April 13, 2018--Post-Privacy

More than usual people are concerned about privacy. This the result of the news that Facebook did not prevent the sharing of very personal information about 87 million of us. In fact, they sold it to Cambridge Analytica, which, in turn may or may not have used that data in shady ways to support Donald Trump's run for the presidency.

What did people addicted to Facebook (me included) think they were doing with all the data about our intimate selves we so casually handed over to them? 

Facebook makes billions every month but doesn't charge users to use their "platform." What was Facebook's business model that yielded so much money? If we had paused for a minute to think about how Instagram's and Google's and Snapchat's and YouTube's and Twitter's business models make a fortune but do not charge users we would have realized they made their money by selling us out to marketers and political consultants. 

So all the outrage directed toward Facebook sounds a little self-serving and inauthentic. My bet is that hardly anyone will as a result stop using Facebook or the others.

And, it seems to me, that very few people care profoundly about this. I want my Facebook; I don't want to pay to use it; and I don't care very much, perhaps not at all, about losing my privacy.

After all, don't the social network platforms depend upon us eagerly wanting to surrender our privacy? Aren't they ultimately narcissistic-enabling vehicles for us to let it all, or much of it, hang out for "friends" and friends of friends and friends of friends' friends? Isn't the dream of much of this to have one's postings widely shared, go viral? How else can that happen unless we put it all out there to be passed around?

Years ago I had early glimpses of how people were moving to sacrifice privacy for the sake of convenience and expediency. Though at the time I really didn't get it.

About two decades ago I was online at Citibank (not on-line) waiting to deposit a check. This in the day before there were ATMs. Ahead of me were two women who were talking at full volume. One was worried about her daughter, "I'm afraid she's becoming addicted to cocaine," she said loud enough for everyone on line to hear. "I don't know what to do with her. I can't afford to pay for a recovery program. I suppose I just have to hope for the best."  

Her friend put an arm around her and, changing the subject, began to talk, equally audibly, about her boyfriend, "He punched me the other day. We were having an argument and he got violent. Slapped my face hard enough that I think he loosened a couple of my molars." She opened her mouth wide and showed her friend the two teeth. Her friend leaned closer to examine her teeth.

Thankfully, they soon got to the head of the line and were summoned by one of the tellers. The memory is still vivid for me.

A few years later, walking home on Broadway, there was a young woman who appeared to be talking to herself in a very loud voice. Another crazy person, I thought. So young to be talking to herself, I thought. But as I moved quickly to pass her, I realized she was speaking to someone on her cell phone, talking into the wire attached to the phone on which there was a small microphone. Again, without needing to strain to pay attention I could hear every word she said. They were talking about meeting that evening at a local restaurant. All very benign, but evidence that the culture was shifting. I realized we would soon have no need for the phone booths with accordion doors that were still common on urban streets.

Some time after that I was in Washington for a meeting with Alaska Senator Ted ("Uncle Ted") Stevens. He was the chair of the all-powerful Appropriations Committee and I was, I confess, seeking his support for a $20.0 million earmark for a promising public school reform project that, to lubricate the process of seeking his help, we were more than willing to bring to his state.

He was about to be term-limited out of the chairmanship so the timing was urgent. 

We spoke about the project (which he later arranged to be funded) and then he told me that as a consolation for losing the Appropriations chair, he was to become the chair of the Senate Commerce Committee. He wasn't, to tell the truth, happy about this. It was a much less powerful position.

"One thing I'm concerned about," he said, "is the responsibility for protecting internet security. Really, privacy. And to be honest with you, I'm 82 years old, and don't know anything about the internet or, for the matter, computers."

"So, what are you going to do?" I asked.

"I'll tell you what I already did," he said, smiling, "I asked my youngest staffers to do a little looking around and see what they could learn about me on the internet. You know, when and where I was born, where I live, who I'm married to. Things of that sort. I told them to get back to me in a week or so and they said no problem."

"I think I know where this is going," I said.

"Well, later in the day, the same day, they appeared in my doorway holding stacks and stakes of paper. 'What's all that?' I asked them. They told me it was what they had already come up with on the internet. You wouldn't believe what they found in just a few hours."

"I would," I whispered. He was on a roll and I didn't want to interrupt him.

