Internet

You are currently browsing the archive for the Internet category.

Patch Monday: WAN optimisation and the Facebook patent

11 March 2010 in Business, Internet by Stilgherrian | No comments

The perceived speed of your internet connection isn’t just about raw bandwidth. The National Broadband Network won’t automatically speed up everything.

In this week’s Patch Monday podcast, Steve Dixon from Riverbed Technology explains how inefficiencies in TCP/IP network protocols mean that latency can be as much of a problem as bandwidth. “WAN optimisation”, which is something Riverbed and others sell, can help.

And Kimberlee Weatherall, who teaches intellectual property law at the University of Queensland, puts the controversial Facebook “news feed” patent for “Dynamically providing a news feed about a user of a social network” into perspective.

You can listen below. But it’s probably better for my stats if you listen at ZDNet Australia — where you’ll see some of the comments already posted — or subscribe to the RSS feed or subscribe in iTunes.

Besides, you’ll get it faster than waiting for me to post it here.

Please let me know what you think. We accept audio comments too. Either Skype to stilgherrian or phone Sydney +61 2 8011 3733.

Patch Monday: Is cloud right for your business?

05 March 2010 in Internet, Language, Marketing by Stilgherrian | 1 comment

[Oops. Not only was the Patch Monday podcast filed late, so it kinda became Patch Tuesday, I forgot to post it here. Well, that's fixed now.]

The key IT buzzwords for 2010 seem to be “cloud computing” and “virtualisation”, but is cloud really right for your business?

Will it provide a cheaper, more flexible option? Or can companies not afford to store data and run applications outside their business?

In a program recorded at the annual Kickstart Forum on IT trends, I spoke with Rosemary Stark, Microsoft Australia product manager for Windows Server and infrastructure solutions and Craig Deveson, CEO of Devnet, one of Google’s enterprise and web development partners.

Meanwhile, Michael Rich, managing director of Attaché Software, explains why he thinks IT vendors have got it wrong by attempting to sell products instead of providing business value.

You can listen below. But it’s probably better for my stats if you listen at ZDNet Australia or subscribe to the RSS feed or subscribe in iTunes.

Please let me know what you think. We accept audio comments too. Either Skype to stilgherrian or phone Sydney +61 2 8011 3733.

Livestream does “guilt by accusation”

04 March 2010 in Internet, Media, Politics by Stilgherrian | 3 comments

Streaming video service Livestream emailed their customers today about their zero tolerance on piracy policy. It’s yet another instance of Big Media being able to implement guilt by accusation.

I’ve just asked Livestream a few question:

Some questions about your “zero tolerance on piracy” policy. This is a media enquiry so please consider your response “on record”.

My questions concern due process.

I notice that you give “trusted rights holders” a tool to automatically shut down channels at their own instigation. I also notice that your example trusted rights holders are “Fox, Disney, NBA, MLB, NFL, UEFA, International Olympic Committee, WWE, UFC, Warner Bros, English Premiere League and British Sky Broadcasting”, i.e. the big end of the commercial media industry.

Most importantly, I notice that anyone who believes that the shutdown was in error must appeal the case afterwards.

Surely this process is “guilt by allegation” and puts the burden of proof onto a channel holder who is likely to have fewer legal resources than a big media player? Yet in most copyright regimes a channel holder may have legitimate “fair dealing” rights to rebroadcast material, such as for academic purposes, news reporting, review, or even satire.

When developing your policy, what input did you seek from people outside Big Media?

What processes do you have in place to perform follow-up “spot checks” of channel shutdowns? Do you actively contact channel holders for their side of the story? Do you inform channel holders of their legitimate “fair dealing” rights?

How long on average does it take you to process an appeal against a shutdown? What has been the longest time it has taken, and what was that case?

What assurances must “trusted rights holders” give to earn that trust? What training or other direction are they given in the legitimate rights of channel holders? What penalties do you impose on “trusted rights holders” who misuse the automatic shutdown tool?

Since it was introduced, how many times has the automatic shutdown tool been used? How many times have channel holders appealed against the shutdown? How many times has the shutdown been determined to have been in error? How many times have penalties been imposed on “trusted rights holders”?

You say:

Livestream’s mission is to provide the premiere interactive live streaming platform for every event owner, broadcaster and premium rights holder in the music, movie, newspaper, radio and television industries.

But what about the rest of your customers, those who are not “premium” rights holders? What assurances can you give them that their legitimate rights will be upheld?

I’ll let you know when Livestream responds.

Gold Coast? Kickstart? Pirates? Oh dear!

