One of the interesting things about being a participant-observer anthropologist, as I am, is that you often develop implicit knowledge that doesn’t become explicit until someone challenges you on it. The seed of this post was on a recent comment thread where I was challenged to specify the difference between a geek and a hacker. And I found that I knew the answer. Geeks are consumers of culture; hackers are producers.
Thus, one doesn’t expect a “gaming geek” or a “computer geek” or a “physics geek” to actually produce games or software or original physics — but a “computer hacker” is expected to produce software, or (less commonly) hardware customizations or homebrewing. I cannot attest to the use of the terms “gaming hacker” or “physics hacker”, but I am as certain as of what I had for breakfast that computer hackers would expect a person so labeled to originate games or physics rather than merely being a connoisseur of such things.
[. . .]
All hackers are, almost by definition, geeks — but the reverse is not true.
Eric S. Raymond, “Geeks, hackers, nerds, and crackers: on language boundaries”, Armed and Dangerous, 2011-01-09
January 10, 2011
QotD: Geeks and Hackers defined
Facebook has a repeat of their earlier boob
Facebook apparently has something against breasts — specifically those used to feed babies:
Facebook had one of its nipple-related related brainstorms last week, banning, unbanning, then re-banning breastfeeding support group, The Leaky Boob.
The Leaky Boob group allows almost 11,000 mothers to share their experiences on breastfeeding — as well as providing casual visitors with a treasure trove of advice and tips. Well, it would do, if Facebook didn’t keep deleting it — as they did the previous weekend.
This provoked an angry reaction from the tens of thousands of women who use the page for information and support.
Breastfeeding supporters responded swiftly, creating two pages on Facebook, Bring Back the Leaky Boob and TLB Support, which gained the best part of 10,000 fans in just two days.
On Tuesday, according to group founder Jessica Martin-Weber, the page was back up.
On Wednesday it was gone again.
Then, later in the day, it returned and is still up today.
It’s easy to see how the content of TLB might be offensive to closed-minded people, and if the banning mechanism Facebook uses is mostly automated, it’d explain the way in which the group was originally banned. If all it takes is a complaint, and the (I assume automated) follow-up to the complaint only checks for certain things, the first shutdown is explained. The fact that the group has been through this process before shows a weakness in Facebook’s administrative tracking policies.
January 1, 2011
QotD: The end of nerd subculture
That was the year the final issue of Watchmen came out, in October. After that, it seemed like everything that was part of my otaku world was out in the open and up for grabs, if only out of context. I wasn’t seeing the hard line between “nerds” and “normals” anymore. It was the last year that a T-shirt or music preference or pastime (Dungeons & Dragons had long since lost its dangerous, Satanic, suicide-inducing street cred) could set you apart from the surface dwellers. Pretty soon, being the only person who was into something didn’t make you outcast; it made you ahead of the curve and someone people were quicker to befriend than shun. Ironically, surface dwellers began repurposing the symbols and phrases and tokens of the erstwhile outcast underground.
Fast-forward to now: Boba Fett’s helmet emblazoned on sleeveless T-shirts worn by gym douches hefting dumbbells. The Glee kids performing the songs from The Rocky Horror Picture Show. And Toad the Wet Sprocket, a band that took its name from a Monty Python riff, joining the permanent soundtrack of a night out at Bennigan’s. Our below-the-topsoil passions have been rudely dug up and displayed in the noonday sun. The Lord of the Rings used to be ours and only ours simply because of the sheer goddamn thickness of the books. Twenty years later, the entire cast and crew would be trooping onstage at the Oscars to collect their statuettes, and replicas of the One Ring would be sold as bling.
The topsoil has been scraped away, forever, in 2010. In fact, it’s been dug up, thrown into the air, and allowed to rain down and coat everyone in a thin gray-brown mist called the Internet. Everyone considers themselves otaku about something — whether it’s the mythology of Lost or the minor intrigues of Top Chef. American Idol inspires — if not in depth, at least in length and passion — the same number of conversations as does The Wire. There are no more hidden thought-palaces — they’re easily accessed websites, or Facebook pages with thousands of fans. And I’m not going to bore you with the step-by-step specifics of how it happened. In the timeline of the upheaval, part of the graph should be interrupted by the words the Internet. And now here we are.
Patton Oswalt, “Wake Up, Geek Culture. Time to Die”, Wired, 2010-12-27
December 23, 2010
Some interesting links
A few links to follow at your leisure, as they’re not in any sense time-critical:
- What happens when men make Christmas cookies.
- Eric S. Raymond provides a preliminary Taxonomy of haterboys.
- Police said alcohol apparently played a big role. Apparently so.
- The porn productivity hack.
- On second thought, let’s not go to Portland. It is a silly place.
