Only Connect - Should Broadband Access Be a Right?

Finland makes broadband access a right, $7 billion US stimulus for rural broadband improvements

by Joshua-Michéle Ross | @jmichele | comments: 11

This week gave us two reasons to reconsider the state of broadband connectivity in the US. First, Finland has announced that it will guarantee broadband access as a right for all its citizens:

Second, Yochai Benkler and the Berkman Center released a study of broadband Internet transitions and policy. A global review of how connected various countries are - and the policies that have performed well to stimulate connectivity, both in-home and mobile. While the U.S. has over 7 billion in stimulus dollars going toward improvements in rural broadband, money isn't the same as policy, and it is hard to dispute that we have fallen behind:

On those few measures where we have reasonably relevant historical data, it appears that the United States opened the first decade of the 21st centuries in the top quintile in penetration and prices, and has been surpassed by other countries over the course of the decade.

Benkler makes it clear that government policy has played a role in our decline. The U.S. began lagging as soon as the FCC abandoned it's position of "open access" and allowed telecom companies to lock down networks. (see page 12 of the report).

As our economy continues to lose mass in favor of information-based goods (U.S. exports lost 50% of their physical weight per dollar from 1993 to 1999*) and we continue to see the decoupling of workforce from workplace, connectivity is a critical factor in economic exchange and competitive advantage. Countries that build wide, fast networks to the last mile will have a huge leg up.

If government works best when it creates the conditions that allow citizens the maximum opportunity to succeed, two things seem clear. First, broadband access is a key piece of infrastructure and a necessary condition to many new jobs and opportunities. Second, our policies should steer back towards open access to support that right. Benkler is pretty clear that countries running half a generation ahead of the US (Japan, Korea etc.) are doing so as a result of open access policies. Achieving these ends does not necessarily require the government to own (or pay for) the solution. As Benkler notes on page 13 "there are models of high performing countries, like France, that invested almost nothing directly, and instead relied almost exclusively on fostering a competitive environment."

On a personal note, I divide my time between the US and France and I can tell you, my French broadband (in a rural, medieval village mind you) crushes any corporate workplace connection in the US. What do you think? Should broadband access be considered a right? Is "universal connectivity" just too big a job? And what should government's policy-making role be in all of this?

Government Ambassadors For Citizen Engagement

by Mark Drapeau | @cheeky_geeky | comments: 6

To the average person, government is represented by an anonymous person on the other end of the phone, a pile of mandatory paperwork, and perhaps at best a friendly neighborhood postal carrier. If you ask the average American not living inside the Beltway to name a single individual who works in the federal government, how would they reply? My guess is that the broad majority of them couldn’t give you the first and last name of a federal government employee; In reality they would find it much easier to name their local pharmacist, garage owner, or supermarket manager. And from the perspective of the government, this is a shame. How might emerging social technologies help to bridge that gap, in combination with a modification in thinking about government public relations?

The ideal end state when a citizen is asked to name a government employee would be that a person working in a micro-niche of interest to them - finance, farming, foot-and-mouth disease - immediately comes to mind. Unfortunately though, interesting and talented people working at Treasury, USDA, NIH and other places are not well-known to the public, despite the great effects their work has on everyday life in America. Why is this? Partly, it is a vestige from the days when communications were controlled by professionally trained public relations staff and mainstream journalism teams. This was understandable - equipment was expensive, channels were few, and citizens trusted authenticated, official sources for their information. But this media structure that worked well for 40 years is now outdated.

In the Web 2.0 world, every individual is empowered to be not only a consumer of information, but a producer of it. Writing is searchable, discoverable, sharable, usable, and yes, even alterable. The proverbial “pajama mafia” of bloggers has morphed into a powerful society class of listeners, questioners, writers, editors, publishers, and distributors. And in some outlying examples from the federal government, such as the TSA’s blog, we see this same power being harnessed by individual employees (with their agency’s approval, naturally) - Individuals from the TSA not only blog, but interact with citizens who comment on the articles. But this form of government-citizen interaction is, honestly, a primitive version of how social technologies can empower citizen engagement with government.

The modern citizen is not a vessel waiting to receive press releases and government website updates. Even a sophisticated government website like the White House’s new blog can only expect to attract a subset of citizens a subset of the time. Why? Simply, there are simply too many avenues of information flowing towards these people formerly known as a captive audience. No matter how compelling your government information, they are not waiting to hear from you about it. Nor are they necessarily waiting to hear from the New York Times, MSNBC, or any other mainstream organization.

(continue reading)

Fallacious Celebrations of Facebook Fans

by Mark Drapeau | @cheeky_geeky | comments: 10

Publishing "top 10" lists is unfortunately a staple of modern journalism. But alas, writers must drive readers' eyeballs, even when discussing serious topics like the government. And so we find a new list that mixes Web 2.0 with the government: "Top 10 agencies with the most Facebook fans." For the record, this list is topped by the White House with 327,592 fans, followed by the Marine Corps, Army, CDC, State Department, NASA, NASA JPL, Library of Congress, Air Force, and Environmental Protection Agency. Congratulations to all these hard-working agencies.

But what exactly are we celebrating here? The fact that government agencies are embracing new technologies that the citizens they serve actually use? That's nice I suppose, but everyone from Papa John's Pizza to America's Next Top Model (200,000 more fans than the White House, cough) to someone I met once at a party during Internet Week has a Facebook "Fan Page" now, so surely we are not celebrating the mere presence of them. In fact, when everyone in my social circle's social circle asks me to become a fan of their long-standing charity, their favorite television program, or their single-person consulting firm, everything becomes a blur of meaningless, cheap invitations that become remarkably easy to decline. There is no value in simply having a fan page anymore. There may in fact be street cred in not feeling like you need one.

