right? You can now plan a trip and not only get driving directions, but see what color the gas station is where you have to turn right. Or you can virtually visit places you’ve been before. A stroll down memory lane without leaving your chair.

But there are a lot of people crying foul. Almost as soon as the
service became available, people started to look for those ‘kodak
moments’. Wired Magazine has a site
where people can submit funny pictures they find on the site. Already
there are pictures of people picking their nose, bikini clad females,
men walking out of strip joints, and even guy who appears to be
urinating on a speed limit sign. Is this an invasion of privacy?

From a CNN article:

“Everyone expects a certain level of anonymity as they move about
their daily lives,” said Kevin Bankston, a staff attorney for the
Electronic Frontier Foundation, a group devoted to protecting people’s
rights on the Internet. “There is a certain ‘ick’ factor here.”

Bankston goes so far as to worry some people in need of
psychological or medical help won’t seek treatment for fear of being
caught in the cross-hairs of Google’s cameras.

So, is Google evil for ignoring these concerns? Are the concerns legitimate? Should Google rethink the service?

No, they should not, and we only need to look at Star Trek 2 for the
answer. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. This can
be a fabulous service for millions of people. It would be silly to kill
the entire program because of a few pictures here and there. While
there are some privacy and safety concerns, Google has addressed these
by making it possible for a person to request a photo be taken off the
site. If your friends think you are vegetarian, and Google happened to
snap a picture of you feeding your face with a Big Mac, simply click on
the help button and you can request a picture be taken down.

Google is on very solid ground from a legal standpoint. All of these
pictures were taken on public streets, and the pictures depict people
who are in public. Personally I look forward to more cities coming
online. And if you see a black van driving around your city, smile and say cheese.

The Wall Street Journal (subscription required) has a valid point in explaining the under-anticipated downside of going paperless. Once you’re gone, your family may not know where to begin to look for your accounts, assets, insurance policies, retirement plans, etc. So you should write all that information down and keep it in a safe place, right?

Well, not exactly. Having a list of your passwords and private information all in one place is asking for trouble.

According to the article, there are five key aspects to think about: information about your assets, names of advisers, details about safe-deposit boxes, your estate-planning documents, and a few other important documents. While that’s a nice arbitrary list of things to consider, it seems like a general rule of thumb should be to consider anything you’d want your loved ones to know about that you don’t necessarily want accessible to anyone else.

If you do centralize all your account information, write down only account numbers, key people to contact (lawyers or accountants, for example), and perhaps an inventory of important assets. But never write down passwords and/or any type of access codes. And even when writing your information without passwords, you probably still don’t want to store it on your computer. It’d be best to keep it on paper somewhere you can tell your loved ones to look.

And about those passwords… Your loved ones shouldn’t need them in most cases. If you designate your beneficiaries properly, they should be able to gain access to your accounts by showing a copy of a death certificate and proof that they are the beneficiary.

Whatever the case, if you go completely paperless, you’ve a) stored this kind of information on your computer or b) kept in your head. One option creates a headache for your heirs while the other is indirectly asking for your information to be stolen.

Interesting how new technology can also cause new problems…

Trent Reznor gave an interesting interview over at the Herald Sun. In it he states, “It’s a very odd time to be a musician on a major label, because there’s so much resentment towards the record industry that it’s hard to position yourself in a place with the fans where you don’t look like a greedy asshole."

He goes on to say, “I’ve have one record left that I owe a major
label, then I will never be seen in a situation like this again. If I
could do what I want right now, I would put out my next album, you
could download it from my site at as high a bit-rate as you want, pay
$4 through PayPal.”

This interview exposes the crux of the problem that exists between
artists, publishers, and fans. Whether you are a musician, an author,
or a painter, there is an underlying problem that has yet to be
solved. Let me illustrate it with my own personal experience.

I wrote a book a few years ago. I thought it to be a fun book, and
shared it with anybody who expressed an interest. I probably gave away
20-30 electronic copies, and one printed copy. As far as I know, the
printed copy was the only read—and that was because I gave it to dear
ol’ mom. Most folks, when finding out I had a book to give away,
weren’t interested. 

Fast forward 18 months. My book was accepted by a publisher and was
now in stores. The only changes that were made to the manuscript I had
been handing out were a few spelling and punctuation errors. The same
people who I had given free copies to were now paying $15 to buy the
book. Suddenly there was an interest in my book, not because the
content had changed, but because a publisher thought enough of my story
to invest $50,000 in bringing it to the public. I had been
‘validated’. The fact that they were interested in it gave the book
value. A value it didn’t have before.

There are millions of people who are making music, writing books, or
painting pictures. How do we tell what is good? We could review all
the material and decide for ourselves, but most of us have jobs. We
don’t have time. The publishing industry does that job for us, and
expects to be compensated for it. They are our filters (and not very
good ones, but we’ll save that for another post). 

The publishers and labels perform a second and equally vital
service—that of distribution and marketing. I gave my book away to
anybody who wanted it, but without marketing nobody wanted it
(marketing is all about convincing you that you have a need). And
without distribution, there was no way for me to get it to the people
who might enjoy it.

Trent Renzor will be able to sell his music for $4 on PayPal, but
only because he has been validated, first by a record label, and then
by his fans. But equally talented musicians and artists don’t have the
luxury of being validated. They can’t get $4 an album. For the most
part they can’t even get folks to listen in the first place, even when
they give their music away. 

So to recap—the problem is that under the current model publishers
and record labels are a necessary evil. We can’t do without them. But
we resent them because most of our money goes to them, and not the
artists.

The solution? Unfortunately this little problem hasn’t been solved
yet. And you can bet that the publishers and labels will violently
oppose ANY action that begins to encroach on their turf (remember back
in 2005 when Google tried to scan books?)

There needs to be a way for artists who have material, and consumers
who would find that material enjoyable, to get together. If you’re an
artist, and I like your work, I’m willing to pay for it. I’m not
willing to pay $20 to a corporation that then gives you a few
quarters. But I am willing to pay you.

So… Somebody solve this problem already. We’ve already seen
success in other areas. Look at digg and reddit. Thousands of
stories are submitted to these sites, and most users only see the best
of the best. There are certainly problems with this method but we’re moving in the right direction. 

We’ll all be better off for it, with the exception of the RIAA. And
at this point, not too many tears will be shed over that love lost.