IN FEBRUARY 1928 the Supreme Court heard the case of Roy Olmstead, whose conviction on bootlegging charges relied on evidence obtained by tapping his phones.
The ECPA could also do with a thorough scouring. When it became law there were only 340,000 mobile-phone subscribers in America, and the internet was the province of hobbyists and academics. Distinctions that made sense then no longer do. E-mail is subject to differing sets of protections when it is being typed, sent and stored. A bank statement printed out and kept in a drawer, saved on a personal computer or stored in a private e-mail account is also subject to varying standards.
Metadata (the records of who people call and e-mail, and when, as distinct from the content of conversations) can now be amassed on a vast scale, and run through powerful software that can use it to create a fairly complete portrait of a person’s life and habits—often far more complete than just a few recorded conversations. It deserves more protection than it now receives. And citizens, especially those suspected of no crime whose data is gathered up in a dragnet, deserve more clarity on what law enforcement does with their data and how long they keep it. Even with the best of intentions, the ECPA is almost impossible to apply consistently or fairly. Such murkiness serves no one well.
TED Talks As web companies strive to tailor their services (including news and search results) to our personal tastes, there's a dangerous unintended consequence: We get trapped in a "filter bubble" and don't get exposed to information that could...
Ideally, if you stop anyone at a company and ask them “at what rate do you value your time right now?” they should respond with a number. Determining that number is really hard; I am still quite poor at estimating my hourly value. But if you don’t have an estimate–no matter how rough–you don’t even have a framework within which to make decisions. You’re living your life by your gut rather than thinking analytically about how you spend your time. People with a number are Billy Beane; those without are Jim Hendry.
The World Bank is the largest single source of development knowledge. The World Bank Open Knowledge Repository (OKR) is The World Bank’s official open access repository for its research outputs and knowledge products.
Through the OKR, The World Bank collects, disseminates, and permanently preserves its intellectual output in digital form. The OKR is interoperable with other repositories and supports optimal discoverability and re-usability of the content by complying with Dublin Core Metadata Initiative (DCMI) standards and the Open Archives Initiative Protocol for Metadata Harvesting (OAI-PMH).
Upon launch in April 2012, the OKR contains research from thousands of works including:
World Bank published books from 2009-2012 which includes flagship publications, academic books and practitioner volumes;
All World Development Reports (WDRs) since 1978; Policy Research Working Papers (PRWP) from 2009-2012, a series of papers that disseminate findings of work in progress in order to encourage the exchange of ideas about development issues;
Economic and Sector Work (ESW) studies from 2009-2012, a series of analytical reports prepared by Bank staff. ESWs gather and evaluate information about a country’s economy and/or a specific sector;
Journal articles from 2007-2010 published in World Bank Economic Review (WBER) and World Bank Research Observer (WBRO), two journals published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the World Bank;
Content in languages other than English;
World Bank Group Annual Reports and Independent Evaluation Studies.
The OKR will be updated regularly as new research outputs and knowledge products are released for publication. New content will include:
Content published prior to 2009 (and prior to 2007 in the case of the WBER and the WBRO);
Bank-authored content published by third party publishers including journal articles, books and chapters;
Links to datasets associated with a specific work; Other knowledge products published by the World Bank.
Social networks seemed poised to take over the Web. This year, Facebook reached 800 million users. LinkedIn went public in a blockbuster stock offering. Twitter produced a billion tweets per week.
The fundamental stumbling block of the social Web to date is that it has conflated social graphs with interest graphs. But in reality, who you know does not always translate into what you will like.
So far, the job of mapping users' social graphs has been taken up by social networking sites like Facebook and LinkedIn. Meanwhile, interest graphs have been best built by e-commerce sites such as Netflix and Amazon that focus on highly customized recommendations.
The future of a truly social Web will rely on getting these two types of graphs to work together. We are just starting to see some interesting attempts at this:
Social circles: On Google+, users explicitly place each member of their social graph into one or more "circles" based on common interests and the type of content they want to share with them. In response, Facebook has just re-launched its own feature to manage social circles. Feed lists: Twitter's lists feature allows users to create sublists of people and brands to follow based on different topics (e.g. news headlines, favorite celebrities, fellow sports fanatics, or authors you admire). Single-purpose graphs: Niche services aim to map out just one particular circle of shared interest, such as micro-social-network Path (for mapping your 50 closest friends), or social music site Turntable.fm (for sharing playlists with likeminded music lovers).