Are we applauding the government's fan numbers? The article leads with, "The White House currently has more fans than the Washington Redskins." The most powerful global seat of power in perhaps the most recognizable office building in the world has more fans than the local football team? Earth-shattering. Let's consider how popular the White House is. Facebook now has 300 million users; thus, approximately one out of every 1000 Facebook users is a "fan" of the White House. The other 999/1000 are not. And since many Facebook users live outside the U.S., one must assume that many White House fans do as well. Should every U.S. citizen using Facebook be a fan of the White House? Is that the goal? What's the marginal value of an additional 10,000 fans? Who knows.

Still, the White House shouldn't feel too bad about those stats. Rounding out the top 10, the EPA has convinced one of every 100,000 Facebook users to become their fans. Bravo. Let's keep this in perspective. Soccer player Cristiano Ronaldo has two fan pages that total four million fans. Julia Allison, who isn't even a real celebrity, has over 15,000 fans - if these numbers are in any way meaningful she's roughly as popular as the State Department, the agency heading up U.S. foreign policy. These numbers seem even worse when one considers that there are hundreds of U.S. Federal Government departments and agencies, many of which haven't a presence on Facebook or anything similar.

But perhaps I'm being too harsh. Let's assume for a minute that these agencies are genuinely touching microniches and that the fans, whatever their numbers, are indeed fanatical about these agencies. What is the government doing with that raving fan base? Not much. Facebook fan pages from the Army and CDC and State Department primarily re-post their own news from their own websites. I didn't see any original writing. I didn't even see aggregation of information about, say, foreign policy from other sources. I certainly didn't see any innovative contests from the Marine Corps, or crowdsourcing from NASA. And while there are fan comments posted on the pages, it's not obvious at all what is being done with that feedback, if anything. Make fun of Tyra Banks all you want, but her show's fan page has 286 discussion topics, hundreds of photos, headshots, names, and bios of people involved in the show, and listings of upcoming events. They're so organized at America's Next Top Model that we might consider asking their staff to inform people about the resurgent H1N1 flu virus.

If you think I'm joking about that, you probably have no business working with social media for the government.

The larger issue here is that the connection of any of these Facebook fan pages to agency goals and strategy is murky at best. As someone who spends a bit of time thinking about "Government 2.0," it's difficult to decipher how this is helping the government. True, the pages are somewhat informative, and to some degree they reach a citizen audience where they are. But it's not novel and it's not social and it's not engaging. The execution is flawed, the tactics are questionable, the strategy is vague, and the goals are unclear. And all the government pages in the top 10 list effectively look the same. Monkey-see, monkey-do.

My personal Facebook page has about 2,000 connections, but this by itself is nothing to celebrate. The meaningful question is not about who has more fans, but about who can authentically and transparently - and usefully - interact with citizens to provide social and intellectual value and become the pulse of their conversations. Here are some questions I have for governments and agencies running Facebook fan pages: What are the names of the people running the pages? What are their titles? What city is their office in? Where do they blog? Which events are they attending this year? (Can I meet them there?) How are you going to get your fans engaged in your mission? How can I tell you my stories about military service, or foreign travel, or amateur astronomy? Would those stories be helpful to you? How are you using social media like Facebook to get citizens involved in their government?

These are questions that departments and agencies, and private companies for that matter, should be asking themselves before they deploy official new media platforms like a Facebook fan page. The answers to these questions and others should be visible on day one. When the first White House memo of the new administration outlined the principles of a transparent, participatory, and collaborative government, this should have been obvious. It appears not to be so.

What Does Government 2.0 Mean To You?

by Tim O'Reilly | @timoreilly | comments: 20

As many of you know, I've built a new conference, Gov 2.0 Summit, around the idea of the government as platform: how can government design programs to be generative, to use Zittrain's phrase? How do we get beyond the idea that participation means "public input" (shaking the vending machine to get more or better services out of it), and over to the idea that it means government building frameworks that enable people to build new services of their own?

I've been talking a lot about this topic recently, so there are plenty of places to see and hear what I think. (Here are links to my Forbes column on Gov 2.0, an interview with Marshall Kirkpatrick of ReadWriteWeb, my interview with Mark Amtower on Federal News Radio, and my Radar talk at this year's OSCON. (Gov 2.0 remarks start about 9:45 in, with my idea of what Gov 2.0 is really about starting at around 16 minutes.)) And in a few weeks, you can hear the latest thinking from some key people in the world of policy and technology at Gov 2.0 Summit.

But I'd like to reach beyond the voices of the people on stage at that event, and include your voices. So I'm throwing out an invitation in the form of a question: what does Gov 2.0 mean to you? The question is intentionally open to interpretation in a variety of ways, so go to town!

I'd like to hear from you through short video clips; just tag them with #whatisgov2 and post them to your favorite video service by September 2. Details about the video invitation are here. I'll take some of the best of these videos to Gov 2.0 Summit in two weeks, and make them part of the conversation there.

Dear DoD, the Web Itself is Social

by David Recordon | @daveman692 | comments: 15

A few weeks ago, Noah Shachtman of Wired's Danger Room blog wrote about how the, "U.S. military is strongly considering a near-total ban on Twitter, Facebook, and all other social networking sites throughout the Department of Defense." According to Wired, the DoD believes that social networks, "make it way too easy for people with bad intentions to push malicious code to unsuspecting users."

In April of this year, Mark Drapeau and Linton Wells II (previously the acting CIO of the DoD) published a thirty-five page report titled Social Software and National Security: An Initial Net Assessment which looked at the interplay between social software and national security. Combining a few of their conclusions, social software, "is an important information sharing enabler between individuals within government, between government employees and communities of interest, between researchers and government data, between the government and its citizens, and between governments of different countries" and that while, "information security concerns are non-trivial" that, "there is a point at which a mission can be hurt by strictly enforcing such draconian approaches that it keeps government from taking advantage of social tools that adversaries and other counterparties are using."

While it would be possible for the DoD to block specific social networks by denying troops access to domains such as facebook.com, myspace.com, twitter.com, among hundreds of others around the World, as Stowe Boyd said on the Department of Defense's Web 2.0 Guidance Forum, "Web 2.0 is fundamentally social, treating the individual at the center of the universe as opposed to groups or organizations, and then basing communication and information paths on social relationships between individuals."

