The Professor's Notes

SECURITY WARNING:

For a discussion on this, listen to “”Real Tech for Real People” episode 42.

I have received numerous emails purportedly from “Verizon Wireless” but which instead is a rather malicious attempt to download many evil things onto your compu

ter.  NOTE:  The emails really are NOT coming from Verizon Wireless, but are imposters.

The email advertises new features/phones, etc, and when you click on the link it “ultimately” takes you to the Verizon Wireless site–but first routes you through several EVIL sites that drop malicious payloads into your computer  (trojans, keyloggers, password-stealers, worms, etc.)

TIP OFF? Check the actual email address that sent the email. It usually will be from some “other” site. I have seen:

• mugrealize (dot com)
• reply.rigidcomp (dot com)
• mx2.driftshy
• labelfair
• and many MANY others.

BEST DEFENSE: As always, DON’T use the links in the emails, but go directly to the site.

I discuss other ways of knowing whether an email is “legitimate” on the podcast.  Go listen to Episode 42.

Yesterday my brother posted a tweet, acknowledging that he is on 35 lists on Twitter.¹  This got me thinking about how these lists are created, and actually made public…. and thinking once again about the notions of “Crowdsourcing” and the “The Wisdom of Crowds.”

As I understand it, Twitter added “lists” because people wanted a simple way of grouping the people they follow according to some sort of structure that made sense to them.  Tweetdeck had added that capability through “groups” and I had even started using that feature.  I had built groups based on my major categories of interest:  Family. Close (real) friends.  Local people. Educators.  Twitter took that idea, allowed us to create lists through them, and then also offered the option to make the lists “public” and subscribe-able.  People can see your public lists, and if they like them–follow them!

Once Twitter released that option I had actually abandoned the notion of groups and lists.  I wasn’t so sure about what I wanted to use them for anyway.  I have since gone back, adding a private list of just family and friends.

So here is what I am wondering as I peruse the 35 lists that have listed my brother, and the lists that have added me:

Are they all really that different?  And if not, are they a “waste” of time?

In my lists, I see I am listed on a number of Supply Chain Management lists.  And educator lists.  My brother’s lists are understandably predominantly discipline related, and education related.  There are a few others, but those dominate–and that’s the point.  There appears, on a curory look, to be significant overlap on these lists.

The concept of “Wisdom of the Crowds” and “Crowd-sourcing” is that crowds, when gathered together, make better decisions, and are more creative.  Potentially (and grossly oversimplified).   By building lists of people that share common interests we can see the views of others who are thinking about the same things, and get a wide range of perspectives. ²

So here are the “research questions” (or “investigative questions”) that I have:

1.  How many groups have identical or very similar themes? (Like “supply Chain Managers”)

2.  On similar lists, what is the membership overlap?

3.  How much time is spent developing these similar, and perhaps redundant, lists?

4.  Is there a better way to “share” lists, so people aren’t always reinventing the lists (and taking time to do that?)

5.  Is there some psychological need that gets filled by creating one’s own lists, rather than following someone else’s list?  Control? Ownership?

My brother blogged on his thoughts concerning Apple’s “walled garden” comparing it more to a grocery store, or to a “boxed software” store–sacrificing choice for security.  (Oddly a familiar refrain since 2001–sacrificing degrees of freedom for a “sense” of security.)

I like the grocery store analogy, but he didn’t  go where I thought he would.

Original Image from http://www.joe-anybody.com/id47.html

I thought he was going to go with the “General Store” analogy where Mr Ike (remember the Waltons?) would be behind the counter. You would go the counter with your mom’s list and he would get everything for you. No real choice in manufacturer of flour, or sugar, or even fabric. You bought what he bought, and brought.

Then we had the advent of the supermarket. You, the consumer, could now peruse from a vast array of similar products, deciding which ones of the myriad choices was right for you. Let’s take my favorite example: tomato paste. You want Heinz? Hunts? Giant store brand? Great Value? You want 4 oz? 8? 16? 32? The killer 64 oz? The assortment just of tomato based products is staggering–yet all choices we have.