- Mister DNA (commenting on a post at The Agitator): Nothing captures the essence of Rock & Roll like singing, “Obey Authority”.
- Just to add a touch of the surreal, British Airways reverse-hijacks their own passengers.
December 16, 2010
Bruce Schneier on Security in 2020
Aside from all the ugly new terms coined to describe the phenomena, the evolution of security is one of the most under-appreciated stories of the decade. The next decade is going to be even more important to how we live our lives:
There’s really no such thing as security in the abstract. Security can only be defined in relation to something else. You’re secure from something or against something. In the next 10 years, the traditional definition of IT security — that it protects you from hackers, criminals, and other bad guys — will undergo a radical shift. Instead of protecting you from the bad guys, it will increasingly protect businesses and their business models from you.
Ten years ago, the big conceptual change in IT security was deperimeterization. A wordlike grouping of 18 letters with both a prefix and a suffix, it has to be the ugliest word our industry invented. The concept, though — the dissolution of the strict boundaries between the internal and external network — was both real and important.
So, that was then. This is now:
Today, two other conceptual changes matter. The first is consumerization. Another ponderous invented word, it’s the idea that consumers get the cool new gadgets first, and demand to do their work on them. Employees already have their laptops configured just the way they like them, and they don’t want another one just for getting through the corporate VPN. They’re already reading their mail on their BlackBerrys or iPads. They already have a home computer, and it’s cooler than the standard issue IT department machine. Network administrators are increasingly losing control over clients.
This trend will only increase. Consumer devices will become trendier, cheaper, and more integrated; and younger people are already used to using their own stuff on their school networks. It’s a recapitulation of the PC revolution. The centralized computer center concept was shaken by people buying PCs to run VisiCalc; now it’s iPads and Android smart phones.
I’ve certainly noticed this myself: it was forced to my attention a couple of years ago, when a change of employment required me to buy and maintain my own “business” computer and software. Without seriously stressing my wallet, I was able to buy far more capable equipment than my previous employer had provided. Being able to check my email on multiple devices was very important, and once I’d started doing that, I realized the need to do many other things regardless of the machine I happened to be using. There are, of course, trade-offs involved:
The second conceptual change comes from cloud computing: our increasing tendency to store our data elsewhere. Call it decentralization: our email, photos, books, music, and documents are stored somewhere, and accessible to us through our consumer devices. The younger you are, the more you expect to get your digital stuff on the closest screen available. This is an important trend, because it signals the end of the hardware and operating system battles we’ve all lived with. Windows vs. Mac doesn’t matter when all you need is a web browser. Computers become temporary; user backup becomes irrelevant. It’s all out there somewhere — and users are increasingly losing control over their data.
Anyway, there’s lots more interesting stuff. Go read the whole thing.
December 14, 2010
QotD: Buzzword Bingo, resumé edition
Are you a motivated multitasker with extensive experience that has helped you become a results oriented team player?
Does your online resume say you have a dynamic and innovative skill set which has led to a proven track record of being entrepreneurial in a fast paced world?
Then congratulations, you’ve successfully used all 10 of the most overused buzzwords on LinkedIn in just two sentences.
[. . .]
And just so you know we tried, we did manage to get all 10 buzzwords into one single colossally cringe-worthy sentence sure to make any human resources manager’s skin crawl.
Heaven help the poor guy who has this phrase on his LinkedIn profile:
“Hi, I’m a motivated multitakser with extensive experience as an entrepreneurial and results oriented team player whose innovative and dynamic skills have helped me become adept at working in a fast paced world with a proven track record.”
Ta-da!
Matt Hartley, “The 10 most overused employment buzzwords on LinkedIn”, Financial Post, 2010-12-14
December 13, 2010
The impossible balance of security and utility
Strategy Page looks at the mechanic that PFC Bradley Manning is reported to have used to grab copies of all the information now being released by WikiLeaks:
A bit late, the U.S. military has finally forbidden the use of all removable media (thumb drives, read/write DVD and CD drives, diskettes, memory cards and portable hard drives) from SIPRNet. Thumb drives had earlier been banned. The motivation for this latest action was Wikileaks, which obtained hundreds of thousands of secret American military and diplomatic documents from a U.S. soldier (PFC Bradley Manning). As an intel specialist, Manning had a security clearance and access to SIPRNet (Secret Internet Protocol Router Network). This was a private Department of Defense network established in 1991, using Internet technology and able to handle classified (secret) documents. But Manning got access to a computer with a writable CD drive, and was able to copy all those classified documents to a CD (marked as containing Lady Gaga tracks) and walk out of his workplace with it. The big error here was having PCs available with writable media. You need some PCs with these devices, but they should be few, and carefully monitored. Normally, you would not need to copy anything off SIPRNet. Most of the time, if you want to share something, it’s with someone else on SIPRNet, so you can just email it to them, or tell them what it is so they can call it up themselves. A network like SIPRNet usually (in many corporations, and some government agencies) has software that monitors who accesses, and copies, documents, and reports any action that meets certain standards (of possibly being harmful). SIPRNet did not have these controls in place, and still does not on over a third of the PCs connected.