It's my belief that even if the DoD tried to block all access to social networking sites it would be a never ending and ultimately unsuccessful battle as social is becoming a core component of the web itself. Not only are traditional social networking sites like Facebook, Twitter, and MySpace expanding through their own web-wide API programs, but social features are increasingly pervasive in what used to be "normal" web sites. A few examples:

The New York Times "Times People" - The New York Times launched the ability for you to sign in to nytimes.com, create a profile and follow other readers all without having to leave nytimes.com. This includes the ability to directly recommend articles that you're reading to your followers on NYT as well as see those recommendations on every page of their site.

Palm Pre and Android - Both phones have address books that are integrated and updated automatically with your contacts elsewhere. The Android is constantly in sync with your Gmail contacts and the Pre has a feature known as Synergy which combines contact information, calendars and instant messaging from data stored locally on the phone, Gmail, Facebook, AOL, and Exchange.

ShareThis and AddThis - For the past few years, bloggers and other content providers have integrated those Nascar-style widgets into their sites to provide an easy way for readers to re-share articles. While they initially focused on re-sharing via blogging services, today they support and default to services such as Twitter, Facebook, MySpace, and AOL instant messenger.

Google Reader - Not long ago reading blogs and other content online was a solo experience from within your desktop "feed reader." Google Reader changed this with the ability to follow other users and see what your friends are reading. In July they added the ability to group your friends and filter what you read based on what they liked. A few weeks ago they also added ability to share stories via Facebook and Twitter. Lifehacker writes in more detail about Google Reader Updates with Still More Social Features and More Google Reader "Send To" Tricks.

Google Friend Connect - Friend Connect is one of Google's projects to bring social features to the long tail of the web. It provides the ability for non-technical site owners to bring sign in, profiles, following, "comment walls", and other OpenSocial applications just by adding a few lines of HTML/JavaScript to their sites. Friend Connect is already placed on over five-million sites, is available in forty-seven different languages, and integrates with networks including Google, AOL, Twitter, and Plaxo. You can see Friend Connect on Robert Scoble's blog showing the 1,600 people who have chosen to become members of his site directly. (Not to mention that in order to block usage of Google Friend Connect, the DoD would have to block troop access to Google.com itself!)

Identity - Whether via OpenID, OAuth (Twitter), or Facebook Connect it's now simple to use an existing profile to sign into millions of different sites around the web. Well over one-billion people have accounts that are enabled with either OpenID or Facebook Connect. In many cases, it isn't just about sign in but being able to find people you know on these sites and share content you create back into a variety of social networks. I've previously written about the Anatomy of "Connect" and how it's becoming increasingly possible for any web site to integrate profiles, relationships, third-party content and activity sharing with these technologies.

Niché social networks - Whether it is a Ning community like GovLoop, a standalone network like GoodReads focused on book lovers, or Intel Communities for IT professionals, it's clear that social networks will not only be large destination sites. More traditional blogging tools such as Movable Type, TypePad, and WordPress have all added various social features themselves over the past two years. See Movable Type Motion, Top Reasons to Love The New TypePad which includes an activity stream, profiles and sharing, and BuddyPress. (Disclosure: I work for Six Apart who creates Movable Type and TypePad.)

From infrastructure technologies like OpenID and OpenSocial, to widgets like ShareThis and Friend Connect, to The New York Times itself and your phone, features and interactions that you once only found on social networks are becoming ubiquitous. While it may be convenient for the DoD's IT department to think about social networking as a list of URLs that they can block from any network, the reality is that social networking is becoming a core piece of the web itself.

Four short links: 11 August 2009

by Nat Torkington | @gnat | comments: 0

1. The Slowing Growth of Wikipedia and More Details of Changing Editor Resistance -- researchers at PARC analysed Wikipedia and found the number of new articles and number of new editors have flattened off, and more edits from first-time contributors are being reverted. This is a writeup in their blog, with the numbers and charts. It's interesting that coverage in New Scientist talked about "quality", but none of the metrics PARC studied are actually quality. Wikipedia launched a strategic review which aims to tackle this and many other issues. (via ACM TechNews)
2. The Information Architecture of Social Experience Design: Five Principles, Five Anti-Patterns and 96 Patterns (in Three Buckets) -- teaser for upcoming O'Reilly book with some really good stuff. Balzac once wrote, “The secret of great wealth with no obvious source is some forgotten crime, forgotten because it was done neatly,” and many successful social sites today founded themselves on an original sin, perhaps a spammy viral invitation model or unapproved abuse of new users' address books. Some companies never lived down the taint and other seems to have passed some unspoken statute of limitations. (via BoingBoing)
3. Skulpt -- entirely in-browser implementation of Python. (via Andy Baio)
4. Why Can't Local Government and Open Source Be Friends? -- the Birmingham example is one of many. Government procurement and tendering processes are often fishing expeditions, which biases responses in favour of commercial software companies making mad margins such that they can respond to RFPs that are really RFIs, etc. It's an issue everywhere in the world because it happens at local, not just central, level.

Four short links: 29 June 2009

Syadmin Wiki, Physics, National Archives, and Reinventing the British Government

by Nat Torkington | @gnat | comments: 1

1. Server Fault -- Wikipedia-like sysadmin guide, built by the Stack Overflow team, who are branching out to reach a more general IT Professional audience. (via Brady in email)
2. Sixty Symbols -- 5m videos about the symbols of physics and astronomy. Great stuff! (via Glutnix on Twitter)
3. US National Archives launches YouTube Channel -- a mixture of archives-nerd stuff (directors of Presidential Libraries talking about their favourite items) and wider-interest collections (such as Touring 1930s America).
4. Open House in Westminster -- the ever-insightful Tom Steinberg from MySociety has an article in the Independent about British plans to reinvent government. Now the talk of Westminster is all about democratic reform. By my count there are over 50 different ideas for changing the way our democracy works being touted by different pundits at the moment. [...] What all these ideas, though, have in common is that they propose structural reforms that could have been achieved any time in the last 200 years.[...] My view is that these proposals are all interesting, and some may be quite critical for a better democracy. But I am also concerned that they do not see Parliament and the process of making laws as a native to the internet would. They don’t ask: “What reforms are possible that just weren’t conceivable ten years ago?”