Our choices remain limited by that which Walmart, or Giant, or Wegman’s chooses to stock, but (at least in the 2 former cases) they are limited by fiscal and physical constraints, and not some artistic and aesthetic focus.

If you don’t like the choices at one grocery store, you can simply go to another.

Apple is somewhere between these. They aren’t limiting us to only one choice (but oh happy day if we only could be annoyed by one fart app instead of 300!)

Apple however does limit choice. They not only control the store, but they won’t let you go to another store (without forcing you to make ‘unauthorized changes” to your device. Now, I hear the response–”you can go to another store–get a different phone!” But that’s not really the same.

In the analogy of the grocery store I have a device that I use to consume a product (my stomach, and all pertinences attached thereto). I am able to choose between a selection of products that I consume, but the device of consumption stays the same.

In the Apple model, I am forced to forgo a consumption device (one that might have a large number of appealing factors) for the “option” to consume a different assortment of products.

I don’t see why it has to be “either, or.” This Cartesian Anxiety must stop. Tell us that we are “safest” if we shop in the company store. But let us choose (perhaps through an “opt in” feature that won’t cause nightmares with firmware updates) to choose a different store. Let the consumer decide on the risks of consumption, while allowing us to have the same consumption device.

Let us “choose.”

Does Apple not have the “Stomach” for that?

Dean Dad published his “Nerdy Academic’s Tech Wish List” today, and  in looking at it, I thought “Hey, we have talked about almost all of these over at Real Tech for Real People podcast — I should reply!”  I then thought “I should share the thoughts here, too!”

So, here are my replies to his 14 requests.  Some were rather quick, others are requests for tech that would be “way cool” if we could ever get it. Without further ado, the 14 points: Read the rest of this entry »

I know–you think I am crazy for my headline.  Mom’s wouldn’t do that, but it suddenly came to me today that we are putting so much information in one site that  Moms (and frankly, all of us) are quietly, and accidentally, putting their children at risk of “Identity theft.”  We have a trusting attitude about Facebook.  We don’t think about the ingenuity of those that seek to commit evil in the dark.  We share. We love. We risk all.

You may know that I am trying to leave Facebook (and if you read my posts, you know I proposed a way to ‘roll your own’ using existing social networking sites.)  The reason I am concerned about Facebook, and wanting to leave, is that I am tired of the constant push and pull.  They push the limits on protecting privacy, we push back, they pull back… They claim they own our photos, we push, they pull back… I am not surprised, though. They don’t view their users as their customers (we aren’t–the advertisers are) but they simply view their users as the generators of content that will drive advertising sales.

The problem is that I am not sure how many really understand the several layers of privacy that could be at risk.

And here is where Moms put their kids at risk.  You know that security question “What is your mother’s maiden name?” Well… with so many women including there maiden name on facebook (“hey–my old friends can find me easier!”) it may actually put their childrens’ identity at risk.¹  I suppose this wouldn’t be a problem, so long as we make sure we don’t connect to our parents/siblings, and so forth.  But we share the information (Maiden name) and the say “oh, here are my kids’ names, too.”

Quickly, let me say I am in no way really trying to blame moms for ANYTHING here.  It’s not the fault of Moms or the kids.   I suspect all of us are in a sense “guilty” here–we don’t think about how easily people can connect the dots on this information.

Part of the problem here is that we don’t fully understand how Facebook shares information.  Apparently, even if you only share your information with your friends, if the friends have their settings open to “everyone” then your information is exposed.

I wish we could trust people. I wish we could trust Facebook.  But in this world we must be cautious.

My first thought when reading the headline “Google Maps cars pull some user data” was “*YAWN.* Another story about ‘do no evil’ Google being caught accidently being evil.”

It at first seemed a rehash of the old story.  As Google’s street mapping cars drive by the apparently record your WIFI address and map it to the GEOLOC (GPS) coordinates to enhance navigation. ¹  But then the story got, well.. interesting.

It turns out that they’ve also been collecting and storing data from those unsecured hotspots.  Anything that was being transmitted during the time those cars were driving by may have been picked up by Google’s software and stored.²

So, as if to prove to people that they should be encrypting their wifi networks, the Google car has been capturing the actual DATA being transmitted.  Now keep in mind, this isn’t just the data that is being sent out over the internet. Oh, no.  This is everything you are doing over your wifi network.

