Autonomy Moves to the Edges of Networks

The folks I share a world view with believe in equal opportunity, not equal wealth. Work, strive, and be judged. As long as we thoughtlessly perpetuate a hierarchical system, we erode the opportunity for growth that our predecessors will no doubt inherit. This is less a rallying cry, and more of a message. The shift in value is in plain sight for those willing to see.

Why the Web is part of the Old Kingdom

As an active digital explorer and participant in evolutionary web development, I’ve delved deeply into protocols, web scripting languages, frameworks, and RESTful interfaces. Time and again I slam into the limitations of client side code, and the requirement for server hosting. The insidious requirement for servers is built into every layer of web stacks.

Need a server? No problem for the fluent

Although the technology surrounding self hosting has made it drastically cheaper and easier to setup a web server, there continues to be a barrier to entry for non developers. For example my wife doesn’t deploy Rails servers, not even on Heroku. Why isn’t each and every access point a fully functional network citizen? What’s stopping users from clicking their way into their own read/write node without going through gatekeepers? Satisfactory nodes enable pushing and pulling updates to and from friends, and subscribing to preferred news and media sources.

The default response is “it’s too hard for non geeks to setup and maintain a server”, but that argument holds as much water as a raised aquarium platform shoe (very little).

With the rise of technologies like CouchDB we’ll see the expansion of servers to mass market consumers. Admittedly there is a layer of UI polish that’s required for each application, yet it comes as no surprise that mobile devices are upgrading to servers. The issue of local access to a recognizable url like https://marksmobile.ln/OneSweetApp without global domain name registration is as simple as modifying a temporary hosts file. Security IT specialists will shoot me for mentioning such a hack, but there are authentication methods that could make this work (using an extension like .ln to signify a local name).

The rise of social networks, telecom providers, and monolithic information companies are built on an outdated value system. Clients are deceived into believing that they need the business to communicate with friends, family or to discover new folks to share ideas with.

The major information and telecom companies are racing to capture not only our address books, but all the analytics they can about individual and aggregate user behavior, in order to lock clients into their products and platform. This deep intelligence advantage acts as a virtual moat against potential competitors.

Data Discrimination

Group action can and will force businesses to change. A coordinated effort to cancel phone and data plans will drive telecom to deliver the cheapest bit independent of the color of data. Alternative free social platforms (open source) which are defined by protocols and interfaces, not by corporate boundaries, will drive competition in a different direction.

Where businesses can provide value is with software that improves the experience of communicating, by filtering spam and delivering timely high quality suggestions. Corporations can build more effective devices which act as mobile network hubs. The rise of ad hoc networks will eventually encapsulate and eclipse legacy client server hierarchies.

We will no longer be on the Internet, we’ll be the Internet.

Notes:

• Wireless ranges would gap fill far better than current wifi range. Broader bandwidths will allow for long range independent connectivity, which is required for full coverage.

The spam emails began rolling in yesterday afternoon and continued into this morning. I suspect the spam will only grow over the next few weeks making my gmail account completely unusable as an information conduit. It turns out there’s a small box that is checked by default just off the bottom of the mobile web WiFi sign up page that says “yes please spam me with bull shit offers for the rest of my life”. I never saw the checked box, and I foolishly entered my true email address. Thank you Simons Mall for killing my gmail account.

For comparison I should share that my email address is on public web pages in several locations, and yet I’ve never received anything resembling the deluge of junk email as I have over the past 24 hours. Black hat advertising is malicious, irrelevant, and disgusting.

Don’t make the same mistake I did. Don’t ever, EVER enter your email address into any web form unless you absolutely trust the company not to sell off your information for a few cents.

update
The spam mails have subsided, perhaps Google has identified the bulk of them and kindly forwarded them to /dev/null on my behalf.

Here’s why it’s magical (read the full article on Wired)

Teachers have long known that one-on-one tutoring is effective, but in 1984, the education scholar Benjamin Bloom figured out precisely how effective it is. He conducted a metastudy of research on students who’d been pulled out of class and given individual instruction. What Bloom found is that students given one-on-one attention reliably perform two standard deviations better than their peers who stay in a regular classroom. How much of an improvement is that? Enough that a student in the middle of the pack will vault into the 98th percentile. Bloom’s findings caused a stir in education, but ultimately they didn’t significantly change the basic structure of the classroom. One-on-one instruction, after all, is insanely expensive. What country can afford one teacher per student?

“We’ve always known that one-on-one is the best way to learn, but we’ve never been able to figure out how to do it,” Khan explains

…

Then, in 2004, Khan’s 13-year-old cousin Nadia, who lived across the country, asked him for help in math. Khan agreed to tutor her on the phone. To illustrate the mathematical concepts he was describing, they’d log into Yahoo Messenger and Khan would use the program’s drawing window to write equations while she watched remotely. When they couldn’t meet, he’d just record a lesson as a video, talking through the material while writing in Microsoft Paint.