Dramatic Increase in Number of Tor Clients from Iran: Interview with Tor Project and the EFF

by Timothy M. O'Brien | comments: 2

Anonymous proxies are in the news this week as Iranians are using proxies outside of Iran to communicate information about ongoing protests to others within the country. I've received several queries this week from non-technical colleagues about proxy servers. Is it legal to run a proxy server? Does running a proxy server violate my agreement with my broadband provider? I decided to track down some experts and get some perspective on different proxy servers and the laws surrounding them. In this entry, I speak with Andrew Lewman, the Executive Directory of the Tor Project about Tor and I also get some legal guidance from Peter Eckersley of the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

In this interview I ask Andrew to briefly introduce Tor and talk about some interesting useage statistics that show adoption of this anti-surveillance technology from within Iran. He answers a question about whether Tor is "unstoppable" and comments on the legality of running a Tor node. For the full interview, listen here.

The Tor Project

First, what is Tor? From The Tor Project:

Tor is free software and an open network that helps you defend against a form of network surveillance that threatens personal freedom and privacy, confidential business activities and relationships, and state security known as traffic analysis. Tor protects you by bouncing your communications around a distributed network of relays run by volunteers all around the world: it prevents somebody watching your Internet connection from learning what sites you visit, and it prevents the sites you visit from learning your physical location. Tor works with many of your existing applications, including web browsers, instant messaging clients, remote login, and other applications based on the TCP protocol.

When you run a Tor node, you are adding another node to a grid of computers that are used to establish random encrypted paths between each node to satisfy any given request. Law enforcement, military agencies, intelligence networks, journalists, and dissidents frequently use Tor to bypass restrictions and avoid surveillance. Andrew Lewman, Tor's Executive Director, wanted to be very clear that the Tor Project itself does not take positions on conflicts, and does not involve itself in resisting oppressive regimes. In response to a question about traffic from Iran, Andrew Lewman produced the following data:

New client connections from within Iran have increased nearly 10x over the past 5 days. Overall, Tor client usage seems to have increased 3x over the past 5 days. There are a lot of rough numbers in these statements, and they are very conservative. However, the source data we're reviewing continues to show these results.

For more information, see Andrew's blog post from last night: "Measuring Tor and Iran". Here's a graph from Andrew Lewman of Tor client count over the past few days, it appears that Tor is becoming an increasingly popular way for people in Iran to use the network to avoid surveillance.

But is it legal? The Legality of Running a Proxy Server

Peter Eckersley, Staff Technologist at the EFF, took some time to answer some very simple questions about EULAs, Tor, and the legality of running a proxy server.

Q: Various broadband providers state in EULAs that a customer must secure the equipment used to provide access to the Internet. What is the position of the EFF with regard to the legality of these EULAs? Are people breaking the law by providing an open access router?

Peter Eckersley: It's impossible to comment on broadband EULAs in general; each of them has different specific language and ISPs deploy them in different ways. We aren't aware of any case in which a broadband subscriber was sued for running an open wireless router, a proxy, or similar technology for sharing their connection with others.

Q: The last update to the Tor FAQ from the EFF on the Tor site was from 2005. Have there been any developments with the EFF in relation to Tor? Since 2005 is there more clarity as to the legality of running an Exit Node in a Tor network?

Peter Eckersley: The EFF Tor FAQ still reflects our opinions about the legality of Tor. It hasn't changed since 2005 because there haven't been any published cases or other events that have changed our views.

Q: What advice would the EFF have for anyone new to setting up a proxy server this week (as many have done to support protestors in Iran)? Is it legal? What issues do people need to be aware of?

Peter Eckersley: EFF's advice at this point is that people should consider setting up Tor bridge nodes or Tor routers instead of proxy servers. Several thousand new proxy servers have appeared in the past week, but we fear than unencrypted proxies leave Iranians vulnerable to surveillance and continued censorship by the Iranian government. SSL ecrypted proxies are better in this respect, but they are harder to set up than Tor routers, and there are some reports that the Iranian government has succeeded in blocking access to at least some encrypted proxies.

Fixed Typo @ 3:23 PM Central Saturday: One of my questions for the EFF had a rather important typo - I had typed Iraq instead of Iran. Fixed.

Sarah Milstein on Iranian Protests and Twitter

by Timothy M. O'Brien | comments: 8

Interview with Sarah Milstein

In this 10 minute interview with Sarah Milstein, co-author the Twitter Book, she discusses how Twitter is being used by Iranian protesters and how Twitter has accidentally created a system not easily overwhelmed or controlled by authorities. She also talks about the continued evolution of Twitter over the past few months. I ask her to contrast the reaction to Twitter during the Swine Flu with the reaction to Twitter during the recent events in Iran, and it is clear from her answers that as Twitter becomes more familiar to the general public the significance and meaning of the platform are constantly evolving. Milstein comments on whether Twitter is becoming more "serious", and responds to the continued stream of stories by journalists who feel the need to pass judgment on this still-emerging communications platform. Milstein also discusses this week's 140 characters conference in New York.

On the Iranian protests, Milstein is very deliberate to say that the powerful aspect of Twitter during the Iranian protests is that Iranians within the country were able to use it to communicate with one another and with those outside of the country. Toward the end of the interview, I ask Milstein to comment on inadvertent transparency in the context of a previous post by Brady Forest. The Iranian protests story this week was as much about facilitating communications as it was about making sure that protesters were not communicating unintended information to the Iranian government.

