greenpoint design

ID Check

To verify this site, here’s the ID:

K5HBKDJN87QS

OK?

BigPond Bails on 2nd Life

Australian national telco, Telstra, and their ISP, BigPond, have decided to terminate their experiment in Second Life.

Like a lot of other big businesses, BigPond jumped into the virtual world in 2007 when it looked like flying avatars and pixelated real estate might be the Next Big Thing. Or as the Sydney Morning Herald reported, “There is a lot of pressure for organisations to appear innovative and to be seen using the latest web based technology, often adopting it before any real value has been ascertained.”

The true story, however, is in the numbers. BigPond logged 100,000 users  signing up for Second Life through its service over the past two years, but only about 2000 visited Second Life on a regular basis.

This pattern of rapidly increasing enrollments and dwindling usage is typical of social media services and other walled gardens on the internet. Users are attracted to the new service by media hype, cool features and snowballing enrollments, only to find that the club they joined starts to seem sort of limited after awhile.

I was going to use BigPond’s experience with Second Life as an object lesson in the utility of walled gardens on the internet, but Jeff Atwood has already stated the case so well in his essay, Avoiding Walled Gardens on the Internet, that I’ll just link off and call it a day.

Arpanet Turns 40

And the Guardian.co.uk commemorates the occasion with a People’s History of the Internet. It’s a nice use of the medium and way more attractive than Hobbe’s Internet Timeline.

Happy birthday, Arpanet !

Arpanet in September 1971

Wikipedia’s 2 Million Milestone

An alert nerd over at Slashdot noticed that Wikipedia had clocked its 2 millionth article in the English edition on Sunday.

Whatever reservations you may have about Wiki-reality and consensual knowledge, you have to admit it’s a resounding success in terms of participation.

I just want to find the guy who dumbed down my article on the Nor’easter of 1978.

Privacy, Liberty and the Transaction Economy

Some elaboration is required on two items in the last post. By suggesting that anonymous e-mail and handwritten signatures be retired as old and useless technologies, I am not saying they should be outlawed or forbidden. There is a place for anonymous communication and everyone has a right to protect their privacy to the extent that they see fit. However, in today’s machine-mediated, transaction-based economy, participants must validate their identity or lose trust and risk being shut out of many exchanges.

If I buy a pair of sunglasses from a man who has set up a table on a street corner, I do not need to know the man’s name, or even the provenance of the sunnies. I can try on the sunglasses, assess the fit and judge for myself if the lenses are adequate. Then, if I am satisfied with the sunglasses, I hand the man $5 and the transaction is complete.

That exchange would not happen on the net. If I wanted a pair of discount sunnies, I’d check established retailers first — companies that had been in business a few years and had built a reputation for fair dealing. If I wanted a better discount I might go to ebay, but I’d take a close look at the sunglass vendor’s trust ratings and the number of transactions he had done. Likewise, the seller would require assurance that I was paying with real currency. That identity check would be performed by a credit clearinghouse like PayPal or Visa. Without a mutual verification of identity and reputation, that transaction would not happen.

The distinction that needs to be made here is between voluntary and involuntary identification. In arguing for better identification technology I am advocating a safer marketplace where transactions flow more easily — a space where I choose to yield some of my information in order to participate in certain transactions. However, better identification technology also increases the chances that my identity will be taken from me involuntarily.

Last week I had some business in a Midtown office building. In addition to the usual security checks that have become so common in post-911 New York, I was asked for my photograph. The digital photo that the security guard took was printed on a sticky-backed paper ID badge along with my name, which became my day pass to the building. I submitted to that rigamarole because I had business transact there. Although, one has to wonder how long that information will stay in the building’s database or if it will migrate to other information repositories (the persistence of information will have to be a topic for another post).

Not everyone is so compliant. Three years ago Italian philosopher Giorgio Agamben famously declined to come to the United States to lecture because he refused to submit to the identity checks performed at our borders. Similarly, Michel Foucault made a career railing against bio-politics and surveillance, most notably in the Discipline and Punish. The notion that our personal information is no longer our own has even filtered into the popular culture with movies like Minority Report, which had the chilling tagline “You can’t hide. Get ready to run.”

These are legitimate concerns and they should not be overlooked. By the same token, it’s foolish to wish away technology that already exists. The tools themselves — retinal scans, biometrics, integrated databases — are value-neutral; they either work or they don’t. It is the application of the information these tools gather that posits moral questions.

As a member of modern society, working in information design, I can’t realistically opt out of the networked marketplace. I can, however, demand control over the information that pertains to me, especially ambient information that is not strictly transaction-based. This would entail a revision and expansion of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, which has been patched many times since its first passage in 1970.

Legislation is famously slow to catch up with technology, especially in the information space realized by the net. A better safeguard of our liberty is an awareness of how information is gathered and used and a constant assessment of its value in transactions.