"Algorithms can help, but more fundamentally, we need to figure out what we want a diverse pool of information to look like."
Jonathan Stray gives interesting ideas on niemanlab.org on how to avoid the filter bubble, among which curation. "Editors still command attention" he reminds us. And he adds: "Editors could become curators, cultivating the best work from both inside and outside the newsroom."also pointing out that we prefer to rely on people instead of machines.
Computers are near-omnipotent cauldrons of processing power, but they're also stupid. They are the undisputed chess champions of the world, but they can't understand a simple English conversation. IBM’s Watson supercomputer defeated two top Jeopardy!
But we will not see computers acquire minds anytime soon, and in the meantime we will end up accommodating the formalist methodologies of computer algorithms. The problem is one of ambiguity as much as nonneutrality. A reductive ontology of the world emerges, containing aspects both obvious and dubious. Search engines crawl Wikipedia and Amazon, Facebook tries to create their own set of inferred metadata, the categories propagate, and so more of the world is shoehorned into an ontology reflecting ad hoc biases and received ideas, much as the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica just happens to have become one of the most-read sources on the planet in the past decade. These problems do not arise from malicious intent, but from expediency and happenstance.
There is good news and bad news. The good news is that, because computers cannot and will not “understand” us the way we understand each other, they will not be able to take over the world and enslave us (at least not for a while). The bad news is that, because computers cannot come to us and meet us in our world, we must continue to adjust our world and bring ourselves to them. We will define and regiment our lives, including our social lives and our perceptions of our selves, in ways that are conducive to what a computer can “understand.” Their dumbness will become ours.
Our mission is to build tools that help companies keep users happy and engaged.
Understand Your Users
Don't just guess at what your users are doing across different channels. Collect data, and let Sailthru turn that data into actionable wisdom!
You wouldn't send the same birthday card to a million people, would you? Understanding individual user behavior lets you personalize both your product and how you communicate with your users.
At our core, we believe that relevant, personalized communication is at the very foundation of good brand building. Relevance builds trust. Trust begets long-lasting relationships. Long lasting relationships provide higher ROI. Up to 211% increases in ROI for some of our clients, in fact.
Today, over 225 leading publisher and e-commerce brands, from Business Insider and AOL/Huffington Post to Open Sky, Thrillist, and Fab.com, leverage our solutions to extend their subscribers' lifetime engagement, increase their page views and drive more clicks on their content, products, and advertisements ... by as much as 2-8x.
A users's interest graph is the aggregation of the graphs of all of the content they have interacted with. A website's interest graph is the aggregation of all of their user's graphs. The web's interest graph is the aggregation of all of the web's user's graphs merged with the graphs of all of the content the social web has produced in a given timeframe. There is quite a bit under the hood - we aggregate, merge, coalesce, and decay thousands of interest graphs every second.
This video introduces you to how we build the interest graph of a user. The Demo contains a look at the interest graphs of users with ~10 clicks across our network.
The Interest Graph is WHAT people care about, not WHO people care about.
A very important aspect of the Interest Graph is that unlike the Social Graph, which is for the most part static (except for an occasional friending or unfriending), the Interest Graph is elastic, dynamic, and rapidly changing for any individual consumer based on:
What a consumer searches for (on Google, Bing, YouTube, Twitter, etc) What a consumer follows (on Facebook, Twitter, Google +1, Tumblr, Quora, etc) What a consumer expresses (as blog posts, tweets, pins, stashes, statuses, reviews, pictures, conversations, etc.)
Note that searching is private but following and expressing are, for the most part, public. The Internet-Scale Interest Graph therefore aggregates implicit and explicit gestures from consumers, and is bigger than any single company's set of data about consumers.
SNOOPING, like so many things in life, is going mobile and online. In 2011 Google received 12,271 requests for data from the American government and acceded to all but a few of them.
A good general principle would be to afford data stored in a private e-mail account as much protection as letters stored in a locked desk drawer—that is, law-enforcement agencies wanting to get a look at them should need a warrant. Internet and mobile-phone companies, and the agencies that get data from them, must be subject to proper reporting requirements. Only if people know more clearly what information is being collected about whom, and to what uses it is being put, can they judge whether the benefits of greater safety the surveillance state has brought them are worth the huge loss of privacy they have suffered as a result.