(continue reading)

Interesting Questions Raised by Iranian Twitter Activism

by Timothy M. O'Brien | comments: 14

Development (4:10 PM CST): The State Department has been in contact with Twitter to make sure that the service remained available for protestors in Iran. (reuters)

Last Friday, Twitter started to digest the Iranian election results, and the tool became a powerful vehicle for protest and coordination for student protestors within Iran and interested parties outside the country. American Twitterers used the power of the medium to push our own media machine to increase coverage of the story via #CNNFail and #iranelection, and several dedicated observers did some important work to create proxies allowing the Iranian opposition to circumvent network restrictions. While it is amazing to see individuals using technologies such as Twitter to sidestep repressive government censorship, Twitter has also made it easier for observers, a world away, to become active participants in an unfamiliar political system at times taking vigilante action against the server infrastructure of a nation-state.

Figure: Graph of #iranelection from Twist.

(continue reading)

Four short links: 12 June 2009

by Nat Torkington | @gnat | comments: 2

1. New Media Challenges: Legal and Policy Considerations for Federal Use of Web 2.0 Technology (Center for American Progress) -- report on the issues around Web 2.0 use in Government, which include privacy, security, Public Records Act, advertising, etc. See also It's Not the Campaign Anymore: How the White House Is Using Web 2.0 Technology So Far from the same group.
2. Government Data and the Invisible Hand -- Ed Felten has written a fantastic piece on the relationship between data, presentations of the data, and the government departments that produce the data. It is full of powerful recommendations: The best way to ensure that the government allows private parties to compete on equal terms in the provision of government data is to require that federal websites themselves use the same open systems for accessing the underlying data as they make available to the public at large. (via timoreilly on Twitter)
3. Fast Modularity Community Structure Inference Algorithm -- This algorithm is being widely used in the community of complex network researchers, and was originally designed for the express purpose of analyzing the community structure of extremely large networks (i.e., hundreds of thousand or millions of vertices). The original version worked only with unweighted, undirected networks. I've recently posted a version that works on weighted, undirected networks. (via mattb on Delicious)
4. First Driver for USB 3.0 -- After a year-and-a-half's worth of work, Intel hacker Sarah Sharp announced that Linux will be the first operating system supporting USB 3.0. (via deusx on Delicious)

Four short links: 8 June 2009

3D Geometry, The Printable Web, Government Internet Fail, and Real World Cloud Computing

by Nat Torkington | @gnat | comments: 2

1. How to Project on 3D Geometry -- the fine art (and math) of distorting an image so that it looks undistorted when projected onto a non-flat 3D surface. Confused? See the images below. (via straup on Delicious)
2. ZinePal -- Create your own printable magazine from any online content. (via warrenellis on Delicious)
3. What The Government Doesn't Understand About The Internet And What To Do About It -- Tom Steinberg from MySociety lays it out. As true for US, NZ, and every other country as it is for the UK (for which it was written). Accept that any state institution that says “we control all the information about X” is going to look increasingly strange and frustrating to a public that’s used to be able to do whatever they want with information about themselves, or about anything they care about (both private and public). This means accepting that federated identity systems are coming and will probably be more successful than even official ID card systems: ditto citizen-held medical records. It means saying “We understand that letting train companies control who can interface with their ticketing systems means that the UK has awful train ticket websites that don’t work as hard as they should to help citizens buy cheaper tickets more easily. And we will change that, now.” What I like about Tom vs the US's Gov 2.0 is that Tom puts down philosophy that's hard to argue with, whereas the US is dangerously close to simply focusing on techniques and that's subvertible.
4. Real World Cloud Computing -- summary from a panel of startups who are using EC2. The lock-in is latency. Transfering data within the Amazon services is free. Transfering data to an Amazon competitor: not free.

Four short links: 5 June 2009

Kid Robots, US CTO, SCOTUS CSS, Javascript Infoviz

by Nat Torkington | @gnat | comments: 2

1. Visual Programming Environments for Kids -- detailed writeup of the research and coding done by Shone Sadler to build a visual programming environment for robots, so simple that kids can use it. (via steveweiss on Twitter)
2. The Nation's CTO Lays Out His Priorities -- it's still not entirely clear how the CTO and CIO's roles differ, as both are focusing on open data and "innovation platforms". CTO explicitly calls out economic growth through technology and innovation, though, which could be promising.
3. Redesigning the Government: The US Supreme Court -- the Sunlight Foundation offer a redesigned home page to the US Supreme Court, showing how it could be more useful. How long until the government's CSS is in a git repository where most people with commit access are outside the beltway?
4. Javascript Infoviz Toolkit -- Treemaps, Radial Layouts, HyperTrees/Graphs, SpaceTree-like Layouts, and more.in this Javascript suite for building data pretties. Higher-level than processing.js. (via chrisblizzard on Twitter)

Four short links: 28 May 2009

Mobile Viruses, Open Data, Twitter Bookmarks, Sexy Geek Skills

by Nat Torkington | @gnat | comments: 0

1. Viral Epidemics Poised to go Mobile -- Albert-Laszlo Barabasi (author of Linked: How Everything Is Connected To Everything Else) modelled mobile phone virus epidemiology for NSF and concluded that (in accordance with experience) no single OS has critical mass for viruses to break-out. I wonder: will Android or iPhone reach that point first? (via ACM TechNews)
2. Socrata -- formerly "Blist", the first of what will undoubtedly be many startups "refocusing" attempting to profit from the new US administration's fondness for Web 2.0. The business model, however, is "we'll offer your data to citizens in a useful form" and it seems to me that this is a responsibility that Government should embrace rather than outsource. (via Jesse)
3. Tag This -- tweet @tagthis with a link and keywords to post the link as bookmark in your Delicious/Magnolia account.
4. Three Sexy Skills of Geeks -- statistics, data munging, and visualization. I'm reading Visualizing Data right now and expect the universe to bury me in bootie before the day is out. "Processing: it's cheaper than couple's therapy and you can post pictures of it on the Internet without being fired." (via mattb on Twitter)

The Myth of Macroinnovation

by Nat Torkington | @gnat | comments: 13

An idea is making the rounds and appearing in articles like this New York Times piece, and it goes roughly thus: the age of the small inventor is over because to work on stuff that matters requires the largescale coordination of people and materiel that only governments and large corporations can provide. This notion that we're entering a Golden Age of Macroinnovation is bunkum, I'm happy to report.

