Social network privacy settings

From How to Lose Your Job on Your Own Time:

Personal disclosure is the norm on social networking sites. But the Pew study included an unexpected finding: Teenagers have the most sophisticated understanding of privacy controls on these sites, and they are far less likely than adults to permit their profiles to be visible to anyone and everyone.

If you are a teenager, restricting public access to your profile has the nice effect of restricting your parents access to your social network data. I suspect lots of teenagers have pictures from parties and other activities that they don’t want their parents to see. This makes me wonder how much the use of privacy controls by teenagers has to do with a desire for more privacy in a general sense versus hiding from mom and dad.

Teenagers are also much more under the control of other authority figures than most adults are. Teachers are a good example of this situation. It is dangerous to speak negatively about your teacher when there is no way to know that they are not following your online activities.

Monitoring how these same teenagers change their privacy settings as they mature and become more independent would be a very interesting study.

Pinker on violence

Yesterday Andrew posted an entry about a TED presentation called A brief history of violence by Steven Pinker. Take a look at his post and watch the video. The video is only 20 minutes long. In short, the presentation offers data that refutes the idea that the human race was more peaceful in the past.

At around the 9:50 mark Pinker mentions that people link the ease by which a specific incident of something can be recalled with the perceived probability that it will occur. For many years I have avoided watching local newscasts for exactly this reason. When half of the newscast talks about car crashes and the other half talks about bad things happening at local schools one can’t help but think that car travel is very dangerous and that there are ‘bad’ people everywhere.

The right to attach

Hooking up by Tim Wu presents an idea on how to increase the competition around wireless (cellular) devices.

The firms already control what phones or devices reach Americans; 95% of cell phones are sold by the wireless carriers themselves. They strictly control phone design, blocking features that might threaten their revenue, like timers that keep track of how many minutes you’ve used each month.

The right to attach is a simple concept, and it has worked powerfully in other markets. For example, in the wired telephone world Carterfone rules are what made it possible to market answering machines, fax machines and the modems that sparked the Internet revolution.

A couple of books

Picture of booksI recently finished reading a couple of books which I think are worth pointing out to others.

The first is The World Is Flat: A brief history of the twenty-first century by Thomas L. Friedman. At 571 pages this a relatively long book. The first two hundred and thirty pages explain what the author means by “the world is flat” and describe the “ten forces that flattened the world”. The basic idea is that modern telecommunications and economic liberation has brought people all over the world closer together than ever before. On the surface this is a pretty obvious observation but the true impact of it only becomes apparent with deeper investigation. The author spent a great deal of time interviewing people in both developing and established economies in an attempt to understand the effects of these changes. The topics discussed range from software outsourcing to India to Walmart’s global supply chain. Subsequent chapters discuss the role of individuals, companies and countries in a flat world. In a way the world as outlined in this book is scary, especially if you are a knowledge worker but this book is as much about the opportunities created in a flat world as it is the negative consequences. A lot of time is spent describing what types of jobs are not as prone to flat world competition and more importantly, describing the key attributes required for success in those jobs that will face new competition. This is perhaps one of the more enlightening aspects of the book. In short, The World Is Flat covers something that is changing the world at a pace much faster than most people are aware of. If you have or are planning a knowledge based career you owe it to yourself to read this book. Even if you have a job that does not lend itself to global competition read the book anyway. On a final note I have a renewed appreciation for the importance of the education system to the continued economic success and growth of society.

The second book I want to talk about is On Intelligence by Jeff Hawkins. Hawkins is a very successful technology entrepreneur who has a long standing obsession with figuring out how the human brain works. This is not a book about biology although biology does necessarily creep in at some points. The goal of On Intelligence is to put forward a model of how the brain works and what intelligence is. The first portion describes some of the traditional techniques associated with artificial intelligence such as neural nets and offers an opinion on why these approaches failed. Later chapters discuss the role of memory and go on to explain that memory and prediction form the core of intelligence. Perhaps the most interesting aspect of the book is the idea that there is a single ‘cortical algorithm’ which is used by the brain for such diverse tasks as vision processing and locomotion. This is a very interesting read and at only two hundred and thirty-five pages it doesn’t take long.

Starting at the top

Hello, Young Workers: One Way to Reach the Top Is to Start There

Lost in the argument over whether young people today know how to work, however, is the mounting evidence produced by labor economists of just how important it is for current graduates to ignore the old-school advice of trying to get ahead by working one’s way up the ladder. Instead, it seems, graduates should try to do exactly the thing the older generation bemoans — aim for the top.

