While the campaign has been going strong in the UK for a Robin Hood Tax, in Australia people are just starting to talk about it. Luckily, there’s some damn good people who are starting to talk about it. Take for instance, Peter Singer, one of Australia’s leading ethicists, who in this SMH article today says:

For the first time in history we have the ability to eradicate large-scale extreme poverty and the suffering it brings. The question is whether we have the will to do it. Growing support for a global financial transaction tax – known as the Robin Hood Tax – offers an exciting glimmer of hope this really could happen.

That sounds pretty good, but if you think this is still just being advocated by a bunch of people divorced from the real world, think again:

Now 350 economists, including Sachs and the Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz, from more than 35 countries have signed a letter to the leaders of the Group of 20 countries calling on them to impose a tax on financial transactions.

Suddenly the leaders of Europe’s three biggest economies – Angela Merkel of Germany, Nicolas Sarkozy of France and Gordon Brown of Britain – are promoting a financial transaction tax as a way to fulfil commitments to domestic budgets, climate change and international development.

I’ll say again: this is a good idea. I can tell you why financial institutions are balking at this – it runs directly contrary to the “greed is good” mentality they’ve had for decades. It encourages them to warm up their black little hearts and unclench the fists they wrap around other people’s money just enough to do some good. That they hate the idea of it is proof positive enough about how important it is that it gets passed.

 

Still my favourite Apple ad of all time:

 

Regardless of whether you think Google were acting entirely for altruistic reasons in pulling out of China, you have to at least accept that it takes some chutzpah to deliver a very public slap in the face to one of the most dictatorial governments on the planet.

All Things D has some interesting coverage on the pull-out, with the most notable article being the government requirements for reporting on the situation. As you would expect, it reads like a dictatorial manifesto of how people are allowed to think in this situation. People may decry that many western countries have slid more towards 1984′s Big Brother state following 9/11, but China is real proof of what a Big Brother state ultimately looks like.

A few choice excerpts are below.

Regarding forums, blogs and interactive media:

3. All websites please clean up text, images and sound and videos which attack the Party, State, government agencies, Internet policies with the excuse of this event.
4. All websites please clean up text, images and sound and videos which support Google, dedicate flowers to Google, ask Google to stay, cheer for Google and others have a different tune from government policy.

I find the use of “please” in such a directive immensely ironic!

Regarding actual “news”, if you can call such regulated reporting “news”:

4. Do not produce relevant topic pages; do not set discussion sessions; do not conduct related investigative reporting.
5. Online programs with experts and scholars on this matter must apply for permission ahead of time. This type of self-initiated program production is strictly forbidden.

There’s a bunch of other requirements that I’ll let you read yourself.

 

A couple of days ago I introduced a new friend to the joy that is the Kransky Sisters. If you’re not aware of them, here’s one of their songs from a while back that happens to include a haunting saw solo:

As you can imagine from that clip, they’re quirky and they’re kooky, but I think they’re fantastic.

Imagine my surprise when my new friend pointed out that they were coming to a theatre near me – Laycock Street Theatre, April 22. I’ll be there with bells on – well, not literally. I wouldn’t want to disrupt their musical – and entertainment – talents.

If you liked the above, go search for them on YouTube. There’s a tonne of clips, and you have to listen to the stories that preface the songs; they’re hilarious and set the scene for the music.

 

As a follow-up to my previous comments about the overhyped release of a popularity contest, aka Fabulis, I thought I’d document the poor responses I’ve received so far about deleting the account I created on there before I realised just how silly a site it was.

The first response from the site founder, Jason Goldberg, at least looked helpful. Not being able to find any information on their support forums (and seemingly having my query about it not show up in any searches an hour or two after it was made … funny that), I emailed Jason to ask him how I make myself, as you might say, “unfabulis”. I got this response:

Email settings@fabulis.com

Give us some patience please though.  What we’re building is more than just a popularity contest.  Give us some time to show you that.

I replied in email to Jason to explain what I thought they’d done wrong. I did reiterate my dislike for a hyped up popularity contest, but went on to describe what the core of the issue I had was: creating a semblance of severe privacy violations as the default (on top of the shallow popularity contest) was a significant breach of trust:

I think your team have actually also been remarkably short sighted in creating a significant privacy scare for a lot of users by having their profile appear to include all their private information from Facebook. The assurances that “it’s just because you have full access to your Facebook profile therefore you see everything” approach is at best poor security mitigation. I’d suggest that by default Fabulis should have been designed to show the _unprivileged_ view. As someone who works in enterprise IT data protection and security, I can honestly say that setting up the appearance of privacy violations and then doesn’t offer an easy “delete my account” option from within the service pretty much breaks a whole raft of mores in relation to appropriate online behaviour.

I didn’t expect a response to that of course – I understand as the head of a startup and currently voted #1 most fabulis fabbit (their term, not mine), Jason is probably busy.

Their lack of understanding of privacy is quite frankly somewhat appalling, as evidenced by the fact that when I emailed their settings email address I got an automated response, but no further update. A second email today has also received no response at all.