"You know I have six kids. Well, not only did they find out everything about Cathy-Ann and me but also about them. Where they were born, how old they are, where they went to school, what they studied, and what they did after college. Also, where they live, and if they owned a house how much they paid for it. They even knew about their student loans and any mortgages on their properties."

He shrugged his shoulders, "And that's just the tip of the iceberg. It's enough to say that everything's out there to be found by anyone who knows how to do that. And my staffers told me how easy that is. From what they explained to me I understood why it only took a couple of hours to gather all that information."

"This is terrible," I said, "And so as the about-to-be chair of the Commerce Committee what are you thinking about doing?"

He stared off into space, "Probably nothing."

"Nothing?" I was incredulous. Remember, it was years ago. For most of us knowing about the power of the internet was rather new.

"It's too late," he said, "No one in Congress cares anything about this. They think it's good for business. No one gives a rat's ass about privacy. As I said, it's all over."

This was 2005 and from an 82-year-old senator from Alaska who never turned on a computer. He was still able to see the future.

"It's over. It's all over," he said as I thanked him and turned to leave.

Senater (Uncle Ted) Stevens

April 10, 2018--Up Next, Google

Though Google is more diversified than Facebook (they have a significant cloud business, are deeply involved in self-driving vehicles, smartphones, YouTube, and Blogger, which I use), by far most of their income derives from their original and still core business--as an Internet search engine.

For the latter, users have access to it for "free." Not unlike Facebook.

I put free in quotation marks because as with Facebook there is a hidden cost associated with using Google's search software. 

In exchange for information (I just used Google to search for the other ventures in which they are invested) they charge no fees but get paid by the reams of personal data we so willingly and unthinkably give them access to. 

They in turn sell that data, that big data, to advertisers and others who in turn design and pass along to us unsolicited, tightly personalized, targeted ads.

In this way, for this enormous, global, lucrative segment of their business Google is not so different than Facebook. 

And thus it would be no surprise to find them before long in the same humiliating circumstance as Facebook. Snared or hoisted with  their own petard. 

(Google, as I just did, to find where Shakespeare makes reference to being hoisted with one's own petard.)

Expect that Trump (as his people did with Cambridge Analytica), or, who knows, Hillary or Bernie, had one of their marketing intermediaries purchase demographic and psychographic data from Google that was for good or ill useful in their campaigns.

Most of us haven't been paying attention to what else was going on with our favorite social media or e-commerce sites as we searched and shopped. But now the genie is out of the bottle, Mark Zuckerberg is about to appear before Congress, and most of us would be reluctant to stop using Facebook or Google or Amazon.  

I do not see myself giving up these any time soon much less back shopping in the mall or looking up anything in the Encyclopedia Britannica. I'm addicted. 

March 21, 2018--Fakebook: Psychographics

Here's the worst part about Facebook's turning over to Cambridge Analytica intimate data about 50 million of its subscribers. 50 million of us.

It's not that by doing so they violated our privacy or that this then allowed CA to precision-market products, services, and political candidates to us. Not just, in one example, enabling them to zap ads to us about books in general but books about the history of the American presidency to someone, like me, who bought on line a shelf of presidential biographies. This is not what is most concerning.

This sort of focused marketing predates by decades the invention of the Internet. Most powerful at the time was direct marketing, where one could purchase lists of "pre-qualified" potential customers who might be interested in, say, fishing equipment because they subscribed to Field & Stream.

And what's worst is not how, with the all-powerful Internet, marketers are able to make their pitches in micro-focused and cost-effective ways.

By aggregating and analyzing big data that Amazon and Google and Facebook have about each of us, marketing firms can construct psychological profiles of us--psychographics--that help guide their sales strategies in extraordinarily targeted ways. 

But again, this is not the worst part of what is being exposed as the current Cambridge Analytica scandal, with Facebook, Fakebook's clumsy enablement, unfolds. 

Also still not the worst thing is the direct involvement of deep stater Trumpians such as the scary Mercer family of billionaires or their previously bought-and-paid-for poodle, Steve Bannon. As reprehensible as their attempts have been to undermine American democracy (we would be wise to remember this is their goal), no, what is worst is our willing complicity in this. 

Allow me to repeat that--It's about our complicity. About how if it weren't for us there would be no Cambridge Analytica, no cyber-meddling to fraudulently strengthen Trump's side in the 2016 election, and no big data to make this possible.

