Sony and Snooping and Hollywood and Hypocrisy

For years, corporations have told the peasants that privacy means something new. Apparently the corporations didn't get their own memo.

For years, corporations told the peasants that privacy means something new now. Apparently the corporations didn’t get their own memo. Take it away, Ms. London…

[every move you make, every step you take, i’ll be watching you]
Whenever I bring up the topic of Internet privacy to someone, I usually get the same response:

“I have nothing to hide.”

So I immediately ask the person:  “What’s your annual salary?”

At which point we both discover there’s something to hide.

But most people don’t feel it’s important enough to maintain privacy when you consider the “free” goodies you can get on the Internet.  Like launching birds with elastics to land on pigs.  What.  Wait a minute.  You haven’t played the game in a while?

Doesn’t matter.  They still have your data from when you downloaded the app.

Perhaps, however, you were clever and decided not to participate in the digital social network.

Doesn’t matter. They still have your data from when your friends downloaded the app.

That’s right.  Most companies begin building their digital profile of you by simply asking your friends or, more exactly, your friends’ contact lists.  This includes the obvious snooping companies (like Facebook and LinkedIn) but also the not so obviously snooping companies (like Snapchat and Waze).

Did you consent to your info being handed out by your friends?

Of course, not.  Then again, Google Grand Poo-Bah Eric Schmidt has told us that

“If you have something that you don’t want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn’t be doing it in the first place.”

Which translates from rich-speak as roughly “Fuck you, peasant.”  Emphasis on “fuck” in the unpleasant sense.  (Never mind that  Schmidt is a hypocrite first-class who has tried to have his own records – and affairs – scrubbed off the Internet.)

Spy vs SpySo corporations are slowly training us peasants.  They are training us to use “free” email services which are regularly perused and read by corporate employees. They are training us that spying is a natural part of the Internet. They are training us to put more and more of our data not on our own devices but in their cloud.  You know, the “safe” cloud that can only be hacked when pictures of naked women are involved.  (Ever wonder why smart phones and tablets have so little onboard memory?  Kinda encourages you to put stuff on the cloud, doesn’t it?)

Basically, corporations are training us that modern people have no right to expect privacy.

But, according to the United States Supreme Court, corporations are people, too.

Which brings us to Sony, that “person” who recently got hacked.  Among things that got leaked to a third-party?  Well, the usual stuff that corporations yank from the peasants:

  • The equivalent of a “contact list” – a lot of employee data.
  • Digital stacks of email.
  • And, oh yes, salaries. (Always with the salaries.)

Now remember that when you download an app by the Sony Corporation, you give Sony permission to do a lot of things.  Such as look at your contact list or text messages (actions that involve people who have nothing to do with downloading the app and have not given their consent to Sony for anything). Of course, person Sony (just like person Eric Schmidt) has no difficulty in telling you not to expect privacy. Or, to paraphrase Eric Schmidt:  “Don’t connect to the Internet if you don’t want to risk your privacy.”  (Why isn’t he saying something like that to person Sony?)

Welcome to Personhood, Sony.  You wanted it, you got it.  I know how sucky it feels to be violated by some third-party simply because we are, more or less, forced to participate in digital society today.

After all, you’ve done it to me, Sony.  And I haven’t even downloaded any of your apps.

But, I get it.  Like any of the super-rich, a corporate person’s reach is vast and there are plenty more societal consequences than when a peasant is violated. For example, theaters naturally wanted to avoid an opening day like The Dark Knight Rises.  As a result, they decided to take the hackers’ threats of physical violence seriously and not screen the Sony film, The Interview.  This left Sony in a bind: their business model requires that a certain number of theaters show the film.  Without those theaters, the business model falls apart anyway, so Sony decided to cancel the theatrical release.

Enter now the faux-brave keyboard “patriots” who are crying about this cancellation.  Their basic argument:  a cross between “America caved!” and “Freedom of Speech!”

Um, no.

America didn’t cave.  America did nothing.  Sony made a decision.  A business decision. Sony is a corporation, a person (says the Supreme Court).  It’s not America.  It’s not a country.  Hell, Sony is not even headquartered in a single country.  It’s a multinational (a citizen of the world, perhaps?).

And “freedom of speech”?  Just as the right-wing went berserk over French Freedom Fries 11 years earlier, the left-wing is presently going berserk about how Hollywood is censoring itself.  As if the left-wing had never heard of the Hays Office or the arbitrariness of the MPAA system.  Actor George Clooney gripes about not getting anyone to co-sign his petition.  Writer Aaron Sorkin wants the unions to get involved and support its exposed members.  And on my Facebook feed, I see plenty of people – who are usually skeptical of the Warren Report or Global Climate Change or both – swallow this “America under attack!” narrative in its entirety.

There’s outrage out there, I tell you.  Outrage!

How quickly we forget that the United States government was the first major institution to put America under a cyberattack.

How quickly we forget that the US government was the first major institution to put America under a cyberattack.

So let’s review a bit of history.  Hollywood is hardly weak.  In fact, Hollywood, in the form of the MPAA and several unions (including the DGA and SAG), openly lobbied Congress to break the Internet as we know it and eliminate Net Neutrality. Hey, Mr. Clooney:  that was the free speech issue, not whether a studio decides to release a film or not.  Where was your petition then?  Or did you support your unions in their efforts to change the way the Internet works? Even now, the “weak” MPAA is still trying to overturn Net Neutrality, though in a more secret manner.

And where were the Hollywood petitions and public outrage in 2006 when we discovered that AT&T fed entire phone conversations to the NSA without any warrants whatsoever?  Wasn’t this a massive government-backed hack as well? Or are there different standards when it is organic people (the non-corporate kind) who get violated by a government?  Where was your editorial on that concern over privacy, Mr. Sorkin?

If Hollywood and those rallying around it over a Seth Rogan movie had bothered to raise the issue of wholesale NSA spying on the regular (organic) citizens back in 2006, we wouldn’t have needed Edward Snowden to point out a few things in 2013.  But apparently, the violations of privacy only become a national crisis when a corporate (non-organic) person is involved.

Hack historian Newt Gingrich declared “America has lost its first cyberwar.”  Well, he was half-right.  America has indeed lost its first cyberwar but it was the United States government and their corporate allies who successfully attacked (and continue to attack) America.  And not a peep from the attackees.  Better these organic people focus their attention on supporting a corporate person who already enjoys more government privilege and access than they will ever have.

It’s much easier to fight for your “right” to watch a film.  Much easier to mumble “freedom of speech.”  Much easier to be a pretend patriot.

It’s less scary that way.

For if it’s true that a tiny, isolated country can successfully muster asymmetric cyberwarfare against a corporation more than 3x its size (by valuation), imagine what the mightiest military-industrial complex the world has ever known can do to its own peasant citizens.

Good thing those peasants have nothing to hide.


The Naked Truth about the Internet: Don’t have your Head in the iClouds

When faced with an Internet question, the important thing is to blame each other diverting our attention from the real issue.

When faced with an Internet question, the important thing is to blame each other thereby diverting our attention from the real issue.

[when the Apple takes a byte out of you]
You know what gets headlines?


You know what gets even more headlines?

Naked celebrities.

So it’s hardly surprising that everyone has an opinion about the elebentyhundred or so actresses (actresses because most hackers are still male) who have found their naked bits and bytes digitally distributed all over these United Interwebs in nonpixelated form.

And, because this is the Internet, the caviling cognoscenti, the same people who worry about a water shortage just because others are giving to a charity, are all over this issue.

Or actually not.

Because somehow the topic du electronique became whether naked selfies are bad (they’re not), or if privacy was criminally violated (it was).  There are also posts admonishing you, personally, for even looking at these photos because then you, personally, are contributing to this problem.  (These chiding posts are written on electronic devices usually made by what amounts to slave labor in China which I suppose makes the feminist posters guilty contributing, personally, to slavery but… hey… ummm… because… y’know… #firstworldhypocrisy.)  My favorite “you shouldn’t be looking at those photos” post came from Playboy.  After all, feminists claim Playboy and sexism are two words that can still spoon together comfortably.  So, would feminists agree, I wonder, with such a nuanced distinction between guilty exploitation and guilt-free exploitation?  Or, was Playboy just worried that hacked, free pictures would prevent the magazine from being able to capitalize on these same celebrities in the future should they decide to pose naked for public consumption?

Charlize Theronlindsay lohan playboy


So: what framing should people use to debate this story?  Simple.  Assigning blame. This is America after all.  So: who is to blame?

Simple.  Apple.

(And you thought this column couldn’t get any more offensive.)

When will people learn that Apple, the company that literally tracked your iPhone’s every move, is hostile to them, personally?  (It’s not like I haven’t written about this before.)

Here’s how Internet 2.0 works:  every tech giant wants a complete dossier on you.  Period.  Google wants to learn about you from your Internet searches.  Or the “free” email service they provide.  Or the “free” browser they provide so they can see more than just your Internet searches.  Or the “free” operating system they provide to control your smart phone.

You might also ask yourself how easy it will be for Google to monitor your data over Google fiber – even if you don’t use any of their other products – but… hey… ummm… because… y’know… #itsfree.

And Facebook?  Facebook wants to lock you into their universe by providing you a one-stop portal.  Like the AOL of twenty years ago (but without the discs).  Facebook also wants to discover whom you know – build a social network graph on you – which is highly valuable in predicting things about you even if you never post on Facebook.  And isn’t it odd that Facebook requires you to provide an email address to open an account but then, by default, blocks that same email on your info page and instead substitutes a Facebook email address?  That’s because Facebook wants to see your emails on its servers just as badly as Google does on its servers.  (And Google, symmetrically, tries to force you to use Google+, their social network, since Facebook won’t share its network data about you with Google.)  It’s the same thing with Facebook Messenger:  Facebook would prefer you to use Messenger (where they can see what you’re up to) and not texting (where only the telephone company can see what you’re up to).

And where does Apple fit into this?

They could have called it the "social web."  But then it would have been obvious it was something you were caught in.

It could have been called the “social web.” But then it would have been obvious you were caught in it.

Since Apple is not an Internet company per se, it has to figure how to grab your data some other way.  Enter a program like Siri.  When you talk to Siri, it makes a request to an Apple computer “out there” to answer your question.  So Siri is a bit like Google search.  And a bit like a spy.

But it gets better.

Apple tries to get everything you do to pass through their “iCloud.”   iCloud? That’s just a fuzzy, friendly word for a server.  The idea is that your devices automatically stay in “sync” with each other by having all of them pass your data to Apple’s iCloud.  For example, those party pictures you took on your iPhone?  They automatically are accessible on your Macbook ready for Photoshopping.  Of course, if you could access your iPhone’s file structure directly – without iTunes, iTransfer, or any other middleman entity like iCloud – you could just connect a cable between your iPhone and your laptop and be done with it.  Like you can do with an Android phone.

Instead of this secure file transfer procedure with a simple cable, Apple requires you to use some special piece of Apple software or, preferably, the iCloud.  And your iPhone does this automatically.  Yes, your trusty, beloved iPhone automatically goes behind your back and puts your photos on an Apple server.  You probably didn’t know that.  I’m betting neither did the elebentyhundred or so actresses.

Don’t believe me?  Read from Apple’s own website:

When you turn on My Photo Stream on your devices, all new photos you take or import to those devices will automatically push to your photo stream… The photos you upload to My Photo Stream are stored in iCloud for 30 days to give your devices plenty of time to connect and download them.

You can easily imagine someone forgetting to turn off this “convenient feature” and then all their photos end up filtering through an Apple server for 30 days.

The idea is to train you to trust Apple’s iCloud and move more and more of your personal stuff to it.  And when your personal data is on the iCloud, it’s hackable.  Sure, at the moment Apple claims that the iCloud hasn’t been breached and is secure (forgetting to remind you that in the recent past it wasn’t so secure).  But, then again, Apple has also denied that their poorly designed iPhone 4 antenna wasn’t a problem.  Until they finally admitted it was.

So the issue isn’t whether Apple’s iCloud software can be breached (it can – like all software) or whether cloud storage makes sense (it does – for things like music and movies).  The issue is that Apple tries various ways to get you comfortable with the idea that your personal information should be sitting on one of their servers.

And when that happens, your personal information is out of your control.  Fun fact:  Apple is all set to announce that their new iPhone will collect health-related data on you but… hey… ummm… because… y’know… #alienprobe.

So, we can see that Apple (and the other tech giants) are creating products that, by design, intrude on our privacy and feed the data elsewhere.


So, I blame Apple for this mess.  Not for their imperfect software – because no software is perfect.  But for their campaign to convince the public that private storage of data is inconvenient.  Why are we so apoplectic when individuals violate our privacy but not when corporations encourage us – and herd us! – to put our data in danger in the first place?

In truth, however, there is plenty of blame to go around.  The individual(s) who hacked the accounts are certainly guilty of wrongdoing.

But you know who is also to blame?  Jennifer Lawrence, Kate Upton, Kirsten Dunst, et al.  I’m not blaming them as victims.  I’m blaming them as passive individuals who lazily trust corporations.

And so the blame falls on you and me as well.

We have all been passive.  We all are willingly being trained to accept the idea that corporations should possess our personal bits.  Like the ones in our nude selfies.  Like the ones in our bare documents (what do you think the “free” Google Docs is all about?).  Like the ones in our naked finances (care for a Mint?).

If the government told you to put on a bracelet that could track your motion, would you?  Then why would you let a wearable-device company like Jawbone?  After all, Jawbone makes no pretense at playing around with the tracked data it collects from its paying subjects customers.  (Fun fact:  stay tuned for the iWatch.)