One day Nadia told him she didn’t want to talk on the phone anymore; she wanted him to just record videos. Why? Because that way she could review the video as many times as she wanted, scrolling back several times over puzzling parts and fast-forwarding through the boring bits she already knew. “She basically said, ‘I like you better on the video than in person,’” Khan says.

A lightbulb went off: Khan realized that remediation—going over and over something that you really ought to already know—is less embarrassing when you can do it privately, with no one watching. Nadia learned faster when she had control over the pace of the lecture. “The worst time to learn something,” he says, “is when someone is standing over your shoulder going, ‘Do you get it?’”

Thanks to Howard Lindzon for keying me into the Wired coverage, it made my morning.

The following is the introduction of the letter from Dylan to Google:

Dear Google,

I would like to bring to your attention a few things before I disconnect permanently from all of your services.

On July 15 2011 you turned off my entire Google account. You had absolutely no reason to do this, despite your automated message telling me your system “perceived a violation.” I did not violate any Terms of Service, either Google’s or account specific ToS, and your refusal to provide me with any proof otherwise makes me absolutely certain of this. And I would like to bring to your attention how much damage your carelessness has done.

My Google account was tied to nearly every product Google has developed, meaning that I lost everything in those accounts as well. I was also in the process of consolidating everything into my one Google account.
…
Why anyone would entrust anything to “The Cloud” after what I have gone through is completely beyond my ability to comprehend.
source

The author (if he is Dylan M.) goes on to describe the enormous dependence they have on Google products including contacts, synched bookmarks, docs, email, and reader, as well as how they migrated companies they worked for towards Google services and convinced friends to create Google accounts.

A worst case scenario is painted about account loss. Well it’s not quite a worst case scenario, at least the company doesn’t free up that identity for reuse immediately. Imagine having your accounts deleted and someone else legitimately receiving all email intended for your eyes only faster than you can hunt down and change all your contact information on dozens of services. That would suck, and I’m confident Google doesn’t re-release identities that quickly. If or when they ever do, it’s certainly not instant.

The Face of Google does damage control on Hacker News

Matt Cutts is a genuinely nice human being that I think of as the number one PR guy of Google even though that’s technically not his job (he wages a war against web spam and promotes search quality). It’s difficult not to like his relentlessly positive demeanor¹. In fact in the years I’ve been following Matt, the only time I remember even slight frustration in his writing or voice was when he talked with a representative from Bing search over copying Google’s results, and even then Matt was pretty calm.

To get a sense of community reactions to account locking, let’s turn to HackerNews (Reddit is another great source of feedback):

endersion
1 day ago | link

Regardless of the circumstances surrounding the termination of this individuals account, he still brings to light some very valid concerns.

I’ll quote terryb088 from reddit in saying, ‘The whole “cloud computing” model that companies like Google are pushing requires that we place good faith in the companies that provide these services. In my opinion good faith runs both ways, and any suspension of services needs to have a channel for dispute and resolution.’

The bottom line is, with so much of our personal information and other material invested in Google and its services, the opportunity to appeal (much less be given a reason for) account termination should always be available. It speaks volumes of Google’s attitude towards its users that there is not such an avenue already provided.

the discussion

Matt_Cutts
2 days ago | link | parent | flag

I talked to the person with this complaint, then looked into it myself. The account was suspended for a violation of our Terms of Service. After digging into the situation, my personal opinion is that Google took appropriate action. I’m sorry that I can’t go into more detail.

jellicle 1
day ago | link

Cutts, Google still doesn’t understand the problem here.

Let’s say I decide I have to break up with my live-in girlfriend, for good and sufficient reason. Perhaps she banged my three best friends, perhaps she literally killed my dog with an axe. Doesn’t matter – I have my reasons. I break up with her. I still have to give her back her stuff from my apartment. If I don’t do so, I’m committing a separate offense of my own. I lose the moral high ground.

Maybe something has to be worked out – maybe a friend of hers has to come over and get it, maybe I put her shit in boxes out on the porch.

Whatever. I still have to give her back her stuff. The courts agree, public opinion agrees, the police agree. Whatever she did, no matter how egregious the violation, my swiping her stuff is FUCKING FROWNED UPON and is not justified by whatever harm she did to me.

Google demonstrates no knowledge of this legal and social norm. That’s what is pissing people off. Implement a system to let people download their data from closed accounts and you can delete accounts with no explanation all day long.