Just like their civilian counterparts, soldiers have been very eager to get and keep connected, both for personal and professional reasons. Data not shared can’t be useful.
For the last decade, the Pentagon has had increasing security problems with its internal Internet networks. The Department of Defense has two private Internets (using Internet technology, but not connected to the public Internet). NIPRNet is unclassified, but not accessible to the public Internet. SIPRNet is classified, and all traffic is encrypted. You can send secret stuff via SIPRNet. However, some computers connected to SIPRNet have been infected with computer viruses. The Pentagon was alarmed at first, because the computers only used SIPRNet. As a result, they did not have any anti-virus software installed. It turned out that worm type hackware was the cause of infection, and was installed when someone used a memory stick or CD, containing the worm, to work and, well, you know the rest.
[. . .]
It’s easy for troops to be doing something on SIPRNET, then switch to the Internet, and forget that they are now on an unsecure network. Warnings about that sort of thing have not cured the problem. The Internet is too useful for the troops, especially for discussing technical and tactical matters with other soldiers. The army has tried to control the problem by monitoring military accounts (those ending in .mil), but the troops quickly got hip to that, and opened another account from Yahoo or Google, for their more casual web surfing, and for discussions with other troops. The Internet has been a major benefit for combat soldiers, enabling them to share first hand information quickly, and accurately. That’s why the troops were warned that the enemy is actively searching for anything G.I.s post, and this stuff has been found at terrorist web sites, and on captured enemy laptops. In reality, information spreads among terrorists much more slowly than among American troops. But if soldiers discuss tactics and techniques in an open venue, including posting pictures and videos, the enemy will eventually find and download it. The terrorists could speed up this process if they could get the right hackware inside American military computers.
December 10, 2010
The Economist: “America … should learn from its mistakes in the past decade and stick to its own rules”
A very good column in The Economist seems to cover the issues quite well:
BIG crimes deserve tough responses. In any country the theft and publication of 250,000 secret government documents would deserve punishment. If the leak costs lives, let alone the careers and trust that have already perished amid the WikiLeaks disclosures, the case for action is even stronger.
[. . .]
For the American government, prosecution, not persecution, offers the best chance of limiting the damage and deterring future thefts. The blustering calls for the assassination of Julian Assange, the WikiLeaks founder now in custody in London awaiting extradition to Sweden on faintly mysterious charges of sexual assault, look both weak and repellent. If Mr Assange has broken American law, it is there that he should stand trial, just like Bradley Manning, the alleged source of the stolen documents. If not, it may be some consolation that the cables so far reveal a largely flattering picture of America’s diplomats: conscientious, cool-headed, well-informed, perceptive and on occasion eloquent.
[. . .]
If America sticks to those standards now it will display a strength and sanity that contrasts with the shrill absolutism and cyber-vandalism of the WikiLeaks partisans. Calling Mr Assange a terrorist, for example, is deeply counterproductive. His cyber-troops do not fly planes into buildings, throw acid at schoolgirls or murder apostates. Indeed, the few genuine similarities between WikiLeaks and the Taliban — its elusiveness and its wide base of support — argue against ill-judged attacks that merely broaden that support. After a week of clumsy American-inspired attempts to shut WikiLeaks down, it is now hosted on more than 700 servers around the world.
The big danger is that America is provoked into bending or breaking its own rules, straining alliances, eroding credibility and — because it will not be able to muzzle WikiLeaks — ultimately seeming impotent. In recent years America has promoted the internet as a menace to foreign censorship. That sounds tinny now. So did its joy of hosting next year’s World Press Freedom Day this week. Chinese and Russian glee at American discomfort are a sure sign of such missteps.
H/T to John Perry Barlow for the link.
Update: This certainly matches what I expected Julian Assange’s personality to be like:
Defectors include Daniel Domscheit-Berg, otherwise known as Daniel Schmitt, who made a high-profile exit from WikiLeaks in September, and Herbert Snorrason, an Icelandic student. Both resigned in September. Snorrason is quoted as telling Assange, in an online chat log acquired by WiReD:
And you’re not even fulfilling your role as a leader right now. A leader communicates and cultivates trust in himself. You are doing the exact opposite. You behave like some kind of emperor or slave trader.