The reason CA and others can, for their scurrilous purposes, put their hands on intimate information about tens of millions of us is because we have willingly and eagerly shared this data about ourselves.

For example, Facebook users casually reveal how old they are, how much education they have, where they live, what they "like" when it comes to music and books and food and clothing and movies and the entertainments we download on line. 

When we click "like" on a "friend's" posting we reveal something about what is important to us, whether it be cultural, political, and even spiritual. We casually reveal what medications we use when ordering drugs on line, where we vacation, how much money we have, what kind of car we drive, how we earn a living, how we recreate, what languages we speak, our sexual orientation and preferences as well as the kinds of families we belong to and our world of friend.

I could go on for thousands of words just making this list of the kinds of information we "share" about ourselves without much persuasion or thought. 

We tell all to Facebook and other social network and e-commerce sites. And then this data, in the hands of the likes of Amazon and Cambridge Analytica become essential to fueling their metastasizing reach and power.

In our post-privacy world most of us do not think twice before revealing intimate details about ourselves. In fact, many Facebook members who are comfortable indulging their narcissism or gossipy side enjoy letting it all hang out on line and can't get enough of listening in, so the speak, to the details of their "friend's" lives, they are so casual about this that they seemingly do not care about what in the process, even unintentionally, they reveal about themselves.

It is dangerous that in addition to being indiscriminate about what we share, while oblivious to what bottom-feeding operations such as Cambridge Analytica can mash together to create a psychographic portrait of each of us that is so detailed it can be deployed not only to sell us stuff we don't need but also can be used to influence our vote. 

In large part, as a result, we have Donald Trump as our president.

October 3, 2017--Jack: Trump's People

Jack called, which surprised me because he had taken to coming to the diner mornings when he wants to talk about "his boy," Donald Trump.

"That Betty has been busting my chops when I'm there. She's so full of anger about Trump that it's hard to have a conversation. So, I'm calling."

"I'm sure she feels the same way about you--she can't understand, nor can I, with few exceptions, how you're such a butt boy for him. He does all these outrageous and dangerous things and you act like his chief apologist."

"I see you're already in a swivet so I'll keep this brief."

"That's fine with me." In fact it was. I was trying to have another few days without Trump, or at least as little Trump as possible. It was my birthday week and I was trying to give myself a present. But then there was the National Anthem and Puerto Rico fracas. And of course North Korea. There's no way to screen him out.

"I was looking at Facebook the other day and there was something posted by a friend of yours that I assumed must have gotten under your skin."

"I'm not that into Facebook," I said, "So I'm not sure what you're referring to."

"I don't know how Facebook works but there was something posted on my homepage that somehow seemed to connect to you. Which I assume is how Facebook works--Facebook friends of mine may have some connection to you and if so I somehow see what they post."

"I thought you said this would be brief." I had things to do and didn't want the aggravation.

"I have the Facebook piece right here," Jack said. I could hear him talking to himself as he searched for the posting. He read it to me and later I looked it up to quote it correctly--

GONNA VENT HERE. I have lived through a bunch of presidents and NEVER in my lifetime have I ever seen or heard of a President being scrutinized over every word he speaks, humiliated by the public to the point of wanting to hurt someone, slander, ridicule, insulted, lied to, threatened to murder him, threatening to rape our Beautiful First Lady, and have his children also insulted and humiliated. I am truly ashamed of the people of this country. I am ashamed of the ruthless, hating, cruel, Trump-phobia people that have no morals, and feel they have the right to say and do things they are. 

Every other President after they were elected and took the oath of office were left alone, they weren't on the news 24/7 being dissected by every word out of their mouth.

ENOUGH is ENOUGH is ENOUGH, LEAVE THE MAN ALONE AND LET HIM DO HIS JOB FOR GOD'S SAKE.

Jack paused, waiting to hear what I had to say. Finally I said, "I did see that and it did upset me. Not because I disagreed with pretty much all of it but because it revealed such a false sense of history. I mean, to say that criticizing presidents as forcefully as Trump has been attacked never happened before is all wrong."

"I knew this is where you would go with this," Jack said, "I'm sure you'll want to say more about this since you're a big student of American history. But that's not my point or what struck me. But please, have your say."