Saving homework to a network drive?

GOT IT.

Moving pictures or music from one computer to another?

GOT IT.

Updating your business’ financial spreadsheets on the network drive?

GOT IT.

But we shouldn’t worry, because Google doesn’t want to do evil, and so they are doing everything they need to do.  They will make adjustments to their software to stop “eavesdropping” on your digital “in home” conversations.  And then, at the end of the article, they tell us this:

Google says it will work with local authorities to show what information was collected and make sure it is disposed of properly.

Yup–have no fear.  Whatever information they have “accidentally” collected will be given to the local authorities to dispose of “properly.”

Honestly, I am more concerned about my financials getting handed around than I am anything else, but does this strike anyone else as… well…. odd?  And remember, you don’t have to be doing something “illegal” to have information that could be embarrassing or personally destructive if  released.  ^{3   4}

Usually the local authorities need a warrant to tap into your phone and data lines.  They certainly need a warrant before they can go into your homes. (Just ask Jason Chen) but what happens if someone “just happens to give them information?”  Can that information be used?  I mean, it essentially has the same weight as “we received a tip from a citizen that…”

Should we be worried?  What are your thoughts?  Big Brother, or a “Tempest in a Teapot?” ⁵

The tide of opinion seems to have shifted against Facebook, and there is a growing movement to “Leave” facebook.  Alas, many of us are finding it hard to leave Facebook.

What to do?

How about this–build your own community!  The tools are already here–we just need to come up with a coordinated way to share.

Let’s start with Twitter as the “hub.”  You can use Twitter to keep in touch, and follow your friends.  Of course, it is important to note that your public tweets are just that.  PUBLIC.¹  So what to do?  First, watch what you say (always good advice.)  Second, if you want to add an extra layer of privacy just create a “Blocked” account, and only allow your followers to see what you post. So you can share with your friends what you are doing, and they can share with you.  And let’s not forget the direct, one-on-one messages you can share, or “DMs.”

But that’s just the start.  Do you like sharing your photographs?  Flickr is a much better site for photo storage and sharing anyway. It’s the purpose of Flickr. And in Flickr you can create or join photo groups that are focused on things that interest you, ranging from entertainment groups you might have been in, to people sharing the same interests in photographic subjects or cameras.  In addition, you can make your photos public and visible to everyone, or just to friends, or for family.  You can control the access to your photographs and even control who can download the image or reuse it. On top of all of that, you can even choose to make your photo available to photo services to use and pay you for the use! If you haven’t checked out Flickr, you really should.

And when you add a photo to flickr, and want the world to know about it–tell them on Twitter!

Now maybe you want to share videos.  There are many sites for doing that, as well.  Certainly YouTube is the most well known but Vimeo is making a strong showing as well.  Again, you can share your videos publicly, or share only with friends.  (And Flickr also now supports limited videos, as well!)

This is just the tip of the iceberg.  These three sites (Twitter, Flickr, and YouTube) really address the majority of how people use Facebook–to connect, share conversation, share photos, and share videos.  Why turn over control to Facebook, when you can “roll your own?”

So let us know–how else do you use Facebook, and what other community tools do YOU know that could help wean ourselves off Facebook?

And let’s start with Twitter.  You can find me there as @scmprofessor

The connectedness of… a newly selected nominee to the US Supreme Court, the abortion issue… Arizona immigration law… and a Pennsylvania tax amnesty commercial?

Privacy.  PRIVACY.  The RIGHT to PRIVACY.  Do you believe we should have a right to privacy?  Should we expect that our government will allow us to live our lives without surveillance, free from the need to check, to constantly look over our shoulders to see who from the government is watching?

As always the world is full of events occupying our time and driving the news.  And, as is usually the case, each story is presented in isolation.  Rarely does anyone discuss the connectedness of the stories or their implications.  Often, that means little, but occasionally the disconnectedness points to the dissonance in government when agencies pursue their agendas.  Once in a while the opportunity arises from this to view the conflict in “generalizable principles” that drive our government’s behavior. Read the rest of this entry »

As you may know, I am looking forward to the day when our “textbooks” will be digital and students can purchase them at a fraction of what they pay now.  Of course, additional savings would be physical (lighter books–in one reader) and the “Green” impact of removing all the wastes and costs of production and delivery.