Snorrason’s departure was fomented by this declaration from Assange:
I am the heart and soul of this organization, its founder, philosopher, spokesperson, original coder, organizer, financier and all the rest. If you have a problem with me, piss off.
And he did.
December 9, 2010
Bruce Schneier on the WikiLeaks situation
Bruce Schneier has some useful observations about the ongoing WikiLeaks document release:
4. This has little to do with WikiLeaks. WikiLeaks is just a website. The real story is that “least trusted person” who decided to violate his security clearance and make these cables public. In the 1970s he would have mailed them to a newspaper. Today he uses WikiLeaks. Tomorrow he will have his choice of a dozen similar websites. If WikiLeaks didn’t exist, he could have put them up on BitTorrent.
5. I think the government is learning what the music and movie industries were forced to learn years ago: it’s easy to copy and distribute digital files. That’s what’s different between the 1970s and today. Amassing and releasing that many documents was hard in the paper and photocopier era; it’s trivial in the Internet era. And just as the music and movie industries are going to have to change their business models for the Internet era, governments are going to have to change their secrecy models. I don’t know what those new models will be, but they will be different.
November 27, 2010
Anyone remember when Homeland Security got the right to shut down websites?
In addition to their role in defending the homeland, apparently they’re also now copyright enforcers:
The investigative arm of the Homeland Security Department appears to be shutting down websites that facilitate copyright infringement.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has seized dozens of domain names over the past few days, according to TorrentFreak.
ICE appears to be targeting sites that help Internet users download copyrighted music, as well as sites that sell bootleg goods, such as fake designer handbags.
The sites are replaced with a note from the government: “This domain named has been seized by ICE, Homeland Security Investigations.”
H/T to Ace of Spades HQ for the link.
It would be nice to know what part of the act of Congress that set up the Department of Homeland Security permits this kind of action. So that I can know whether to thank George Bush or Barack Obama.
[. . .]
First they were grabbing crotches in airports…
This overrreach by the DHS is breathtaking and clearly violates the spirit of the act of Congress that created it and the public’s understanding of the rationale for the creation of DHS. I’m not saying the domains were not involved in copyright infringement. I’m saying the DHS involvement is odd and the method — seizure of the domains — lacks a certain due process.
It’s ugly and ham-fisted. And it is difficult to see how it could be aimed at drawing the public’s attention away from the travails of the TSA. Rather, it looks like another run-of-the-mill stupid move on the part of Obama and Napolitano. It will be interesting next week to see the reaction of Representatives and Senators.
November 20, 2010
Apologies for the temporary interruption in service
The blog was down for a couple of hours this morning, but the friendly folks at HostGator got the problem fixed as soon as I called it to their attention. <plug>HostGator has been a great ISP for me. I happily recommend them to you if you need web hosting.</plug>
November 14, 2010
Well, give them partial credit for their answer . . .
Another article where the headline really carries the whole story:
WSJ Warnings About Privacy-Invading Cookies Carry Privacy-Invading Cookies
Can you move this one to the ‘Irony’ section?The Wall Street Journal posted a story yesterday about the Obama administration’s plan to add a privacy watching task force to evaluate rules on cookies, metacookies, flash cookies and all the other online threats to consumer privacy.
[. . .]
Of the threatening, deletion-resistant Flash cookies they revealed on in my browser, tracking my trip over to the NYT to read more: two from the Wall Street Journal.
November 11, 2010
Even more reason to believe that ACTA is a bad deal
From the folks at BoingBoing:
New revelations on ACTA, the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), a secretive global copyright being privately negotiated by rich countries away from the UN: ACTA will require ISPs to police trademarks the way they currently police copyright. That means that if someone accuses you of violating a trademark with a web-page, blog-post, video, tweet, etc, your ISP will be required to nuke your material without any further proof, or be found to be responsible for any trademark violations along with you. And of course, trademark violations are much harder to verify than copyright violations, since they often hinge on complex, fact-intensive components like tarnishment, dilution and genericization. Meaning that ISPs are that much more likely to simply take all complaints at face-value, leading to even more easy censorship of the Internet with nothing more than a trumped-up trademark claim.
November 6, 2010
Creating a more privileged class of commenter
I don’t normally read comment threads at the Globe and Mail website (actually, I rarely get too far in comment threads anywhere . . . too many comments, too little time), so the creation of Globe Catalysts was news to me earlier today. Elizabeth mentioned that certain prolific commenters at the Globe website had been given privileges which makes their individual comments much more visible and (apparently) keeps catalyst comments near the top of the thread.
It must have appeared to Globe management that the comment threads were getting too unruly, so they’ve appointed class monitors or “trustys” to keep the unwashed masses in line.
It’s nice that they chose a name for these folks that allows the group of them to be referred to as “the Cattle List”.