Scale matters, scale has always mattered, but scaling is not innovating. It's true that there are many opportunities for businesses and governments to do big things. That's always true—all my friends who worked at Yahoo! and Microsoft said one of the attractions was the ability to write code that would be used by hundreds of millions of people. However, the article basically says, "large institutions are tackling large problems." That's wonderful news, much better than large institutions ignoring large problems, but has nothing to do with innovation.

Perhaps I'm wrong, perhaps scaling is a form of innovation. Innovation is characterised by disruption and the unknown. Think of those governments and large corporations and ask yourself: are these the birthplaces of radical thinking, new ways of getting things done, and risk-taking leaps into the unknown? Of course not. Governments are the most risk-averse institutions in the world, more so than medicine where lives hang in the balance—doctors at least listen to evidence, whereas the definition of bureaucracy is "we follow the rules regardless of reality". Governments exist to preserve the status quo that elected them, not disrupt it.

Don't go hoping for a change in government's risk aversion any time soon. Every penny is spent knowing that to fail means to be vilified for "squandering public money". Doing something new risks failure. Like a puppy that has been harshly house-broken, Government associates failure with pain and so responds with fear, hostility, and concealment. With that mindset you can never learn from failure, and so unless you luckily get it right first time you'll find your Government road to delivering something new to be harsh, difficult, and largely untrodden.

Do you think things are different now? Consider Obama's billions on health record rollout. KP have a model EHR system, "KP HealthConnect". It cost $4B and took five years to buy and roll it out. This is KP's second go at it: in 2002 they wrote off $770M they'd spent with IBM trying to build their own EHR system. Do you think that the Obama Administration will get a second chance if his first attempt at EHRs loses $770M?

Big businesses aren't much different: a large company is a small Government that has more flexibility on HR. The profit focus of a business is a help and a hindrance as Innovator's Dilemma so clearly showed. The NY Times piece quotes Clayton Christensen saying, "The good news is that, once they recognize the benefits of disruptive thinking, the big companies have all the resources necessary to induce change.”

My experience with large companies and governments shows me that it is not a simple or trivial matter to recognize the benefits or marshal the resources. A common failure mode is where the leadership say they want disruption and innovation, the grass roots want it, but the middle management tiers aren't incentivised to deliver it because their bonuses are tied to metrics on existing product lines. Disruption eats into existing businesses. "Maximizing Shareholder Value" is a wonderful focusing device but, without an explicit timeframe for that value, innovation risks shareholder lawsuits for sabotaging profitability.

In his delicious.com comment on the NY Times piece, Michal Migurski observed, "New New Deal is at heart a massive, all-fronts realignment—where's the role for the small and the nimble in this universe?". It is premature to declare Mission Accomplished for reinvention of Government (see the Government 1.5 meme). At its heart, this is an attempt to get Government to use the Web 2.0 tools we built in the last decade ... tools that were largely the product of one or two people. I don't see bureaucrats using decade-old tools as an "innovation" that the small and nimble have to worry about.

I love that governments, NGOs, businesses, and citizens are going to be tackling large and meaningful problems with the aid of the tools and techniques developed by researchers, entrepreneurs, and hackers around the world. But to mistake using those techniques for inventing them is to ignore that great lesson of Margaret Mead: "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful committed people can change the world; indeed, it is the only thing that ever has."

Four short links: 25 May 2009

by Nat Torkington | @gnat | comments: 6

1. China is Logging On -- blogging 5x more popular in China than in USA, email 1/3 again as popular in USA as China. These figures are per-capita of Internet users, and make eye-opening reading. (via Glyn Moody)
2. The Economics of Google (Wired) -- the money graf is Google even uses auctions for internal operations, like allocating servers among its various business units. Since moving a product's storage and computation to a new data center is disruptive, engineers often put it off. "I suggested we run an auction similar to what the airlines do when they oversell a flight. They keep offering bigger vouchers until enough customers give up their seats," Varian says. "In our case, we offer more machines in exchange for moving to new servers. One group might do it for 50 new ones, another for 100, and another won't move unless we give them 300. So we give them to the lowest bidder—they get their extra capacity, and we get computation shifted to the new data center."
3. Why Washington Doesn't Get New Media -- Things eventually improved, but despite the stunning advances in communications technology, most of federal Washington has still failed to grasp the meaning of Government 2.0. Indeed, much is mired in Government 1.5. Government 1.5? That’s a term of art for the vast virtual ecosystem taking root in Washington that has set up the trappings of 2.0 — the blogs, the Facebook pages, the Twitter accounts — but lacks any intellectual heartbeat. Too many aides in official Washington are setting up blogs and social media pages because they understand that is what they are supposed to do. All the while, many are sweating the possibility that they might actually have to say something substantive or engage the public directly. It is the nature of midlevel know-nothings to grinfuck any idea that would force them to substantially change their behaviour. We incentivize this when we talk about "you must have a blog" (ok, I'll get comms to write it), or "put up a wiki for this" (ok, but there'll be no moderation so it'll be ignorable chaos). Describe the behaviour you want and not a tool that might produce it. (via timoreilly on Twitter)
4. On the Information Armageddon (Mind Hacks) -- Vaughn points out that the much-linked-to New York Magazine article on attention is a crock. I didn't like it because it was wordy and self-indulgent, Vaughn because it didn't actually cite any studies other than one which was described incorrectly. History has taught us that we worry about widespread new technology and this is usually expressed in society in terms of its negative impact on our minds and social relationships. If you're really concerned about cognitive abilities, look after your cardiovascular health (eat well and exercise), cherish your relationships, stay mentally active and experience diverse and interesting things. All of which have been shown to maintain mental function, especially as we age.