"Though I don't need you permission thanks anyway." He was already agitating me.

"Let's start with President Kennedy. He was a Democrat--I mention this because critiquing presidents has always been a bipartisan affair. He was attacked politically and after 1,000 days in office was assassinated. Then Lyndon Johnson, another Democrat, took over and was hounded out of office because of his Vietnam policies. I was happy to see him go.

"After Johnson we had Republican Richard Nixon. We know what happened to him. He was impeached and resigned the presidency. His successor, another Republican, was Jerry Ford. He was ridiculed from almost day one. It was said that he wasn't too bright, that he played football without a helmet. Chevy Chase on Saturday Night Live lampooned him as much as Alec Baldwin ridiculed Trump.

"Ford lost to Democrat Jimmy Carter who was fiercely criticized by Republicans within months of his taking office and was handily defeated for reelection by Ronald Reagan, who, during his second term was almost impeached because of the Iran-Contra scandal.

"Next, his Vice President, the first George Bush, a Republican, was not reelected because he was savaged by critics for not paying attention to the economy. So Bill Clinton, a Democrat, was elected.

"We know what happened to him. Because of his sexual escapades and lying to the grand jury he was impeached and tried in the Senate.

"I could go on and recount how his successor, Republican George W. Bush, was treated because he failed to do anything to prevent the 9/11 attack and for getting us deeply into a quagmire of two wars in the Middle East. And how could I forget Trump's predecessor, Democrat Barak Obama who from before day one was undermined by Republican politicians and all sorts of right-wing media outlets. Then, of course, there was the whole birther thing, with Trump himself leading the charge, claiming Obama was not born in the United States and was a Muslim.

"That's what I have to say about the Facebook posting you brought up. That Trump being harshly criticized and every word of his being scrutinized is not unusual but the norm. It comes with the territory of being president. Complaining about it won't change that reality." 

I was clearly in a lather.

"I knew you would go there," Jack said, "And basically I agree with you. Your friend's posting is totally wrong when it comes to presidential history. As you said, all presidents get beat up. But this is not my point about Trump. Or what I took away from what she wrote."

"Which is?"

"That for her and all the millions of Americans who agree with her, the facts don't matter. What matters to them is that for the first time in their lives they have a president in the White House they can relate to. Viscerally. From Kennedy on down, all the presidents have had one thing in common."

"I can't wait to hear what they have in common."

"No matter their backgrounds, and most came from modest backgrounds--Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Clinton, Obama--because of the education they received and how they behaved as politicians they came across as part of the professional and political elites that run the country. And all these presidents, all of them are the kind of people Trump supporters hate. 

"Hillary Clinton called them "deplorables,' remember that, and our leaders have given off that vibe for decades. As a result, for their entire adult lives these 'everyday people' as Obama and Clinton referred to them, have felt they did not have a president who represented them. Not so much their interests but them as people."

I thought hard about that. For nearly two years I have been feeling Trump's appeal is cultural. It's not about policies or a legislative agenda.

Jack said, "One final thing--how would you feel if the president or a candidate referred to you as an 'everyday' person or thought about you as a 'deplorable'? By your silence I assume not very good."

"Though I still disagree with what my friend posted," I said, "I do agree that she and others like her do have a president they can relate to. Ironically, even though he was born wealthy and is now a billionaire. So, it's not about class or money or power. It's in this case how Trump makes them feel. He gives them sanction, permission to act out, to say whatever they feel no matter the consequences. Just like he does. They pride themselves in telling it like they feel it is, in being politically incorrect.

"They are thus unleashed, very much including all their accumulated resentments. A lot of ugly stuff can leak out. Like it or not, I think this is the truth. His people and he connect with each other. Where we go from here, I can only guess. One thing I do know, it won't be pretty."

"See you at the diner one day soon," Jack said, "It would help if you could tell me when Betty has the day off."

May 22, 2017--"Vile Scumbag"

A friend, referring to Donald Trump, posted this on Facebook--

Vile scumbag. How I so purely and truly despise this spineless sack of shit coward. When will the carnage end? It is just so exhausting.

About all other subjects, my progressive friend is an otherwise moderate and thoughtful person. He is also literate. But here he is so in a rage that he's sputtering semi-coherently.