Stealing people’s data – regardless of what they did to you – is something that most people consider to be evil. Nobody cares about whether the guy did anything wrong or not. He’s seizing the moral high ground from you because you, also, have committed a wrong.

ptman 1 day ago | link

Physical objects can only be in one place at a time. Data on the other hand can be backed up while it is still being used by the service. And Google collects information about how to do this for their services in one place: the Data Liberation Front http://www.dataliberation.org/

cynope 1 day ago | link

It is not realistic to expect all users to continually make backups of all their Google services.

It is however realistic for Google to solve this by putting a violating account in a “read-only” mode, where you are able to export all you data and not do anything else.

Orbitrix 19
hours ago | link

Yes it is realistic to expect all users to continually make backups of their Google services. Maybe google just hasnt made it easy enough yet… but that is what the goal should be.

Allowed access to banned accounts in “Read-only” mode is ripe for abuse by spammers and phishers who could benefit from still being able to access information in the violating accounts. Its the wrong kind of solution to a problem that really comes down to personal responsibility.

I think most people know deep down the responsible thing to do is have backups of all their important data… the cloud is just making people lazy. And providing a “read-only” access to a banned account will only make people lazier and more apathetic about it. “oh.. no worries..Googles got my back” But what happens when Google is hacked, or suffers a natural disaster, or other catastrophic failure? It only serves to make the problem worse. Losing your data, to even a wrongfully banned account, is nobody’s fault but your own.

There so many more reasons to backup your data before something bad happens, not after…. thats what we should be promoting

cynope 18
hours ago | link

Any improvements in exporting data from a Google Account that will make a daily backup actually doable are welcome. But Google should not place all responsibility in the hands of the users, since this inevitable will result in bad user experiences and therefore bad publicity.

Regarding spammers and phishers, these are users violating the law and they of course have no legitimate claims to their account data.

josecastillo
1 day ago | link

“Users should be able to control the data they store in any of Google’s products. Our team’s goal is to make it easier to move data in and out.”
This philosophy, or at least the “out” part, should apply doubly after someone’s account is terminated in this manner. Google has determined that sinning against one service warrants terminating access to other services. That may be justifiable. But sinning against one service should not warrant loss of one’s data in other services.

Locke1689
1 day ago | link

No. The ToS applies to all Google services.

tarandeep
1 day ago | link

https://plus.google.com/u/0/104600580124930283388/posts/QBFa… He has
access to Dashboard #liar

Locke1689
1 day ago | link

4.3 As part of this continuing innovation, you acknowledge and agree that Google may stop (permanently or temporarily) providing the Services (or any features within the Services) to you or to users generally at Google’s sole discretion, without prior notice to you. You may stop using the Services at any time. You do not need to specifically inform Google when you stop using the Services.

4.4 You acknowledge and agree that if Google disables access to your account, you may be prevented from accessing the Services, your account details or any files or other content which is contained in your account.

I have no knowledge of what services he can or can’t access, just that it is within Google’s purview to remove access to all Google’s services.

P.S. This is not Twitter and we don’t use hashtags in our posts.
Please act as though you have a semblance of decorum.

HackerNews source for both quotes

We can see the divide between folks who believe in access to data after account termination versus those who feel clients should regularly back up everything. As one user of Google’s services, if I could regularly backup all the information I create and store with Google’s data centers, I’d have far less need of their account services.

I’d much prefer to use Google strictly as an anonymous data filter knowing only an absolute minimum about my true identity and simply providing an agnostic data service (email filtering, search, social dial tone). Right now Google is the centralized keeper of the vast majority if it’s users digital identities. This is something a distributed network like the Internet is designed to prevent.

Related Posts:

• Anonymity isn’t allowed on Google
• How much do you rely on one source for your digital identity
• Don’t Punish Everyone, or why rules based systems are flawed

Notes:

1. As an aside, the next time I have need of a super villain for an rpg or story, I’m going to base it on a dark facsimile of Matt Cutts with a sinister side

What if my gmail account was permanently inaccessible?

Update: this reportedly happens to folks on a regular basis, read Dylan’s story which is a mix of fabrication and truth

I use that email account as the ultimate key value store to the Internet. It is used as my login ID to a hundred or so different web services, and it’s the backup address where any password change links are sent. In a very real way Google owns my digital identity and I rely on it as much or more than my government assigned social security number.

This passing thought is the primary motivation behind distributed identity systems such as OpenID. Anyone with a domain or unique url can leverage OpenID to provide a digital identity.

Without consideration, I casually added an OpenID plugin to this WordPress powered blog last year. I wanted to see if I could log in as me at StackOverflow¹, and it worked as advertised. This year I’m going to make a concerted effort to shift my digital identity to one I own and control, and make VictusSpirtus.com synonymous with other identities I have spread across the web. I suppose it’s time for me to setup email through the domain as well (even if it’s just forwarded to gmail).