Much of what we do online releases dopamine into the brain's pleasure centers, resulting in obsessive pleasure-seeking behavior. Technology companies face the option to exploit our addictions for profit.
In the past, society has been able to put physical barriers in place to make it more difficult to satisfy unhealthy obsessions. For example, gambling casinos were primarily segregated in Nevada. Things are very different today. In the first place, there is no physical barrier between people and the obsession in question. Smartphones and portable electronic devices travel with us in our pockets.
There is, of course, no simple solution to this problem. The answer starts with recognizing that our virtual environment has very real consequences. For my own part, I create physical walls around my virtual environment. I will read books and newspapers anywhere in my home on my iPad, but I answer emails only in my office. When I am talking with my wife, listening to my daughters discuss the challenges they face in raising their children, or playing and laughing with my grandsons, I not only shut off my iPhone, I put it out of reach.
"The speed with which information hurtles towards us is unavoidable, and it's getting worse. But trying to catch up is counterproductive. Strategic advisor Peter Bregman explains how two simple lists can help us organize what's important."
Scientists claim to have discovered a “prehistoric version of Facebook” used by ancient tribes to communicate with each other. After analyzing over 3000 rock art images in Sweden and Russia, Mark Sapwell and his team from Cambridge University concluded that the sites functioned like an “archaic related stories version” of social networks where users shared thoughts and emotions and gave stamps of approval to other contributions – very similar to today’s Facebook like.
There is one resource that always plays a role in modern businesses, a key element that often remains elusive and hard to come by. Information, the missing puzzle piece for many businesses, comes at a very high price today.
Alohar offers a mobile device Location Behavior Platform allowing developers to response user behaviors by analyzing location and device sensor data. Alohar delivers real time device data from location, motion, wifi and timing data. Its advanced functionality gives competitive advantages in applications than a conventional location based services (LBS) platform. Alohar platform is now available for iOS SDK and Android SDK. Alohar SDK is ideal for applications such as smart personal assistants, location-based games, mobile health apps, mobile shopping/coupon apps, social networking apps and mobile dating apps.
1.1 Main Functionalities and Benefits
Alohar SDK provides a rich set of functionalities, accessible through a simple API. By using the easy-to-integrate API, third-party mobile application developers quickly realize the following benefits: ● Automatically understand a user’s mobile motion state (e.g. stationary, walking or driving). ● Automatically detect the places (including the name and category) that the user visits ● Get notifications when a user arrives at or departs from a place. ● Automatically get the number of times a user visits a place, and how much time is spent there per visit. ● Minimize power consumption while gathering data from the mobile device. The beauty of the SDK and API is that the mobile app developer can focus on his applicationspecific functionalities, rather than low level user location and behavior, and therefore achieve a fast time to market. Alohar offers a more accurate and simpler implementation. The conventional geo-fencing systems is often tedious and difficult to use because they are required to define specific lat/lng boundaries in advance through a manual process. In contrast, Alohar accurately detects the places the user visits without any prior knowledge of the place or the geography. This frees up the developer’s time in app development because the Alohar platform is accurately detecting and reporting the POI data.
Personalization and customization have long been a sought after achievement on the web. Especially in the news business. If only a website could deliver only the stories you wanted to see.
“My partners and I — we saw this huge opportunity for where the Web was going to go beyond social. That’s a big reason that we started Gravity. We think everything’s moving toward our experiences become a lot more personal
Social networking has had a huge impact on how we communicate and interact — but some people refuse to get caught up in the trend.
1: I have privacy concerns
2: Ownership of content is unclear
According to a New York judge, however, Twitter owns your Tweets.
3: It’s too impersonal
4: I want to minimize online gaffes
5: I want to minimize data points for possible data mining
6: I don’t subscribe to social fads
7: I don’t like being pressured to join
8: I don’t need the abuse
9: It’s more work
The bottom line…
…is that it’s just not me (#10). Some of us prefer to keep ourselves to our self. I have heard about certain sites that cater to the courtship rituals of modern Homo sapiens, but every day that goes by I become less modern than the day before. ....
According to an analysis of tweets by Pear Analytics, 40% of all tweets are pointless babble.
I have better ways to atrophy my brain, better ways to slowly turn my gray matter into mush. Is it possible that we will prefer communicating via machine rather than one on one? Personal social interaction could become a lost art. And it would be a shame for humanity to become so impersonal.