27 February 2010 in Internet, Marketing by Stilgherrian | 11 comments

Tomorrow morning I’m flying to the Gold Coast for the Kickstart Forum 2010, a 3-day event that will “bring together more than 50 of Australia’s leading IT journalists and vendors”.

Apparently I’m one of them. “Leading IT journalist”, that is. Gosh.

Now some of the attending journalists tell me it’s a valuable opportunity to network and generate story leads. But with less than 24 hours until I fly north, I’m hesitant.

I’m starting to see the silly themed promotions some vendors are planning. Norton are doing some “top secret we fight cyber crime” Men in Black thing. Then…

“On the Sunday night, MyNetFone is sponsoring a Masterchef style interactive cooking dinner. Please note, you must wear covered shoes. On Monday night CSC will be sponsoring a pirate themed event, it’s always more fun to get into the spirit if [sic] things and dress up a little. ”

Erm, no it’s not. I loathe dress-ups and themed events. What a wank.

OK, it’s at the Hyatt Regency Sanctuary Cove. Which is all well and good. It certainly looks comfortable enough.

But Sanctuary Cove isn’t a cove at all. Look at the map and you’ll see that it’s one of those awful fake resort gated communities built in the middle of a swamp.

There is no escape!

Have a look yourself. Take the online tour. It’s diabolical!

But still… One way or another I have to deliver a Patch Monday podcast on Monday and an episode of The 9pm Edict Monday night. And Crikey commissioned a story about something else for Monday too. Erk.

Wish me luck.

I’ll keep up a regular flow of commentary via my Twitter stream using the hashtag #ks10.

Patch Monday: Proving your identity online

22 February 2010 in Internet, Politics by Stilgherrian | No comments

“Please log in with your Facebook ID”, says the website. But it’s not Facebook. Sure, they’re trying to make things easier by using your existing login. But can you trust them?

Of course not! However, there are systems that allow you to sign in securely across multiple sites using a common login. They’re called “federated ID”.

In the Patch Monday podcast this week, David Simonsen, manager of Where Are You From (WAYF), a Danish electronic identification system, explains how so-called “federated IDs” and pseudonyms are already being used in Austria’s public health system and in Denmark’s education system.

We also have our first audio comment. A Scientologist tells us precisely what he thinks of the protesters from Anonymous, the kind of people who ran the denial-of-service attack on Parliament House we covered last week.

You can listen below. But it’s probably better for my stats if you listen at ZDNet Australia or subscribe to the RSS feed or subscribe in iTunes.

Please let me know what you think. We accept audio comments too. Either Skype to stilgherrian or phone Sydney +61 2 8011 3733.

Mark Thomas on UK Digital Economy Bill

20 February 2010 in Film, Internet, Music, Politics by Stilgherrian | 1 comment

The movie and music industries have been lobbying governments globally to introduce so-called “three strikes” laws. Three accusations of online copyright infringement — “accusations”, mind you, not proof — and you lose your internet connection.

Copyright-holders reckon this will help prevent copyright infringement. But the concerns are that we’re entering the realm of guilt by allegation, and potentially punishing innocent people by denying internet access to everyone in a household, not just the guilty party.

The internet is now central to everything from health and education to banking and politics, so that’s one heck of a big stick.

As this 10-minute video by comedian and activist Mark Thomas explains, the UK version of this proposed law, the Digital Economy Bill, has a nasty surprise. Section 17 would give the Secretary of State the power to amend the copyright laws without having to run them past Parliament first.

Um hello? “Parliamentary democracy”, anyone?

If the embedded player doesn’t work, you can watch the video on YouTube.

At this stage, the Australian Government is not yet considering laws like this. But that could change.

Earlier this month iiNet, our third-largest ISP, won a case in the Federal Court where Justice Dennis Cowdroy ruled that ISPs are not responsible for the copyright-infringing acts of their customers. I covered that for Crikey and in the Patch Monday podcast.

Since then, communications minister Senator Stephen Conroy has said he wants the copyright-holders and the ISPs to work out a code of practice on their own. However I reckon that’s just a delaying tactic to avoid discussing such a controversial issue in an election year.

The movie and music industries are fighting hard on this one. France and Japan already have three-strikes laws, to name just two. And the industries are devoting plenty of resources.

Mark Thomas points out they were late in using the internet to make money from their assets, and now they’re looking for someone to blame. Yes, the big players may well be making less profit that before. However the bulk of their profit was from distribution. Now the costs of distribution are almost nil — yet somehow they’ve managed to end up making less money. Fools.