One author, however, worries that if we view the iPad as the path that Apple would rise up and exert censorship over the content, giving us the Jobs view of the world (much as many criticize Disney for giving us Walt’s sanitized view of how the world is.)  I could see  Apple doing that not only to sanitize content, but also to further whatever political agendas they may have given their apparent arbitrary, capricious and vindictive approaches to what is and isn’t approved.  (political in this sense in the larger meaning, not simply political as in government affairs.)

I mentioned this is an email, and in reply, I was told that we shouldn’t worry about that.  That Apple has demonstrated a willingness to not interfere in educational issues as shown through iTunesU and that Apple would probably never get enough market share for that to happen.

Perhaps.  But that led me to ponder further what really would it take to get digital texts  (or as my brother calls them “educational applications” to move from obscurity to ubiquity–and will proprietary get in the way?

First I wanted to address the interesting  notion that  iTunesU is the model of an Open Apple.  That might be true, but the textbook/educational applications that we are seeing discussed are positioned to be sold through the AppStore model, and  the App Store is a model of a closed Apple.  At times, a VERY closed Apple.   Recently we have seeen Apple exerting control not only on content but the tools to be used in developing that content.But let’s set aside for a moment the problems of if Apple were to control the market, and look at what it would take to get there.
Perhaps my correspondent is correct that Apple cannot garner enough market share to make them (and their iPad) a viable contender and competitor in the textbook space, but then we are left wondering:

• If Apple doesn’t control a significant share of the textbook “space” then what are the options for students?
• What incentive will students have to drop $500+ on a device that only a small fraction of faculty will have as the platform for their texts/instructional materials?

Will Apple work towards open standards so that the books/media will be able to be hosted on a wide range of platforms, or will Apple insist on a proprietary standard, working towards exclusivity for the instructional material they “host” on their platform.  This isn’t simply a red herring tossed out to direct attention from some “Greater Good.”  The fact is that right now students are able to choose from a variety of sources to purchase their texts (and thus a wide range of service/price combinations) and even between new and used books.  Faculty can choose between various textbook publishers/providers, which allows the professor to not only choose the best content, but the best value package for the students.

All that can disappear if one source controls the access to the media, and if there exist competing exclusive and proprietary sources for access to media, then students will be required to purchase not one, but several expensive readers/devices depending on the choices of the faculty member.  Or, alternatively the faculty will be hamstrung, “encouraged” by students or administration to only focus on those source-materials available and the dominant device.

So here we go–what is the decision making process that leads a faculty member to assign a “multi-media resource” as the course “text” rather than a regular textbook? What do you when the students are told that for my ONE class the book is no longer that big expense at $100-200 but rather the iPad becomes the big expense–costing 2-5 times that amount. AND there is no guarantee that any other faculty members will commit to a similar path? And of course the publishers don’t want to reduce the price of the “text” below 50% of the current price AND don’t want to make the “book” available permanently. And don’t forget, most technology has a life of 2-3 years when used regularly. Heavy use, along with ever increasing complexity of the applications/software, may well shorten the lifespan of the product that students must purchase, shifting them from a 1 time outlay to 2, or 3 times in the span of a college career–assuming of course that enough faculty adopt these “books” to make it worth their while.

At a time when the pressures from students AND the federal government is to lower the costs of education (and specifically texts) what professor wants to be the one to step up and insist that students get a high priced device that is designed for obsolescence?

So we are faced with an interesting challenge.  At a time when technology is holding out such promise we find at least one company who has the technical ability to break down the cost walls while simultaneously catapulting the technology of learning well beyond anything we have experienced.  And we find that the same company is tighting the grips on their “ecosystem” arguing that they can control their own little corner of the world.

This is one of those pivotal moments–we can see proprietary walls go up, and little gardens of creative learning spread slowly.  Or we can encourage open architectures that will enable creativity and learning to spread quickly, and widely.

Ubiquity? Or Proprietary? Which way do you think things will go?