I have other liberal friends, all of whom oppose the death penalty, who are so crazed that they are cheering the death of Fox News' founder, Roger Ailes and they are so excited that he is dead that they are wishing the same fate for Steve Bannon and Rupert Murdock. I am sure others are on their death list.

When I try to get them to tell me why they have these feelings of murderous fury they say, in effect, isn't it obvious. Two words--Donald and Trump.

When I press, some confess that their rage is connected to the anxiety and fear Trump and his presidency have unleashed.

They are afraid about what will happen to the environment and the Earth (the New York Times on Saturday published a piece about the accelerating melting of the Ross Ice Shelf in Antartica--it is occurring so rapidly that many scientists are saying that by the end of the century, sea levels will rise by up to six feet, enough to inundate much of New York City and south Florida); they are worried about their jobs (many are professionals who work for or are funded by the rapidly shrinking government); they have deep fears about what their children will be facing (many are mired in tens of thousands of dollars of student debt and living in their parents' basements); and almost all are panicking about their 401(k)s.

Above all, most are feeling unable to do anything about it.

Rage comes largely from feeling powerless.

These are very efficacious people who are used to helping make things happen. They pride themselves on their ability to take on complicated problems and move them toward solution. They have been upwardly mobile and feel that this is because they have earned their way and deserve to be part of the professional and managerial classes.

Now, as they see things, everything is changing, becoming upended by the barbarians who have seized control. Used to feeling accomplished and even superior, they are now finding themselves being treated disdainfully. Being dismissed. And worse than death, being ignored.

The "deplorables" are in charge. The knowledge my friends have acquired, the history they have participated in shaping is no longer, they feel, valued. And since they cannot figure out what to do, what to think, or how to fight back, rather than dig in for the long haul and devote themselves to a sustained and relentless political and cultural resurgence, when together, they complain, they fulminate.

When I ask them what they think will make a difference, they say joining the "resistance" movement. When I ask what's planned, they say more marches. When I ask when the next one is scheduled, they say they do not know. When I ask how long ago was the last one, they tell me they are not sure. Maybe a month or two.

I tell them I don't think this will get the job done. In the latest polls, last week, 84 percent of Republicans say they think Donald Trump is doing a good job. Considering what he has been up to, we need to figure out why that is. We need to figure out how to push these numbers and, forgive me, figure out ways to reach out to some of them and get them to consider other ways to think about what's going on. About how they are being manipulated and taken advantage of.

In the meantime, some friends say they plan to post more on Facebook.

January 20, 2016--What's Playing in Somalia and On Reunion Island?

I love my Netflix.

I know there is current controversy about their ratings--the company is coy about them, which suggests they are not as high as advertised. The concern about the truth is not academic or about the truth itself but about Netflix's valuation--how much it is worth and how justifiable is its current lofty stock price.

I don't care about that except that I do have an investor's interest in the so-called FANG stocks. Facebook, Amazon, Netflix, and Google. I do not at this point in my life believe in owning that many shares of individual companies, preferring broad-based securities funds, but I do own a decent amount of Amazon stock, am thinking about buying more, and am considering making an equivalent investment in Netflix.

After all, boldly last week, the CEO of Netflix announced that they are making their streaming service available in 190 large and small countries from China to Somalia.

And just yesterday Netflix announced that they are signing up surprising numbers of subscribers in many out-of-the-way places.

Now people from Madagascar to Reunion Island can catch Orange Is the New Black and House of Cards.

"They must have pretty good Internet connections," CEO Reed Hastings joked the other day when he learned that the Reunion Island folks were among the first to subscribe.

Now Netflix is scrambling to dub their shows in dozens of languages to keep up with the already burgeoning demand.

I remember back in the day, when nation-buidling still seemed to some like a good idea, that the thought was that if we could help bring versions of Western democracy to underdeveloped places such as Iraq, Syria, and Libya young people especially would clamor for MTV and once they could tune in all would be well in the world.

We see now what that culturally imperialist and naive strategy has yielded. Among other things--ISIS.

Now here comes Netflix.

To some in Yemen, seeing the evil Kevin Spacey character, fictional U.S. president Francis Underwood ensconced in the White House, will feel that what they believe to be true about our actual president is in fact true.