PRISM logoFor years people lived with their personal photos, documents, and tax returns all on their own computers, their own flashdrives, their own external hard drives.  The world survived.  Now corporations want to have all that data on their computers.  These are the same corporations who are creating the magic land of digital rainbows by passing your data through a Prism for the US Government to check out.  (And lest we forget, this is not just an American issue.  Even the proper British have a problem controlling their national voyeurism.)

Most people are worried about the government having access to their data.  But these same people willing shovel all their data out of their homes and onto corporate servers but… hey… ummm… because… y’know… #sheep.

It’s getting to not even be a choice.  Many smart phone address books and calendars are casually swept up into the cloud.  By design.  And if you think automatically updating your photos to the cloud is bad, wait until someone hacks into those automatically updated calendars in the cloud.

Instead of passing around a picture in the virtual world, a hacker can now know when and where to pass you in the physical world.

That should scare you.  A lot.

In the old days, people would use Polaroid (self-developing) cameras for the really fun photos.  It provided a certain peace of mind that some technician at the local Fotomat couldn’t check out your erotic silver colloidal suspensions in a red-light room.  Maybe it’s time to update this idea digitally and use an actual, boring camera to take the fun stuff.  You know, a gadget that doesn’t have a radio connected to it.

And maybe it’s time for all of us to demand from Apple and Google and Facebook and a whole host of other companies with servers that we want full and transparent control of  our phones and laptops and electronic gadgets.

And that we want these companies to stop creating apps and hardware to spy on us.  Spy on us by design.

Or maybe we just sit back lazily, relax, and look forward to the next tectonic shift of technology.  Like the “Internet of Things.”  A world where your entire physical existence is tied into the Web.  Watch the video below.  See how friendly it all looks?  Now remind yourself there’s no off switch for it but… hey… ummm… because… y’know… #zoo.   I mean, what could possibly go wrong?  (If you need help with an answer, I can hook you up with any one of 4.6M SnapChat users who had their phone numbers leaked onto the Internet.)

The ALS Challenge, Water, and the Hipster Slacktivists

Stephen Hawking

The man most closely associated with ALS: Lou Gehrig.

[nobody knows how dry I am]
This year’s major viral craze is a challenge that involves donating to the ALS Association (a non-profit organization that aims to find a cure for ALS aka amyotrophic lateral sclerosis aka Lou Gehrig’s Disease).  Basically you dump a bucket of ice water on your head, give to the ALS Association, and challenge others to do the same.  It’s a lot like the viral Harlem Shake video from 2013 but without the water, the ice, and the cash.

Predictably, the ALS Ice Bucket Challenge has spurred a backlash.  This is the Internet, after all, and hipster contrarians must have their say.  You’ve seen these daffy folks: they’re the ones screaming “wabbit season!” if you say “duck season!” or “duck season!” if you say “wabbit season!”

For the hipster contrarians, the important thing is to be swimming upstream because that means you must be smarter than the herd if only that wasn’t such a mixed metaphor.

It’s hard to find fault with the challenge, particularly since donations to the ALS Association have been wildly up as a result of it, but that doesn’t stop these elitist sourpusses. Their first line of attack was the usual one of narcissism.  The contrarians claim that people were only donating because they get to brag about it.  Well, donations are legal tender either way, bragging or not.   A buck is a buck no matter how you got it.  (Just ask an exotic dancer.  Or Rupert Murdoch.)   And, what’s with bullying of the little people?  Why not attack the Stanfords or the Carnegie-Mellons for putting their names on universities?  Why not attack the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation?  The Rockefeller Foundation?  The David H. Koch Institute for Integrative Cancer Research?  (Yes, he’s that Koch.)  The contrarians, however, decide to guilt trip only the little people, the common folk who deign to comment on their own giving.


With money rolling into the ALS Association at an unprecedented rate, however, this  argument has become rather weak.  So the hipster contrarians decided to focus on the water itself.  Dang!  Spilling water!  There’s climate change!  There’s drought in California!   There’s thirsty people in Africa! (That last one was from a Ricky Gervais tweet that’s since been deleted, though he forgot to also delete his follow-up response.)

Look, I appreciate those that think about the water they will use in the challenge and either dump it into a pool or on some thirsty plant life.  It’s always good to be conscientious about all acts involving Earth’s finite resources.   And both of my faithful readers know that I’m as green as the next guy with foot fungus.  I’ve written about the environment before and before that.  But the numbers – about which the contrarians apparently know nothing – don’t support their holy-water-than-thou remarks.

This woman refused my ALS Ice Bucket Challenge.  Must be because she's green.

This woman refused my ALS Ice Bucket Challenge. Must be because she’s green.

