Obligatory Top-10 Tech Predictions for 2013

I did this last year, so rather than shatter any expectations of readers, I will be sharing my technical prescience once again. Of course, all of them came true last year ¹, so here goes:

1. Despite Google's best efforts, users still won't realise that Google Hangouts has a social network attached.
2. Apple will lose its way, so will its users - thanks Apple maps.
3. Windows 8 will fail to revive the glory days of Windows ME.
4. More and more services will move into the cloud, mainly thanks to cloud based companies continuing to expand the definition of what cloud based services actually are.
5. Malware writers will increasingly target web exploits to avoid the hassle of writing for multiple platforms. Software companies will just complain about having to write for multiple platforms. HTML5 will continue to be largely ignored.
6. Facebook will continue to suck, users will continue to complain about it. Facebook will still have eleventy billion members.
7. Tweets will become the number one source for mainstream news organisations. Mainstream news organisations will publish at least one "twitter is stupid" article per month for "balance".
8. Android will continue to grow despite the sucky API and the need to develop for multiple platforms. Apple will continue to grow despite its command economy for apps.
9. There will be enormous buzz in the tech community over a true Linux-based smartphone OS. Lots of buzz. It'll be so slashdottingly buzzworthy that no-one will notice that it hasn't been released nor does it have any support from any major hardware vendor.
10. 2013 will be the year of the Linux desktop.

So there you have it 2013.

-----------------
¹ Disclaimer: This post and any prior "predictions" posts may contain harmful levels of hyperbole and exaggeration.

Optus v NRL: Copyright's Dark Clouds

The Full Bench of the Federal Court recently handed down its decision in the ongoing Optus TV Now case (National Rugby League Investments Pty Limited v Singtel Optus Pty Ltd [2012] FCAFC 59). The Full Bench overturned the findings of Rares, J in the Federal Court and their conclusions in this appeal will have serious implications for cloud computing in Australia.

In this post, I will only be examining one of the issues that were examined by the court - the issue of who "makes" a recording.

In Singtel Optus Pty Ltd v National Rugby League Investments Pty Ltd (No 2) [2012] FCA 34, Rares, J found that the subscriber to the TV Now Service was the principal who "made" the recording. This is important because it releases Optus from liability for primary infringement and brings the subscriber under the protections of s111 of the Copyright Act (1968) which allows the "Recording [of] broadcasts for replaying at more convenient time".

According to Rares,J at [63]:

"the user of the TV Now service makes each of the films in the four formats when he or she clicks on the “record” button on the TV Now electronic program guide. This is because the user is solely responsible for the creation of those films. He or she decides whether or not to make the films and only he or she has the means of being able to view them [...] The service that TV Now offers the user is substantively no different from a VCR or DVR."

At [65]:

"[...] The legislative materials do not support the rightholders’ argument that, in effect, the user could only utilise technology or equipment with which he or she had some greater connection than the “record” button on the TV Now electronic program guide"

Rares, J approached the TV Now services as an analogue for already existent non-infringing technologies and recognised that the exception in s111 was to allow for technological advances, arguing at [77] that: 

"The value of the exception created by the Parliament, that is designed to give greater flexibility to individuals so as to take advantage of technological advances, would be seriously eroded if a service provider, who has structured a service as carefully as TV Now, had to lead evidence about each user’s individual purpose on each occasion of use"

These arguments were rejected by the Full Bench and their findings, if brought to their logical conclusion, would erode the usefulness of s111 to encourage technological advances.

At [58] the Full Bench placed the emphasis on the producing of the "physical thing" (ie. the recording), rather than the actions that caused the "thing" to be made.  This, by definition placed greater emphasis on the service provider rather than the subscriber as a "maker", rejecting Rares,J's argument that the user did not need a "...greater connection than the record button..." (Singtel Optus Pty Ltd v National Rugby League Investments Pty Ltd (No 2)[2012] FCA 34 at [65].)

The Full Bench stated at [59]:

"We merely note here that a subscriber’s clicking on a button labelled “record” may trigger a sequence of actions which result in copies of a selected programme being made, but it does not necessarily follow that the subscriber alone makes that copy."

Furthermore, the Full Bench rejected the analogy with already existent technologies stating that the "TV Now" system performs the functions of the Optus-subscriber relationship (albeit automated), not just the recording function, and stated at [64] that:

"is not apparent to us why a person who designs and operates a wholly automated copying system ought as of course not be treated as a “maker” of an infringing copy where the system itself is configured designedly so as to respond to a third party command to make that copy"

If this argument is brought to its logical conclusion, it would be extremely difficult for a cloud service provider with which an individual had a contractual relationship to allow their service to be used by that individual to make a recoding of copyrighted material. If they did, the service provider is likely to be the "maker" as it was in this case.

This argument pushes many different automated subscriber cloud-based services outside of the s111 exception. This ultimately erodes the utility of the exception in s111 and ultimately ties it to physical devices over which a user has possession and control and excludes any cloud-based subscription service which enables a user to use that cloud service to make a recording of copyrighted material.