May 14, 2015--"Mobile Is Now a Magic Word"

Thus proclaimed the New York Times yesterday in two articles above the fold about Verizon's $4 billion dollar deal to acquire AOL.

Remember AOL's dial-up days? Well, that remnant of AOL's business wouldn't be worth $4 bill, but its lesser-known mobile and advertising technology is. At least to Verizon.

We'll see. Remember the Time Warner-AOL merger? From that disastrous situation Verizon should beware.

It appears that this time the deal is all about mobile. Since people are turning more to their mobile devices (smart phones and such) than their clunky PCs and laptops, everyone in the IT business is trying to figure out how to make money off those tiny screens. Traditional ads don't work so well in five-inch formats so what to do?

In Verizon's case scoop up AOL. In the case of traditional news companies and magazines, both of which are turning quickly into dinosaurs, it appears that they are scrambling to move as fast as they can beyond their digital offerings (like the NY Times on line) because these, though making some money, are not making enough to sustain high-cost operations such as the Times beyond the next few years.

So with newspapers such as the Times and the Wall Street Journal and networks such as NBC News realizing that young people especially--the Holy Grail for some reason for advertisers--are getting most of their news from places like Facebook, they are trying to figure out what to do--even at their potential peril. And so they are moving to make deals with Facebook which would allow them to publish some of their products--articles in the case if the Times and WSJ, and video content in the case of NBC. With or without ads since the reason NBC and the Times are agreeing to do this is the hope that mobile users will see what they are missing by not reading the whole NY Times or tuning in to the Nightly News to watch whomever will wind up replacing Brian Williams.

Traditional media have no choice because, as the Times reports, "That's where the audience is." The fear, of course, is that Facebookers will read one feed on Facebook from the Times and rather than race to subscribe to the paper's on-line edition, will feel that they got enough. They now know more about what is going on in Saudi Arabia but have no interest in anything else. So why pay the Times a monthly subscriber free when they can get what they want for free via Facebook.

The Times already represents from 14 to 16 percent of all Facebook traffic--amazing and counter-intuitive--and so they are gambling that this new arrangement will net them more direct readers.

Again, we'll see.

Facebook already plays a gatekeeper role in regard to the news available to members. Including what they choose to put on line from the Times. So who knows what the result of all this reconfiguration will be. It could work for the paper of record or accelerate putting them out of business.

So where does that leave me? I've been running Behind the (New York) Times for nearly 10 years. Thus far I've published 2,582 posts. Will this mean that if I want to try to keep my blogging going for another decade, with the Times relegated to spot appearances on Facebook, that I'll be needing to call what I do something else?

Say Faceless.com or Saving Face.com or, my current favorite, Face It.com.

All suggestions are welcome.

May 13, 2015--Mother of Invention

"You haven't taken your nose out of that book all day."

"It's not a great book," I said, "But as you know, I'm fascinated by the Wright Brothers, and the new David McCullough biography is still fascinating. I mean, to me."

"Fascinating in what way?" Rona asked.

"You remember how about ten years ago we visited Kitty Hawk and were so impressed by what had happened there between 1901 and 1903, when the brothers were the first flew? The book is quite good on the Wrights' time there so that part is fascinating. The rest, only so-so."

"I do remember that. And though I hate flying in small planes I agreed to go up in a two-seater with you so we could fly over the same landscape where they had lived and worked. From Kitty Hawk to Kill Devil Hills."

"And then a few years later how, when in their hometown, Dayton, Ohio, we visited their workshop--a bicycle factory--and found the field not far from there--Huffman Prairie--where over the next few years in hundreds of flights they perfected their flying machine and learned more and more about controlled flight."

"So what do you think?" Rona asked, "Is their invention of the airplane the most important, world-changing invention of the 20th century?"

"One of them. To that I'd add electricity, the light bulb, radio, wireless broadcasting . . ."

"What about TV and, to me the most important invention of all, the computer?"

"Probably the computer. Not just the computer itself but the incredible software and peripherals that make the Internet, which we access with computers, so powerful."

"And," Rona said, "make social media like Facebook and Twitter possible. More than a billion people use them."

"Then there are the invented ways to access the Internet and all that derives from that--from clunky computers to all those so-called mobile devices."

"As with many others--all of these are powerful for both good and ill."

