A sad part of my life is currently being spent comparing e-commerce platforms that have fair fees for processing digital downloads. It’s becoming apparent that, despite being a problem needing solving for more than a decade, solutions remain mediocre on average 😦
The story of Blackberry has gripped many technology watchers, watchers who are bearing witness to the trials and tributations of the company as it struggles to compete in the increasingly populated smartphone market. To some, it seemed that one way ‘out’ for Blackberry was for the company to be purchased by another firm looking to aggressively enter this market. Based on recent reporting by the Globe and Mail, however, it looks like any hopes that Blackberry might be purchased could be scuttled for ‘national security’ reasons.
Specifically, Steven Chase and Boyd Erman write that,
Ottawa made it clear in high-level discussions with BlackBerry that it would not approve a Chinese company buying a company deeply tied into Canada’s telecom infrastructure, sources said. The government made its position known over the last one to two months. Because Ottawa made it clear such a transaction would not fly, it never formally received a proposal from BlackBerry that envisioned Lenovo acquiring a stake, sources said.
…
on Monday the Canadian official took pains to emphasize that concerns about BlackBerry are not part of a trend to shut out Chinese investment. “This is a company that has built its reputation and built its success on system security and its infrastructure. That’s one of the reasons businesses use BlackBerries. … The security is robust and we’d obviously have an interest in making sure we didn’t do anything or allow anything that would compromise Last fall, citing a rarely used national-security protocol, Ottawa has sent a signal to Chinese telecom equipment giant Huawei Technologies that it would block the firm from bidding to build the Canadian government’s latest telecommunications and e-mail network. Huawei, founded by a former People’s Liberation Army member, has on numerous occasions found itself having to reject claims its equipment could be used to enable spying.
In October. 2012, a senior spokesman for Prime Minister Stephen Harper publicly hinted Huawei would be left out the cold. “I’ll leave it to you if you think that Huawei should be a part of [the] Canadian government security system,” Mr. MacDougall said.
I’m particularly mindful of the possible security issues that may be linked to letting foreign-located businesses playing significant roles in Canadian telecommunications networks. But, at the same time, the present Canadian government seems to be applying ‘national security considerations’ in a manner that prevents market analysts and watchers from clearly assessing when such considerations might be applied.
Without clear criteria, what are the conditions under which a non-Canadian company could purchase Blackberry? Could a well-financed American company buy it, based on what we’ve learned about NSA surveillance? Could a company that was known to comply with foreign governments’ lawful interception requirements buy Blackberry, given that such requirements could have a global reach? Could Blackberry be purchased by companies that operate in countries that, if their governments had access to Blackberry communications, could gain an edge in international diplomatic engagements with Canada or its closest international partners?
I don’t dispute that national security may sometimes demand terminating business deals that would violate the national interest. However, given that incredibly large investments are being killed by the federal government of Canada it is imperative that the government make clear what ‘national security’ interests are at play, and the security models that motivate terminating such deals. To date, neither the interests nor models are particularly clear. As a result, analysts are forced to read the outcome of federal decisions without the benefit of understanding the full rationale of what went into them in the first place. The result has been to make it incredibly uncertain whether foreign businesses will be legally permitted to engage in market operations with Canadian companies.
Canadians are all to aware that the current federal government has failed on its promise to provide a digital strategy for the Canadian marketplace. In the absence of such a strategy, perhaps the federal government could at least provide its rules for determining when a business proposal runs counter to national security?
[Computer specialists] are at once the most unmanageable and the most poorly managed specialism in our society. Actors and artists pale by comparison. Only pure mathematicians are as cantankerous, and it’s a calamity that so many of them get recruited by simplistic personnel men…[Managers should] refuse to embark on grandiose or unworthy schemes, and refuse to let their recalcitrant charges waste skill, time and money on the fashionable idiocies of our [computer] racket.
Herbert Grosch. (1966). “Programmers: The Industry’s Cosa Nostra,” Datamation 12(10): 202.
Though Silicon Valley’s newest billionaires may anoint themselves the saints of American capitalism, they’re beginning to resemble something else entirely: robber barons. Behind the hoodies and flip-flops lurk businesspeople as rapacious as the black-suited and top-hatted industrialists of the late 19th century. Like their predecessors in railroads, steel, banking, and oil a century ago, Silicon Valley’s new entrepreneurs are harnessing technology to make the world more efficient. But along the way, that process is bringing great economic and labor dislocation, as well as an unequal share of the spoils.
Rob Cox at Reuter. Go read his whole essay, “Silicon Valley’s underserved moral exceptionalism”
- Not offer a way to download our data in some sort of a standard, transparent, and at least somewhat human-siftable format
- Hide or otherwise be opaque about precisely what personal data you smuggle out of our devices
- Not offer a one-to-two-click process for deleting our accounts
- Fail to actually remove our data from your servers after we delete our accounts (while complying with applicable regional laws governing data retention)
- Believe that taking VC and selling your customers’s private information is the only way to get a company off the ground, let alone run a successful business
- Not use SSL for passing even the slightest bit of private information
Did I miss anything?
One thing: use rhetoric and spin to try and convince users that rabidly anti-consumer practices (such as those noted above) are good for society and that this kind of ‘radical transparency’ (i.e. screwing the customer for the benefit of the bottom line) is somehow going to make the world a better and happier place.
Mike Masnick points out something that a large portion of the media missed in initial discussions surrounding the MegaUpload seizures:
There’s a key point in all of this that we missed in our earlier analysis about paid accounts at Megaupload. In the indictment, the government seems to assume that paid accounts are clearly all about illegal infringing works. But that’s not always the case. In fact, plenty of big name artists – especially in the hip hop world – use the paid accounts to make themselves money. This is how they release tracks. You sign up for a paid account from services like Megaupload, which pay you if you get a ton of downloads. For big name artists, that’s easy: of course you get a ton of downloads. So it’s a great business model for artists: they get paid and their fans get music for free. Everyone wins. Oh… except for the old gatekeeper labels.
There were certainly a large number of files that were potentially infringing – with the ability to ascertain whether something is or isn’t infringing being impossible to conduct automatically using digital systems because of legal ambiguities – but there were also many clearly non-infringing files. Those that were directly uploaded by artists for download were amongst this latter category.
While some artists who have already made it big might suffer a decrease in revenue/earnings, but still enjoy a life dedicated to creating new works, those who have yet to ‘break through’ will suffer disproportionately from losing an easy-to-use service that could generate some revenue. The smallest artists lose, the largest lose, and consumers lose. I’m not even certain that the labels themselves ‘win’, insofar as generating bad will likely hinders their ability to establish strong (positive) brand relationships with prospective consumers.
Excited Pixels