Reliance on a single third party to verify who we are is another fractured piece of the digital identity puzzle. Late last year I commented on how Internet Identity is Broken. It’s surprising that we rely on something as fragile as our memory and an entity outside of ourselves to prove to other applications who we are.

Notes:

1. While I appreciate StackOverflow as a transient knowledge source, I’ve always been a much bigger fan of questions and discussions than answers.

What I value in service apps today are hyper specialization or a wholistic cross platform approach.

Platform Specific

Hyper specialization refers to apps that only make sense for dedicated devices. For instance, Augmented Reality requires a camera or other sensory data as well as ancillary knowledge of observer position and orientation. If developers feel they can’t deliver the same quality on multiple platforms the dedicated app provides a clear product path. TextMate is a potent Mac developer tool, yet its creators have decided not to spread this incredible app to other platforms. I’d surely buy it at work for Windows and Linux systems.

The app triumvirate

It’s practical to begin building on one edge, and strong applications sprout up from single platforms. After proving app value with traction and revenue, it’s an ideal opportunity to deliver that experience on all the devices where active users expect and need it. A sign of technical competence and business savvy is presence on all the platforms where your market expects you to be. One critical value I seek in apps is a common configuration home, and a web app is the platform of choice for maximum accessibility.

For information services, multiplayer games and social apps I loathe synchronizing settings across dozens of apps on a handful of devices. Thanks but no thanks, none of us need an unpaid side job that never ends. That doesn’t mean I’d prefer a single solution, but I’d certainly appreciate much greater client approved data portability between apps.

I’ve heard the Android mobile app store has had digital refunds in place for some time, but haven’t had one long enough to test it out. For Apple’s iOS you can call and complain about false advertising or shoddy digital products, but there’s no guarantee that you’ll receive a refund. Apple embraces Caveat Emptor, or “let the buyer beware”.

Historically the cost of providing refunds was higher for physical goods due to shipping and repackaging. There has been and likely always will be abuse of refunds by both sides, angling to renege on the refund due to loopholes or get something for nothing. Yet in a digital age where the costs of additional products are the server bandwidth to deliver it, the rationale not to encourage refunds stands on weak legs.

I can read all the reviews in the world, but until I actually use an application I won’t know if it will suit my particular needs. The only reason not to enable refunds is that the company isn’t forced to by consumers. Tracking refunds is digital overhead for the host store, but is far from an unsolved problem.

Fellow app buyers, please chime in and correct me if I’m thinking about this wrong but I’d love to have refunds available by default.

Add…

1. one part nonsense
2. two parts mobile voice recorder and portable synthesizer
3. a silly but popular vocal effect
4. a handful of simple algorithms to sample and partition a recording
5. one part mini game to blindly time your lyrics to the automated loops
6. and a team sharp enough to recognize and build a micro business

This weekend my bro, wife and myself all goofed off with the Songify app for iOS which I eagerly downloaded during our Hibachi/Sushi combination dinner on Friday. The app samples a recording, chops it up, and mixes the results with premade loops. The company behind the app put together a fun YouTube channel.

Some may say that an app like Songify won’t hold folks’ attention for more than a day or two, and they’d be right. But the app is the only the leading edge of a tsunami of automated music generation based based on minimal inputs. If Songify doesn’t capitalize on the market for light music creation, inevitably other companies will rise to the challenge.

Imagine an app that provides a series of algorithmic transformations combined with beautifully composed random elements. Anyone and everyone can create and share music without detailed knowledge of tracks, timing, melody and rhythm. The quality of the produced music will vary drastically all over the spectrum from brilliant to dismal. The beauty of the app is that it encourages the creation of music and relies only on voice for control.

Far Out PB&J Combo

I was inspired by otomata not long back as well as the broader field of cellular automata, and see another opportunity for it’s simplistic music synthesis. That web app provided a grid of boxes with initial cell directions. When cells collide they both turn 90 degrees and generate sound, and when active cells hit the field edge they reflect and generate sound. The initial manual (or random) arrangement of elements places the system on a trajectory into an unpredictable future state, sometimes converging and other times on an indefinite series of unbounded novelty.

The YQL or Yahoo Query Language was what I attempted to use to provide a standard feed interface. Response formats returned to the callback functions varied at the top with data.response.entries or data.response.results. Then within these json structures the entries and results had keys to describe urls. This lead to a variety of handlers and comparisons like obj.link.href, obj.link[0].href, obj.origLink, etc. The differences arise between atom, rss, version releases, and the particular provider. In theory I could write or find a JavaScript/CoffeeScript Swiss army knife of feed parsing, much like the fine Nokogiri Ruby gem I long took for granted.

It’s sad when feeds, the open “lingua franca” of the Internet, are such a mess that hitting unique APIs is both simpler and more reliable. At least with feeds the formats have a slower divergence rate compared to one shot APIs, but middleware is advised when juggling with variations.