They also reckon that if no-one can make money from their creative acts, it’ll be the death of creativity. But in the video, prehistoric musician Billy Bragg points out that while a few artists at the top end may be suffering, the internet has proved a boon for lower-ranked artists, allowing them to reach new markets at much lower cost.

This is a big issue. It’s a complicated issue. It won’t go away. We should all stay informed.

Notes on Obama’s election campaign

18 February 2010 in Internet, Media, Politics by Stilgherrian | 10 comments

[Last week, Australia's Finance Minister Lindsay Tanner wrote about Government 2.0 in The government wants to blog. Later today ABC Radio wants me to talk about how Barack Obama's presidential election campaign used social media and social networking, so I've been reviewing my liveblog of the presentations made by Ben Self at Media 09 and Joe Trippi at the Microsoft Politics and Technology Forum. Trippi has worked on various Democrat campaigns including as campaign manager for Howard Dean's 2004 unsuccessful presidential nomination campaign. Self's company Blue State Digital managed Obama's online fundraising, constituency-building, issue advocacy, and peer-to-peer online networking during the primaries. I figured I might as well share my notes. Enjoy.]

More than two years since Barack Obama’s presidential election campaign, the numbers are still staggering. $770 million was raised, roughly 65% of that online. There were 3.2 million individual donors, with the average donation under $100.

This is completely different from traditional political fundraising, which revolved about dinners and other events costing $2300 a ticket — the maximum ~~unreportable donation~~ donation allowable from a couple at that time under US electoral laws. Obama’s campaign really did reach out and mobilise millions of ordinary Americans.

Yes, millions. The progressive Democratic Party network is now 15 million people online.

Online social networking tools made all this possible, sure, but the success came through the clever application of those tools. The key word here is “personal”.

Read the rest of this entry »

Live Blog: Media 2010

17 February 2010 in Internet, Media by Stilgherrian | 4 comments

This Friday 19 February I’m liveblogging from Media 2010 in Sydney, billed as “the Annual Forecast for Digital Media Professionals”.

The highlights for me are likely to be Simon Gallagher (pictured, left) from Hulu and Moeed Ahmad (pictured, right), Head of New Media at Al Jazeera, but I suspect there’ll be some surprises.

~~Later today I’ll review my live blog from Media 09 and post some reflections.~~ [Update 20 February 2010: Nope, I didn't get time for that.]

Given the changes in the media landscape it should be interesting — to say the least. What I can say already, though, is that I’m hoping Media 2010’s afternoon sessions aren’t like Media 09’s, which were mostly agencies pimping their showreels.

For now, though, just bookmark this page and pop back on the day. The event runs 9am to 5pm Sydney time, and I’ll cover as much as I can.

I’ll also issue reminders via my Twitter stream and tag everything #media_2010. Sorry about the irritating underscore. Blame Fairfax Digital.

Read the rest of this entry »

Crikey: How I brought down the Parliament House website

16 February 2010 in Internet, Politics by Stilgherrian | 3 comments

Crikey logo

I wrote about the Anonymous attacks on the Parliament House website for Crikey as well as covering it in this week’s Patch Monday podcast.

In How I brought down the Parliament House website there’s a few quotes from c0ld blood, who was one of the attack’s organisers, as well as some of the other podcast participants.

The new angle is a few comments from the Secretary of the Department of Parliamentary Services, Alan Thompson, who runs Parliament House. He is not amused, and rightly so.

Patch Monday: Tough titties: Govt sites stormed

16 February 2010 in Internet, Politics by Stilgherrian | No comments

A scoop in the Patch Monday podcast this week: an interview with c0ld blood, one of the organisers of the denial-of-service attack on the Parliament House website by Anonymous.

While Anonymous is better known for its masked protests against the Church of Scientology, some people operating under the Anonymous brand have branched out into protests against the Rudd government’s mandatory internet “filtering” program. Their attack in September 2009 brought down the Prime Minister’s website for about 10 minutes.

This time they were a lot more effective, with the target site being with with up to 7.5 million requests per second.

As well as c0ld blood, we hear from security consultant Crispin Harris, the vice-chair of Electronic Frontiers Australia Colin Jacobs, and a statement from AnonSA who distance themselves from the attacks.

You can listen below. But it’s probably better for my stats if you listen at ZDNet Australia or subscribe to the RSS feed or subscribe in iTunes.

Please, let me know what you think. We now accept audio comments too. Either Skype to “stilgherrian” or phone Sydney 02 8011 3733.

« Older entries