Local forums to implement high-speed networks (broadband): proposal open for votes

by Andy Oram | @praxagora | comments: 10

I've posted a proposal titled Local forums to implement high-speed networks (broadband) to a forum on open government put up by the White House. I ask this blog's readers to tell other people who might be interested, and vote up the proposal if you like it.

The Open Government Dialog site where this proposal appears is part of the White House's implementation of the Memorandum on Transparency and Open Government that Obama signed on his first day in office. Hundreds of ideas have already been posted. Many are very specific and some look quite worthy, but I think mine stands out for the reasons listed in my justification:

First, one of the Administration's major goals is to bring high-speed networking to every resident of the country.

Second, this goal is fundamental to the other goals in the Memorandum on Transparency and Open Government. Members of the public need continuous access to the Internet and the ability to handle video and sophisticated graphical displays in order to make full use of the resources provided in open government efforts.

The local community aspect is also crucial, for reasons I list in my justification.

Many readers will note that the people who need my proposal the most the ones who have the most trouble participating in the forums--people who can't afford computers, who have access only to intermittent dial-up Internet access, etc. I deal with this ironic problem in the proposal in several ways (public terminals, face-to-face meetings, partnering with newspapers and television).

Because the formatting came out a mess, I'm reprinting the proposal below.

---

Local forums to implement high-speed networks (broadband)

Municipalities and regions undertaking projects in high-speed networking be encouraged to create online forums that:

• Post regional maps showing the demographic features, geographical features, patterns of network use, and technological facilities relevant to the project

• Accept proposals, provide comment and rating systems, and run polls

• Provide public terminals and low-bandwidth versions of data, so that people who are currently on the disadvantaged side of the digital divide can offer input to help cross that divide

• Are supplemented by face-to-face gatherings

• Collaborate with newspapers and with television and radio news programs to publicize proposals, meetings, and opportunities for public comment

• Create visitor accounts, perhaps with validation procedures for determining local residence, and allow visitors to identify their expertise and credentials

• Provide tools for mapping proposed facilities and for calculating the reach, bandwidth, and costs of proposed facilities

• Provide data about ongoing deployments in standardized, open formats on maps and in downloadable form

The federal-level initiative can support these efforts by:

• Mandating the types of information that participating municipalities and companies should provide, such as the capabilities of current facilities, statistics on current usage, demographic information such as income and connectivity on a neighborhood basis, and detailed implementation plans with measurable milestones

• Funding the development of software tools, such as programs that can estimate the quality of wireless coverage for different terrains, or the time period required to recoup the costs of building out networks

• Providing formats and quality standards for the data provided

• Publicizing successful initiatives, the tools they used, and their best practices

Why Is This Idea Important

High-speed digital networking (also known as "broadband") should concern open government advocates in two ways.

First, one of the Administration's major goals is to bring high-speed networking to every resident of the country.

Second, this goal is fundamental to the other goals in the Memorandum on Transparency and Open Government. Members of the public need continuous access to the Internet and the ability to handle video and sophisticated graphical displays in order to make full use of the resources provided in open government efforts.

Why do I stress the local nature of these forums?

All networking is (on one level) local. Given the limited resources available for any network deployment, and the trade-offs that must be made during plans, decision-makers need to take into account local demographics, geography, topology, social and economic priorities, and existing facilities. Here are just a few examples the many local issues typically considered:

• Which neighborhoods are already relatively well-served or poorly served

• Where it's cost-effective to string fiber, versus serving a neighborhood through a high-bandwidth wireless solution

• Whether there are existing facilities and lines that could be repurposed or upgraded for high-speed networking

• How many public funds to invest and which private firms to contract with to provide infrastructure or Internet service

• Whether a non-essential service, such as wireless for spots where tourists or businesspeople congregate, could generate enough new jobs or revenue to be worth an investment

• What public and private partners and sources of investment are available

• Whether people in potential new markets have the desire and education to use new network services, and how to create the conditions under which the populations would use the services

Innumerable issues like these require local knowledge and judgment. That is why many innovative and successful initiatives to provide digital networks have been launched by local governments or local private service providers.

Local collaboration to promote network penetration can also build bonds that support local communities in other ways. The global reach of the Internet has long been stressed, but the role of digital networks in connecting people within geographical communities and improving their way of life may be even more important and is beginning to be recognized.

Although complex, the issues are no more complex than many other issues being considered for implementation of the open government directive. With proper organization and support, community members could make these decisions and monitor their implementation.

Local community forums also attract participants more easily than geographically distributed "communities of interest." People are likely to respond to the invitations of friends and neighbors, and to be more loyal to the forums when they know the participants personally. So local forums are good ways to initiate the general public to the notion of transparent and participatory governance.

A note on current federal broadband initiatives

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) includes a Broadband Technology Opportunities Program (BTOP), operated through the NTIA, that creates a 4.7-billion-dollar program to promote broadband, particularly for unserved areas and populations.

The implementation does not involve any of the innovative aspects of the open government directive, such as collaborative online forums and data exposed through open formats and APIs. Like other programs in ARRA, the focus on providing a fast economic stimulus led to a schedule that does not accommodate time to set up and accept comments in this manner. A public comment period was held from March 12 to April 13, 2009, and proposals must be submitted by September 2009.

The FCC adopted the goal of expanding broadband access many years ago, and cites this goal in many opinions concerning competition. The FCC also continues to offer funds for broadband under the Universal Service Fund (USF), which was expanded by the 1996 Telecommunications Act to include Internet access. The USF does not involve public online forums or open data access.

The FCC also plans to publish a national broadband plan by February 2010. Because the funds from BTOP will probably be disbursed by then, this plan could be a locus for the kinds of forums describes in this proposal.