The emergence of cloud-based services that allow access to recorded digital content, such as TiVo (EDIT: although this is not strictly a cloud based service, the problem comes from the mediation of commands by TIVO from the user to the device [thanks to @neatest for pointing this out]), are now under considerable threat from copyright holders and the danger is that investment in these innovative technologies will be stalled in Australia.

As has been pointed out repeatedly, hindering access to content is a major driver of copyright infringement. However, rightsholders have been extremely reluctant to engage with technology to enable that access, preferring to hinder technological advancement by litigation (and where that fails, legislation).

Technology companies have become extremely frustrated with the content industries, stating that they may as well be "talking to a brick wall". Content industries themselves seem to be content to rely on ever more draconian copyright laws to protect their ailing business models.

While unfilled consumer demand remains and consumer behaviour continues to change in response to technology, infringement will continue. Parliament must recognise that the law must adapt to these changes in consumer behaviour and to some degree accommodate those changes (while still protecting the interests of copyright holders). As Rares, J pointed out in his FCA opinion at [74], s111 was constructed to do exactly that. 

However, the interpretation of s111 by the Full Bench has eroded its usefulness and their construction of the section is backwards-looking, legalising old technologies while ignoring the new. Unless this construction is re-examined and widened in the inevitable appeal to the High Court, parliament must expand s111 to reflect the realities of modern consumer behaviour. If it does not, investment in new legal technologies that advantage both technology and rightsholder companies will stall. The inevitable result is more infringement and that benefits no-one.

Obligatory top-10 tech predictions for 2012

I think there's some rule that if you're involved in technology, you have to predict stuff for the next year.

It beats me why, because everyone always seems to get them wrong - maybe the tech press wants a piece the kudos given to economists for making predictions which inevitably turn out to be incorrect.

Anyhow here's mine:

1. Apple will release another iThingy. Hipsters will buy it, regardless of the fact that it's only an incremental release on the previous iThingy. It's times like this I wish I had a Newton - so I could say: "I was using tablets before they were cool. Or even worked properly".
2. Android will continue to inexplicably gain market share, despite still not being able to crack the lucrative hipster market. Apple will continue to sue any android devices that look like they might - and lose. Hipsters will continue to prefer iThingys.
3. Windows Phone will continue to languish mainly because it's about as un-hipster as you can get.
4. Google Plus will continue to grow despite no-one actually admitting to using it. The tech pundits will continue to pronounce its failure until the first mainstream media outlet proclaims it as the new tool of choice for cyberbullying/cyberstalking/farmville and demand "something be done about it". After this, Google Plus will be a real alternative to Facebook.
5. Facebook growth will continue to slow. Pundits will continue to proclaim the death of Facebook. Facebook will still have eleventy billion members.
6. Diaspora will continue to be cool despite no-one actually admitting to using it, or indeed knowing what it is. 
7. Twitter will continue to grow in proportion to those that complain about it.
8. Rightholders will continue to push for more draconian copyright laws. Consumers will get better at using encryption.
9. The State will continue to try to crack down on <insert internet evil here> by proposing even more draconian laws. Citizens will get better at using encryption.
10. 2012 will be the year of the Linux desktop :)

There you have it - 2012, the year that tech will continue doing pretty much what it's done since 2006.

Anonymity, pseudonymity and Google+:an idea to enhance privacy

I've been playing  with Google's new Google+ social network and on the whole I've been impressed. The network seems to combine the best aspects of Twitter and Facebook with a relatively easy to understand privacy model based on "circles". This model is meant to be an analogue of people's offline circles.

However, Google has decided that all profiles must be based on the person's real name which I believe breaks this analogue between online and offline circles and undermines some of the great "open-yet-private" model of Google+

Everyone has different personas depending on which circle they are currently interacting with, their work persona, social persona, family persona, etc. These personas are conveyed by verbal and physical cues when interacting with each persona. These cues cannot be easily replicated online because of the medium. People use pseudonyms to get around this problem, these pseudonyms are often linked to their real persona, but sometimes not. This is a fundamental difference between psudonymity and anonymity.

I use a pseudonym to interact on this blog and on twitter because this is the persona that I want to project to the internet. I interact with people using this persona and although with any quick searching someone could link my real name with my handle, it allows me to use a pseudonymous persona when acting as a public person on the internet. Conversely, my "private" persona, the one linked to my real name, is used to interact with people I know on a personal level.

Google+ conveniently has a privacy system that encourages the adding of people that you might interact with on the internet - not just those who you might know. This means that you're encouraged to add those that you have only ever interacted with pseudonymously which means they are now interacting with you under your real name - even though you have built your relationships under the pseudonym.

There may be many reasons why someone would like to keep those personas separate. For example, I don't want my real name to be searchable on the internet, but I'm happy enough to be found by people searching for my pseudonym - as it's public anyway.

I figure that the reason why Google is enforcing the "real name" policy is all about Search - more specifically providing customisable search results and also providing "endorsements" of results via the user's social relationships (ie. <name> shared this link in Google+ or <name> +1'd this). However, to people who have interacted with me via my pseudonym would find an endorsement by Czaxx more compelling than one by my real name (although the converse would be true for those in my "family" circle). Google+ would be enhanced if users could choose the persona - either real name or pseudonym - that interacts with which circle. For example, my Family circle would see my real name, but my Twitter circle would see my pseudonym - as would members of the public when seeing my +1's or my comments on public posts. Members of the public looking at endorsements by my pseudonym could then search for my other public posts, if they were so inclined (not that I'd expect anyone would care), to see if that endorsement is worth anything  (since a search for my real name would yield very little).

To allow the ability to choose which persona to use to interact with each circle would still fulfill Google's business goals for personalised search and it would also allow another layer of privacy and utility for Google+'s users.

Apple and the copyright maximalist cause

Apple Inc. has recently filed for a patent for a system to prevent people from filming events  such as concerts and sporting events. Although this patent does not describe any systems that are implemented in any Apple products, it does point to Apple responding to the concerns of the copyright maximalists in the content industry, most likely in an attempt to secure favourable licensing terms.

Apple has always been a company that has kept tight rein on the use of its hardware/software and has been zealous in its defence of its own intellectual property, so it is unsurprising that it would take this position. However, the ubiquity of its iTunes as a content distribution service makes receiving preferential licensing treatment in return for acquiescing to the content industries' ideology a potential further constraint to the online content distribution channel. In fact, it has the potential to set Apple up as a monopoly provider of content.

The content industries essentially left the online content distribution business when they pursued their litigation against Napster (and their subsequent litigation-as-a-business-model) and Apple has filled this gap with the iTunes store.

iTunes has been the most ubiquitous  model for online content delivery (with some oblique competition from Amazon and a johnny-come-lately from Google) and has an effective monopoly on legal content distribution. The filing of this patent indicates that Apple is prepared to further ingratiate itself with big content to secure its monopoly over content distribution. The danger of this is that as content producers effectively lobby governments and have quisling technology companies prepared to acquiesce to their particular brand of copyright maximalism, the nascent disruptive forces of content distribution over internet will be stymied.

The lobbying of governments is enhanced by tame technology companies providing a "model" system for legal content distribution, even though this "model" system might be utlimately mandated by preferential agreements struck between content producers and those distributors that are prepared to toe the ideological line. All of this will come not just at the expense of consumers, but at the expense of amateur creativity and the unique documenting of cultural events by amateur recordings.

Apple has signaled its intentions. So although they make shiny, shiny things, Apple is not your friend. Through its near-monopoly iTunes store and cosying up to the copyright maximalists it represents a threat to creativity on the web, albeit wrapped in shiny packaging with an 'i' in front of its name.

Constructing strong and memorable passwords

The recent Sony PlayStation Network (PSN) hack has revealed that weak passwords are still all the rage with classics such as "password", "123456" and bizarrely "Seinfeld" (considering PSN was launched in 2006, well after the final show in 1998) making up the top passwords selected for access to the PSN.

It's an age-old problem of computer security that no matter how secure the system, users will always be the weakest link - and that weakness is often expressed in password choice. Most users will excuse weak passwords or the re-use of passwords by arguing that "its impossible to remember", which is true if you expect that they'll remember a random collection of numbers and letters. The best way to construct a strong password is by the use of memes - and if you make your memes fun then people will use them to construct their own passwords.

An article in the Fairfax press suggests choosing a nursery rhyme (or other memorable phrase), taking the first letters of each word and substituting some for numbers and symbols will form the basis of a strong password which you can then customise for each service by adding a letter, such as 'F' for Facebook. Although this is a good method it still doesn't pass the memorable test because the nursery rhyme or whatever is not associated with the service. Also adding the letters to designate which service makes the password guessable if one is compromised (a fact the article acknowledges).

A method that I have suggested to people which tends to be effective is to choose a song that they can associate with the service and follow the method suggested in the article. This makes the password memorable and creates vastly different passwords for each service. A few examples that came out of this excercise were a favourite ABBA song for a NAB internet banking password (NAB sounds like ABBA apparently), Please, Mr Postman by the Beatles for a mail service and Taking it Easy by the Eagles for eBay (Taking it eBay, possibly?!). Regardless of the memes used (or their taste in music), each of these elements were memorable to the person making the password. From there it is a simple matter of constructing it along the lines outlined in the article (although I also suggest a consistent substitution scheme for example the first substitution is always a symbol).

So for example, if you chose U2's "I still haven't found what I'm looking for" for your Google services:
IsHfwILF goes to 1sHfw1LF and if your service allows symbols: !sHfw1LF, which isn't a bad password even though the attempt at irony in the song selection is terrible.