In frustration this morning I tweeted:

Hey what’s not @fabulis? Not being able to opt out once you realise what a sham a site is. #privacy #narcissism #joke

In response I got the following tweet back:

@prestondeguise you can change your settings here.  http://bit.ly/b2Hgqb

However, checking their profile link just gave details for unsubscribing to email alerts – no profile removal at all. Most annoyingly, in order to actually even log back in again, I had to re-allow Fabulis to connect to my Facebook account. Poor form indeed that account management to a service you want to drop requires you to reconnect it to services you’re not happy about it connecting to – even more so given that it’s that connection that has created the breach of trust.

So, since I was actually getting responses in this forum I tweeted back:

. @fabulis Your settings page has no option for account removal. I’m not after a reduction in emails, I’m after account _removal_.

I hoped this might trigger an “OK, we’ve removed your account” style response (if nothing else so they’d shut me up). However, a lame response of:

@prestondeguise you can remove yourself from the list of fabulis gay men today, close your account option will come next.

I have to admit, with a little disgust I fired back:

. @fabulis Seems to me that starting a service without including a “close your account” option out the door was poor judgement.

Since then, no response.

What’s wrong with this? First, it’s grossly inappropriate to start with, by setting up a service where you create the impression of a privacy breach, regardless of whether there is a breach or not. For reasons two through to 100, see the “First” reason. I can’t stress this further.

Perhaps the folks at Fabulis might choose to go read Danah Boyd’s fantastic opening speech at SXSW regarding “Privacy and Publicity”, then they might understand why I think they’ve utterly failed at a core component of generating user trust. In fact, if you think I’m over-reacting, then I’d suggest that you, too, should perhaps consider reading the lecture.

Update – I got this clearly annoyed tweet back from @fabulis this afternoon:

@prestondeguise gimme a break. we’ve had 3 users ask for what u r asking 4 in 1st 48 hours and we’ll enable it within 72 hours of launch.

Hmmm, so I’m the person who’s annoyed about creating an apparent breach of trust on my account, my data and privacy –  and I’m meant to cut them some slack? That doesn’t wash with me. So my response is as follows:

. @fabulis It’s a fundamental part of offering a service. If you’d given timeframe from the start it wouldn’t have been such a #fail.

But it goes more than this. Yes, if they’d have responded saying “OK, we’ll have your account removed within 72 hours”, I might have cut them the slack they’re asking for. But instead I didn’t get any timings, just a “close your account will come next” … how am I meant to interpret next without any clarification? Plenty of online services in a variety of fields talk about what they’re doing next, and that can mean anything from within the next week to the next 2 years. Next is not precise.

Again, the fundamental failure here is setting up a system that creates an apparent breach of trust and privacy, but not from the outset having an option to have users completely delete their accounts.

 

There was much hype over the launch of a new social networking site designed to help gay men connect to other gay men. No, not a dating or ‘hookup’ social networking site, but supposedly a real, honest to goodness “OK let’s see what people can do for each other” sort of site.

Called fabulis, this site got some free pre-launch popularity when some bigots at Citibank arbitrarily closed their account because they didn’t like what they’d blogged about. (Hello banks? Please pull your heads out of your proverbials.)

So, today fabulis launched, and being curious about it I decided to connect and look, hopeful that it would be something interesting, something useful, something new.

Instead it was … an extrovert’s dream. A cluster-wank popularity contest where … surprise surprise, the people with quite handsome profile pictures were highest rated, and surprise surprise, one of the founders of fabulis happened to be #1 as well. What a coincidence!

I don’t like to normally quote TV shows, but I need to channel Nan from the Catherine Tate show here: what a fucking liberty. Come on – if you’re going to offer a broad and diverse group of people a way of networking then make your first offering something better than the overhyped launch of what turns out to be a shallow popularity contest.

Oh, and from the perspective of not giving people a way of deleting their profile that they created before they realised what a shallow service it was: you’re technically and morally inept, to boot.

 

I’m done with Western Digital’s drives. Over the past 5 years I’ve personally purchased at least 10 of their external drives, and have recommended friends or small companies I have involvement with to buy twice as many again. I’ve probably purchased at least 10 or more of their internals as well. So that’s a fair amount of money I’ve spent with them over the years – from a personal perspective.

One of the advantages of Western Digital external drives is that they come with a 3 year warranty. That makes it good, right?

Well, no, not really.

  • Not when you have to send a faulty drive all the way to Singapore from Australia for replacement.
  • Not when you have to spend around $15 to $20 on said postage.
  • Not when you have to wait for weeks for the drive to be processed and to be replaced.
  • Not when you request updates through the official RMA process and get ignored.
  • And the latest: not when you get shipped an alternate replacement drive (due to supply issues), but it’s missing the power adapters for Australia.
  • And not when you send 2 requests to Western Digital to fix the issue and get ignored on both counts.
  • And certainly not when you give up in disgust and go buy an extra market power supply that’ll fit the damn thing.