Quick disclaimer: broadband adoption is hard to measure--it depends on such fuzz factors as the minimum speed defined as "broadband," the difference between potential and usual speeds, and uncertainties about actual availability versus official penetration rates--but recent estimates suggest that half of the United States population has always-on, high-speed network access. Although this reflects a substantial increase in recent years, it still leaves the US behind many other developed nations. Further improvements will require more intensive planning and careful resource allocation, as we try to extend adoption to populations with fewer resources or geographical challenges.

Summary of benefits

• When the public can evaluate the options available to their community and the trade-offs required, they can reach agreement on a digital networking policy that reflects the values of many constituents and communities.

• Tools for measuring the impacts of different proposals can help everyone in the community agree on what trade-offs exist, and provide a factual basis for decision-making.

• Technically trained members of the community can use the measurement and visualization tools on the forum to educate those who are less technically sophisticated and ensure that everyone has the opportunity to make valid and appropriate input.

• Progress in implementation can be followed by the public, who can demand accountability in spending and results.

• Collaboration in building local networks can lead to continued collaboration in using those networks to improve economic, educational, and policy initiatives in the communities. They can also give visitors the skills and interests to join larger, national efforts in fulfillment of the Memorandum on Transparency and Open Government,

• Standardization and information sharing between communities can help later communities reach successful conclusions more quickly and with less wasted effort.

• Finally, the public participation fostered by local forums can educate the public about telecommunications issues that have a national or even international scope, such as expanding major access points, fostering technological innovation, and changing national policies and laws.

Update: FCC discusses broadband

May 27: About the time I submitted this proposal, the FCC released a report titled Bringing Broadband to Rural America: Report on a Rural Broadband Strategy. See my blog on its relation to my proposal.

Four short links: 21 May 2009

by Nat Torkington | @gnat | comments: 0

1. Us Now -- UK documentary, available streaming or on DVD, about how open government and digital democracy makes sense. It's good to watch if you've not thought about how government could be positively changed by technology, but I don't think it's radical enough in the future it describes.
2. It's Gonna Be The Future Soon -- great video for the Jonathan Coulton song that's the Radar theme song, my theme song, and probably works well as an anthem for most of us goofy future-loving freaks. Taken from the DVD of a live show. (via BoingBoing)
3. Jetpack -- Mozilla Labs' new extension system. Mozilla Labs is building quite the assemblage of interesting hack tools, and it's interesting how significantly they're aimed at the developer and encouraging lots of add-ons and after-market extensions for the browser. I wonder whether this is a deliberate strategy ("community will beat off Chrome!") or whether it's a simple consequence of the fact that Mozilla is a developer organisation.
4. Sci Bar Camp -- Science topics, Palo Alto, 7 July 2009.

Four short links: 14 May 2009

Open Source Ebook Reader, Libraries and Ebooks, Life Lessons, and Government Licenses

by Nat Torkington | @gnat | comments: 22

1. Open Library Book Reader -- the page-turning book reader software that the Internet Archive uses is open source. One of the reasons library scanning programs are ineffective is that they try to build new viewing software for each scan-a-bundle-of-books project they get funding for.
2. Should Libraries Have eBooks? -- blog post from an electronic publisher made nervous by the potential for libraries to lend unlimited "copies" of an electronic work simultaneously. He suggests turning libraries into bookstores, compensating publishers for each loan (interestingly, some of the first circulating libraries were established by publishers and booksellers precisely to have a rental trade). I'm wary of the effort to profit from every use of a work, though. I'd rather see libraries limit simultaneous access to in-copyright materials if there's no negotiated license opening access to more. Unlike the author, I don't see this as a situation that justifies DRM, whose poison extends past the term of copyright. (via Paul Reynolds)
3. Lessons Learned from Previous Employment (Adam Shand) -- great summary of what he learned in the different jobs he's had over the years. Sample:
   • More than any other single thing, being successful at something means not giving up.
   • Everything takes longer than you expect. Lots longer.
   • In a volunteer based non-profit people don't have the shared goal of making money. Instead every single person has their own personal agenda to pursue.
   • Unfortunately "dreaming big" is more fun and less work than "doing big".
4. Flickr Creates New License for White House Photos (Wired) -- photos from the White House photographer were originally CC-licensed (yay, a step forward) but when it was pointed out that as government-produced information those photos weren't allowed to be copyright, the White House relicensed as "United States Government Work". Flickr had to add the category, which differs from "No Known Copyright", and it's something that all sharing sites will need to consider if they are going to offer their service to the Government.

Four short links: 30 Apr 2009

Youth, Government, Tween Arduino Hackers, and Table Slurpage

by Nat Torkington | @gnat | comments: 0

1. Ypulse Conference -- conference on marketing to youth with technology, from the very savvy Anastasia Goodstein who runs the interesting Ypulse blog on youth culture that I've raved about before. Register with the code RADAR for a 10% discount (thanks, Anastasia!).
2. Government in the Global Village -- departing post by the NZ CIO (and Kiwi Foo Camper) Laurence Millar. The principles here are applicable to almost every nation. We need to recognise the network effects of opening up government data in a form that means others can access it. Economic value is created by businesses building innovative new services using government data. Public value is created by enabling a richer and deeper understanding and dialogue among interested individuals about what the data tells us about our lives.[...] The legal, policy, and moral position is clear - New Zealanders own the data, having paid for its collection through taxes. These “problems” will all be solved by the community, and our role as government is to give priority to this. These efforts are stuff that matters. See also Google adds search to public data.
3. Children's Arduino Workshop (Makezine) -- video of three eleven-year old girls working on an Arduino project, and should be inspiration to anyone who has ever wanted to work on hardware projects with kids. Whoever did it succeeded in making it fun! (via followr on Twitter)
4. With YQL Execute, The Internet Becomes Your Database -- YQL is a query language for Yahoo! data sources, and now they've added a server-side Javascript way to import your own web page's tables into YQL. YQL and Pipes are turning into very interesting pieces of infrastructure (e.g., Museum Pipes blog). (via Simon Willison and straup on delicious)