A putz recently wowed hipsters who struggled through Algebra I with an article that estimated 6 million gallons of water had been “wasted” as a result of the challenge.  Now 6 million sounds like a big number.  And it was.  In 1973.  When it took that number of dollars to turn an astronaut into a bionic man.  Today, however, that amount of scratch wouldn’t even get you onto an old Russian rocket to achieve Earth orbit.

So how big a deal is 6 million gallons of water, really?

Not as much as you might think.

The average toilet flush is 3 gallons (about half that if you’ve installed a newer, low-flow model).   Meaning that if just 2 million people save one flush in one day (stop tossing those spiders down the toilet!), we’ve wiped out the total ALS water use debt.

Or how about this?  The average shower head sprays between  4 (old models) or 2 (new models) gallons per minute.  Let’s just split the difference and say shower heads use 3 gallons per minute.  Than means if 2 million people shave just one minute off their shower once, we’ve wiped out the total ALS water use debt.

In other words, it’s almost certain that the average person (and certainly the average hipster contrarian) wastes more water in a single day (day after day!) than is used in the average bucket challenge.

The irony, of course, is that these contrarians, who like to talk about the slacktivism of others, are slacktivists themselves.  Pontificating loudly about water usage, pretending that means they actually care about water.  Because, you know, if we just cut out all these narcissistic ALS water dumping exercises, we can go back to ignoring the real water crises:

Those worried about a tenuous link between dumping ice water and donating to ALS research should recognize there’s an equally tenuous link between dumping ice water and drought.

So dump away, donators!  Dump without guilt!

And chill out, slacktivist hipster contrarians, chill out.  Sit on a block of ice if need be.  Yes, the planet can afford it.  (It can even afford the precious energy used to freeze the water into ice.)  You aren’t more aware than the rest of us.  You don’t care more than the rest of us.  Let your outrage be directed at more meaningful – and far more essential – water projects.  Besides, isn’t it getting to be about that time for your annual rants on Burning Man?

Update (August 25, 2014):  This viral “fad” has now raised $80M for the ALS Association.  To put that into perspective in all of 2013, the ALS Association had a budget of $24M and in all of 2012, it had a budget of $19.7M.

Pinocchio watches nose grow after telling lie - Disney

The Current Top 3 Lies in America

Pinocchio watches nose grow after telling lie - Disney

There are two classic signs of lying – pants on fire and nose growing.

[this statement is a lie]
Can it be we just passed the half-way point for 2012?  I’m still writing 2011 on my checks!  Nevertheless, we are now closer to 2013 than we are to 2011, the Mayans notwithstanding.  It seems, therefore, appropriate to take stock in the top lies so far this year.

Top Lie #3:
What they say:  That woman is curvy.
What the reality is: That woman is fat.

I’m a writer and words are my stock in trade. I don’t like to see them abused. Oh, I understand the occasional euphemism, we have plenty of them to describe overweight women — big and beautiful, plus-sized, great personality, pretty face, Rubenesque — when what we really mean is fat.  (And for the men, one occasionally hears husky or stocky though these terms seem to be as dated as the gender-neutral “heavyset”.)  So why do I have a problem with obese women now referring to themselves as “curvy”?

Because curvy used to mean something good!  Men love curves on women: breast augmentation is the most popular cosmetic surgery in the United States with over $1 billion spent on it in 2011.  That’s Billion with a capital “B” that stands for “Boob”.  But the curves need be concave, ladies, not convex.

Sure, these self-proclaimed “curvy” women tell us Marilyn Monroe was a size  ____ (fill in the blank with anything from 12-16), therefore justifying their word abuse. However, not only has this urban legend about Marilyn’s dress size been debunked, it doesn’t even pass the stuff-your-face-with-chocolate test.  Do people honestly think that in an era where studios forced diet pills on their stars (like Judy Garland), they would allow their bombshells to get chunky? Do people honestly think that a chunky woman would be the first centerfold in Playboy?

Hugh Hefner and his first Playboy cover: Marilyn Monroe

Methinks Hugh Hefner wouldn’t have place Marilyn Monroe on the inaugural cover of his new magazine that targeted men with its message of the “good life” if she were anything less than a perfect embodiment of male fantasies.

Shall we test our new knowledge?  Below are clips from two films.  See if you can determine to which (if any) the word “curvy” applies.

Jayne Mansfield?  Answer: Curvy!

Divine? Answer: Not curvy!
(Although, we must admit that Ms. Divine does have a pretty face and a great personality.  She is, after all, big and beautiful.)

Top Lie #2:
What they say: There’s no difference between the Republicans and the Continue Reading