With no RMA system setup in Australia, I’ve thus far spent over $100 in postage and most recently self-funded power supplies for drives still in warranty. All because there’s no-where local that I can drop the failed units in at, and come pick them up when they’re ready. Australia has a population of 21 million, but apparently we’re not worth pissing on in the eyes of Western Digital in terms of support and warranty services.

So, screw you Western Digital. You’ve lost a customer. And I hope others read this and you lose a few more too.

 

“Frankly my dear, I don’t give a damn” are the immortal words from Gone with the Wind (a movie I’ve never seen, and I’m unlikely to see).

I’m tired of all the hate out there – Israel and Palestine are forever at each other’s throats, country X hates country Y, and fundamentalists of all persuasions want to bend everyone else to their will. Some want to do it with fake love, some want to do it with bombs – the end result is all the same: there is too much hate in the world.

There are many races on this world, but those races aren’t the English, the Americans, the French, the Iraqis, etc. They’re not even caucasians, negroes, asians, etc. We are one race – the human race. Then there’s dogs and cats and primates and dolphins and fish and sharks and crocodiles and birds and …

The self obsessed attitude of some humans to think that they have a birthright for either controlling others or controlling the world is sick. We are not the rulers of the world – as the (supposedly) highest intelligence on the planet we’re the custodians, and that means we’re obligated to look after the world and all its inhabitants. We can’t do that while we’re squabbling over petty hatreds, no matter how long they’ve been running for.

During primary school I had a vicious, mean brute of teacher who used to pick children up and shake the shit out of them in fits of rage when she decided they’d been too naughty. I was on the receiving end of that rage on a few occasions; sometimes it was for a good reason, and sometimes I was either in the wrong place at the wrong time, or that she just didn’t give a shit who was in the wrong and who was in the right, she was just going to shake both sides.

While I still think she was a nasty and bitter failure of a teacher who had no right to do what she did, these days when I think back about her and when I look at all the conflict, I see one thing in what she did that I agree with: sometimes the conflict gets so annoying that I just want to pick up both sides of it and shake them until they grow a brain. Unfortunately giving in to this makes us no better than those we are attempting to convince to grow up.

Honestly, are people that dumb that they still are incapable of resolving things through peaceful discussion and mutual sacrifice? Have we learned nothing in all these centuries of supposed “civilisation”? Some will argue “there are things worth fighting for”, but that ultimately leads to “things worth dying for”, and that ultimately leads to “things worth making other people die for”; ultimately none of these are either productive or moral.

You know what’s worth dying for? Old age.

Everything else is worth peaceful, intelligent discussions based on mutual respect and cooperation.

 

Heading to New Zealand again in April. Looking forward to catching up with the folks from IDATA in Auckland, as well as the Wellington team that’ll be flying up for the event.

I’m also looking forward to spending an evening at Little Mexico, another evening at Pastis, not to mention a lunch and a dinner at a fantastic and cheap Korean restaurant at the high end of Queen street.

If you head to Auckland yourself, make sure you visit Little Mexico and Pastis – if you don’t, you’ll be doing yourself a grave disservice!

 

The Sydney Morning Herald today reported that LG has found themselves in some hot water over dodgy practices for certification of green credentials for their refrigerators. In fact, I’d say that the water is well over hot, and edging towards scalding. Quoting the article (since eventually the link will probably disappear):

AN ELECTRONICS manufacturer with a history of making false environmental claims has been caught doctoring fridges to make them appear more energy efficient.

LG Electronics has agreed to compensate potentially thousands of consumers after two of its fridges – models L197NFS and P197WFS – were found to contain an illegal device that activates an energy-saving mode when it detects room conditions similar to those in a test laboratory.

The so-called circumvention device was discovered last month by consumer advocacy group Choice.

The device detects test conditions and activates the mode, creating the impression of lower running costs and energy usage. The devices have been banned in Australia since 2007.

(Sydney Morning Herald, 17 March 2010, Melissa Singer.)

After describing this incident in detail, Melissa Singer went on to add:

LG Electronics has agreed to pay affected customers $331 to cover the unexpected increase in their power bills, but has not agreed to refund the purchase price of the fridge.

It is the third time LG Electronics has been caught making false claims about its products’ environmental credentials.

In 2008, it had to repay $3 million after the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission ruled it had inflated the energy efficiency rating of five models of air-conditioner.

As someone who works in IT, this reinforces what I constantly say: third party/independent auditing is a must to verify that claims and guarantees offered by vendors and service providers actually stack up. And those who are shown to be blatantly lying must be punished.

As a consumer, I find LG’s tactics disgusting. Rebranded from Gold Star to LG in 1995, LG has remained a brand synonymous with “cheap and cheerful”. It has a lot of popularity in a lot of circles, but personally whenever I see LG I remember the vile and dodgy little TV I had in the late 80′s/early 90′s with the cheery “GoldStar” badge on it.

Not so cheap on the environment. Not so cheap for consumers. Definitely not that cheerful.

LG deserve all the bad press they get from this.

© 2012 unsane Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha