Economists have long understood the corollary concept of Coase's ceiling, a point above which organizations collapse under their own weight -- where hiring someone, however competent, means more work for everyone else than the new hire contributes. Software projects often bump their heads against Coase's ceiling: recall Frederick P. Brooks Jr.'s seminal study, The Mythical Man-Month (Addison-Wesley, 1975), which showed how adding another person onto a project can slow progress and increase errors.

What's new is something consultant and social technologist Clay Shirky calls "Coase's Floor," below which we find projects and activities that aren't worth their organizational costs -- things so esoteric, so frivolous, so nonsensical, or just so thoroughly unimportant that no organization, large or small, would ever bother with them. Things that you shake your head at when you see them and think, "That's ridiculous."

Sounds a lot like the Internet, doesn't it? And that's precisely Shirky's point. His new book, Here Comes Everybody: The Power of Organizing Without Organizations, explores a world where organizational costs are close to zero and where ad hoc, loosely connected groups of unpaid amateurs can create an encyclopedia larger than the Britannica and a computer operating system to challenge Microsoft's.

Shirky teaches at New York University's Interactive Telecommunications Program, but this is no academic book. Sacrificing rigor for readability, Here Comes Everybody is an entertaining as well as informative romp through some of the Internet's signal moments -- the Howard Dean phenomenon, Belarusian protests organized on LiveJournal, the lost cellphone of a woman named Ivanna, Meetup.com, flash mobs, Twitter, and more -- which Shirky uses to illustrate his points.

The book is filled with bits of insight and common sense, explaining why young people take better advantage of social tools, how the Internet affects social change, and how most Internet discourse falls somewhere between dinnertime conversation and publishing.

Shirky notes that "most user-generated content isn't 'content' at all, in the sense of being created for general consumption, any more than a phone call between you and a sibling is 'family-generated content.' Most of what gets created on any given day is just the ordinary stuff of life -- gossip, little updates, thinking out loud -- but now it's done in the same medium as professionally produced material. Unlike professionally produced material, however, Internet content can be organized after the fact."

No one coordinates Flickr's 6 million to 8 million users. Yet Flickr had the first photos from the 2005 London Transport bombings, beating the traditional news media. Why? People with cellphone cameras uploaded their photos to Flickr. They coordinated themselves using tools that Flickr provides. This is the sort of impromptu organization the Internet is ideally suited for. Shirky explains how these moments are harbingers of a future that can self-organize without formal hierarchies.

These nonorganizations allow for contributions from a wider group of people. A newspaper has to pay someone to take photos; it can't be bothered to hire someone to stand around London underground stations waiting for a major event. Similarly, Microsoft has to pay a programmer full time, and Encyclopedia Britannica has to pay someone to write articles. But Flickr can make use of a person with just one photo to contribute, Linux can harness the work of a programmer with little time, and Wikipedia benefits if someone corrects just a single typo. These aggregations of millions of actions that were previously below the Coasean floor have enormous potential.

But a flash mob is still a mob. In a world where the Coasean floor is at ground level, all sorts of organizations appear, including ones you might not like: violent political organizations, hate groups, Holocaust deniers, and so on. (Shirky's discussion of teen anorexia support groups makes for very disturbing reading.) This has considerable implications for security, both online and off.

We never realized how much our security could be attributed to distance and inconvenience -- how difficult it is to recruit, organize, coordinate, and communicate without formal organizations. That inadvertent measure of security is now gone. Bad guys, from hacker groups to terrorist groups, will use the same ad hoc organizational technologies that the rest of us do. And while there has been some success in closing down individual Web pages, discussion groups, and blogs, these are just stopgap measures.

In the end, a virtual community is still a community, and it needs to be treated as such. And just as the best way to keep a neighborhood safe is for a policeman to walk around it, the best way to keep a virtual community safe is to have a virtual police presence.

Crime isn't the only danger; there is also isolation. If people can segregate themselves in ever-increasingly specialized groups, then they're less likely to be exposed to alternative ideas. We see a mild form of this in the current political trend of rival political parties having their own news sources, their own narratives, and their own facts. Increased radicalization is another danger lurking below the Coasean floor.

There's no going back, though. We've all figured out that the Internet makes freedom of speech a much harder right to take away. As Shirky demonstrates, Web 2.0 is having the same effect on freedom of assembly. The consequences of this won't be fully seen for years.

Here Comes Everybody covers some of the same ground as Yochai Benkler's Wealth of Networks. But when I had to explain to one of my corporate attorneys how the Internet has changed the nature of public discourse, Shirky's book is the one I recommended.

This essay previously appeared in IEEE Spectrum.

The German is Datenkrake, which has a bad connotation to it, like sucking in everything it can get.

Richard Stallman - the man that gave us GNU - doesn’t trust Cloud providers with his data and says you shouldn’t either.  Richard believes we should store our private data on our own computers using ‘free’ (as in freedom) software.  The ironic part for Richard is that a significant portion of the Cloud is powered by open source software which he indirectly created (think gcc).

Richard sees it as a question of control.  Control is important but it isn’t the only variable.  Rather, I see it as a question of control, competence and economics.

The quick rebuttal to Richards’ view is this: the average computer user is not as smart as you.  Control is not the same as competence.  Control is about exercising choice, not about requiring everyone in the world to develop sufficient skills to protect complex hardware and software systems (aka their computer) against ever increasing threats.

My view is that privacy is not ‘free’.  It comes at a cost.  Whether you run your own systems or rely on someone else to do it, there is a cost.  There is cost in designing and implementing mechanisms to support privacy.  Beyond upfront costs there are ongoing expenditures to ensure privacy is maintained e.g. maintaining access control lists, testing and applying security patches, data leakage prevention etc.  None of these things are ‘free’.

If we agree that privacy costs money then how much is your privacy worth?

Stop for a second - think of a number…  

Now did we all think of the same number?

The problem with a one size fits all approach to privacy is that we each place a different value on it.

Checking in on the EPIC site, I saw this:  

A new report from Pew Internet and American Life Project indicates that “cloud computing” applications, such as web-based email and other web apps, are raising new privacy concerns. The report Use of Cloud Computing: Applications and Services found that 69% of online Americans use webmail services, store data online, or use software programs such as word processing applications whose functionality is located on the web. At the same time, “users report high levels of concern when presented with scenarios in which companies may put their data to uses of which they may not be aware.” For example, 90% of respondents said that they “would be very concerned if the company at which their data were stored sold it to another party,” 80% say “they would be very concerned if companies used their photos or other data in marketing campaigns,” and 68% of “users of at least one of the six cloud applications say they would be very concerned if companies who provided these services analyzed their information and then displayed ads to them based on their actions.”

What does that tell us?

The average (American) Internet user finds Cloud services convenient but has concerns about how their privacy might be affected by Cloud providers actions (duh!).  The survey identifies a lack of awareness in how private data is used in some consumer based Cloud services (consistent with web advertising awareness surveys).  

Unfortunately, the results of this survey are not very actionable.  The survey doesn’t mention whether these are all ‘free’ Cloud services (we can only assume they are) or ask the respondents what their expectations of privacy are and how much they would be willing to pay for different privacy assurance levels. 

On a sidenote, respondents were not asked if they had actually read the privacy agreement for the services they signed up to.  But the providers know if they did or not…  Or at least, they have the data to figure it out.  At sign up time they can measure the time between displaying the privacy agreement and the user clicking ‘I accept’.  If its just a few seconds then its pretty obvious there was more scrolling than reading going on.  But I think we can probably guess the answer without the data ;-).

I believe we need to be able to link expectation of privacy with cost.

• How much are you willing to pay for privacy?  What level of privacy assurance do you need?
• How much is your Cloud Provider paying to protect your privacy today?  What privacy services could they reasonably offer if they had customers willing to pay?  How might this compare with how you manage your private data on your home computer today?

The cynical view is that we expect privacy but don’t want to pay for it.  Its a bit like uptime - there is a parallel universe out there, where internal IT departments allegedly meet their 99.999% uptime SLAs, but when Gmail goes down, the Sergey Brin witchcraft dolls come out.

From a provider perspective, the “cost” of privacy invariably gets bundled under that line item called ‘Information Security’.  And don’t be fooled, the cost of privacy in reality is more than the salary of the person employed to be the privacy advocate (if there is one).  If we can’t see how much our providers are spending on our privacy then how can we judge if they are spending enough?  And what is enough?  And what can I get if I’m willing to pay a little extra?

Personally, I would rather we get some transparency around privacy costs and assessment of offerings.  However, without a sufficiently sized market of customers willing to pay for privacy assurance and Cloud Providers willing to be more open, I won’t hold my breath.

What about you?  Would you be prepared to pay for privacy?  Should providers be more transparent about what they do and don’t do and how they do it?
 
 

If you have ever wondered how security guards can possibly keep an unfailingly vigilant watch on every single one of dozens of television monitors, each depicting a different scene, the answer seems to be (as you suspected): they can't.

Instead, they can now rely on computers to constantly analyze the patterns, sizes, speeds, angles and motion picked up by the camera and determine -- based on how they have been programmed -- whether this constitutes a possible threat. In which case, the computer alerts the security guard whose own eyes may have been momentarily diverted. Or shut.

An alarm can be raised, for instance, if the computer discerns a vehicle that has been standing still for too long (say, a van in the drop-off lane of an airport terminal) or a person who is loitering while everyone else is in motion. By the same token, it will spot the individual who is moving rapidly while everyone else is shuffling along. It can spot a package that has been left behind and identify which figure in the crowd abandoned it. Or pinpoint the individual who is moving the wrong way down a one-way corridor.

Because one person's "abnormal situation" is another person's "hot dog vendor attracting a small crowd," the computers can be programmed to discern between times of the day and days of the week.

Certainly interesting.

A United Nations agency is quietly drafting technical standards, proposed by the Chinese government, to define methods of tracing the original source of Internet communications and potentially curbing the ability of users to remain anonymous.

The U.S. National Security Agency is also participating in the "IP Traceback" drafting group, named Q6/17, which is meeting next week in Geneva to work on the traceback proposal. Members of Q6/17 have declined to release key documents, and meetings are closed to the public.

[...]

A second, apparently leaked ITU document offers surveillance and monitoring justifications that seem well-suited to repressive regimes:

A political opponent to a government publishes articles putting the government in an unfavorable light. The government, having a law against any opposition, tries to identify the source of the negative articles but the articles having been published via a proxy server, is unable to do so protecting the anonymity of the author.

This is being sold as a way to go after the bad guys, but it won't help. Here's Steve Bellovin on that issue:

First, very few attacks these days use spoofed source addresses; the real IP address already tells you where the attack is coming from. Second, in case of a DDoS attack, there are too many sources; you can't do anything with the information. Third, the machine attacking you is almost certainly someone else's hacked machine and tracking them down (and getting them to clean it up) is itself time-consuming.

TraceBack is most useful in monitoring the activities of large masses of people. But of course, that's why the Chinese and the NSA are so interested in this proposal in the first place.

It's hard to figure out what the endgame is; the U.N. doesn't have the authority to impose Internet standards on anyone. In any case, this idea is counter to the U.N. Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 19: "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers." In the U.S., it's counter to the First Amendment, which has long permitted anonymous speech. On the other hand, basic human and constitutional rights have been jettisoned left and right in the years after 9/11; why should this be any different?

But when the Chinese government and the NSA get together to enhance their ability to spy on the world, you have to wonder what's gone wrong with the world.

Espin references Joe Sharkey's excellent column on in-flight calling in Sunday's New York Times: Sharkey, a veteran travel writer, who survived a mid-air collision over the Brazilian Amazon a few years ago, looks at varying attitudes about calls made during flights. He quotes Aircell's Jack Blumenstein saying what I've telling folks for months: Aircell has a lot of techniques to block VoIP calls already, and "as we identify new ways that people are trying to do voice calls on the airplane, we just kind of zero in and knock those off." Many geeks have assumed Aircell is a bunch of unsavvy folks who wouldn't be able to figure out how to disrupt their clever workarounds for making VoIP. (I keep noting that introducing jitter for suspicious data connections wouldn't disrupt legitimate applications, but would destroy VoIP call quality.)