The recent evidence shows quite clearly that in today’s economy starting at the bottom is a recipe for being underpaid for a long time to come. Graduates’ first jobs have an inordinate impact on their career path and their “future income stream,” as economists refer to a person’s earnings over a lifetime.

Network neutrality: Where analogies fail

I find it interesting that so much of the discussion surrounding net neutrality centers around analogies to other aspects of the modern world. A lot of these analogies are related to the transportation of goods. Courier companies such as UPS and Fedex as well as the highway network in general are the most common examples. In one of the first articles on net neutrality, Saving the Net, Doc Searls argues that the transport analogy is a major impediment to the pro-neutrality side and offers a competing analogy. This post is not about which analogy is better, it is about the problems which occur when using any analogy to discuss a complex topic.

It is easy to understand why people use analogies to discuss complex topics like net neutrality. By allowing knowledge and understanding from one area to be applied to something new, analogies are essentially a way of simplifying the world. Like any simplification, there is always some detail lost.

Analogy is a poor tool for reasoning, but a good analogy can be very effective in developing intuition.
– Barbara Simons and Jim Horning
(Communications of the ACM, Sept 2005, Inside Risks)

The very fact that analogies apply old information to new situations should give us pause in using analogy as a reasoning tool.

To see an example of this problem one only needs to examine what is perhaps the most common analogy used by the anti-neutrality folks. The analogy in question relates to the fact that UPS and other courier companies offer high priority service (overnight) as well as normal service without the negative consequences the pro-neutrality crowd fears.

In order for a courier company to begin to offer overnight package delivery, the company must add new capacity to its delivery operations. For example, a company that ships packages by truck will need to add aircraft to its operations to support cross-continent overnight delivery. Once these aircraft are in place it does not make economic sense to fly them lightly loaded. Instead, the courier company will begin to fill the remainder of the space in the planes with lower priority packages. This has the benefit of reducing the courier’s costs by reducing the number of trucks that are necessary. There is also another unintentional benefit. Although some customers have not paid for overnight delivery, the additional high speed capacity greatly increases the chance they will get that level of service anyway. As the volume of high priority packages grows, the courier’s overall operations must also grow in high priority capacity.

Compare the above situation to packet prioritization on the Internet. Unlike the courier company example, adding a high priority service does not require that the bandwidth provider add new capacity to its operations. There is no way to make light go faster. Packet prioritization simply gives the marked packets first crack at the existing capacity. Assuming the network is properly provisioned (not heavily loaded) the difference in service quality between high and low priority packets is very low, probably unnoticeable.

There is also the issue of reverse economic incentives. In order for customers who are paying for high priority service to notice an improvement the network must be congested. This creates the strange situation where allowing the network to become congested (not upgrading) could result in more customers paying for high priority service and thus increasing the bandwidth provider’s profits.

[Before anyone complains, I realize there are other aspects to network QoS such as number of hops in a path etc. I am not attempting to explain all aspects of network operations.]

On the surface, the analogy between high priority package shipment and high priority packet delivery seems like a good one. Upon closer examination, simple physical limitations show these two worlds to have very different operational characteristics and completely opposite unintentional side effects.

The point of this post is not to argue about the exact details of packet forwarding or courier company operations. The point is that centering the discussion about complex topics like network neutrality around analogies to other systems is foolish. The lost detail results in uninformed decisions.

Network neutrality: The cell network

From Newsforge, Today’s cell phone system argues for retaining network neutrality.

Consider the closed, anti-innovation system that is the cell phone network. Do you want the Internet to be like that? Is that best solution for the rest of the economy and society in general?

James Glass (not his real name) is the owner of a company currently trying to navigate the minefield of running a third-party service on the cell phone networks. He is writing the article pseudonymously because the cell phone companies have the power and freedom to crush his company by blocking it from their networks.

Science funding in Canada

During the latest episode of CBC’s excellent national science program Quirks and Quarks (podcast) there was mention of www.sciencefunding.ca. There are some interesting documents available on that site which discuss how science is funded in Canada. The letter in this document (2005) gives some background.

Also, this week’s Quirks and Quarks is the 30th anniversary show. This would be a great show to listen to if you are new to Quirks and Quarks.