"Planes qualify as well," I said, "Only 12 years after the first flight, during the First World War, combatants of all stripes used planes for reconnaissance."

"And aerial bombing."

"All true," I said. "But back to inventions. We could have fun making a list of the most important ones of the past hundred years."

"But that would exclude the airplane since it first flew 102 years ago." She smiled at remembering that.

"Good point. Or we could see what we come up with if we tried to make a list of the most important inventions of all time."

"You mean like the wheel?"

"Yes, that's on many people's list as the single most important invention."

"How about the invention of democracy?" Rona asked, "Would that quality?"

"Sure. But maybe let's confine ourselves to material things like the plane and Internet. That feels like more fun."

"Well, we've already made a good beginning with the radio, TV, the light bulb and of course electricity itself."

"Though I'm not sure electricity is an invention. Doesn't it just exist and then people like Alexander Graham Bell and Edison figured out how to use it?"

"I'll have to look that up," Rona said, "And speaking about electricity, some would include the electric chair."

I looked at her skeptically. "Some saw it as more humane than hanging or the firing squad."

"I'll give you that one. But how about atomic energy?"

"Also it's maybe not an invention. But coming up with various uses for it certainly qualifies. Again for good or ill."

"If we want to talk about weapons, there have been hundreds of major inventions, including some--like say, guided missiles--that were world-changing."

"How about the printing press?"

"If you add movable type I think you've identified a paradigm-shifting one. With the ability to print books, periodicals, and newspapers maybe in its time it was as significant as the Internet."

"Then there's a very different category of inventions--musical instruments."

"Excellent point. Life would not be the same without the piano and violin and hundreds of others."

"What about in the medical field?"

"Probably as many inventions as for weapons. From anesthesia to . . ."

"Huge."

"To penicillin and then antibiotics. Also, vaccinations, pain killers, and tranquilizers."

"And testing techniques like all those for analyzing blood and MRIs. All inventions."

"For surgery alone there are hundreds. And don't forget the Pill. That changed the way we live as much as anything."

"How about in astronomy? Telescopes, satellites, and such? They also allow for accurate weather forecasting, which in itself is another invention."

"Related to that, there are all the navigation tools like the compass, which I'm sure some would say also changed the world. And of a very different sorry, how about air conditioning? One of my favorites," I said.

"Maybe I'd agree to refrigeration being on the list of top 25 or so, but not the AC, though I know you say you can't live without it."

"True. And to me personally at about the same level of importance, I'd add ATM machines--I hate standing on line at the bank."

"That's silly."

"Admittedly, but I'd also add another of my personal favorites."

"What's that?"

"The E-ZPass. I also hate waiting on line at toll booths."

"Time for you to stick your nose back in the book," Rona said. "The Wright Brothers are beckoning."

"Wait, one more, how about you--you couldn't live without your blowdryer."

November 13, 2014--T-Shirts Make the Man

Like so many other things in Silicone Valley this trend likely started with Steve Jobs, for many years Apple's guiding genius.

Once, twice a year he would stride out on stage at their headquarters in Cupertino, CA, for a show-and-tell that featured the latest iPod, iPad or iPhone. Prior to that this was not what traditional CEOs did to launch their latest products. They would hang back in their corner offices and leave it to the sales and PR people to announce new Game Boys or office software.

Jobs, super salesman and egoist that he was, did this himself in dramatic fashion--in dark ambient light with only him, the Apple logo, and the newest MacBook Pro theatrically illuminated. And rather than appearing in a bespoke suit and Turnbull & Asser shirt and tie, he wore lived-in jeans and a body-revealing black mock-turtleneck shirt with the sleeves pushed up.

This became just as much his signature look as Gloria Steinem's aviator glasses or Donald Trump's comb-over. It also set the tone for other IT magnates. Everyone from Microsoft's CEO Steve Ballmer to Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg subsequently took to rolling out new products and services casually dressed. Zuckerberg shows up in his legendary hoodie or, more recently, in his Steve-Job's jeans and short- or long-sleeved T-shirt.

As reported in Tuesday's New York Times, Mark Zuckerberg, in spite of appearances, thinks a lot about his--if I can call it that--attire.

He wears an identical gray T-shirt every day. He said, "I want to clear my life so I have to make as few decisions as possible beyond serving this community." (My italics)

I get it--not having to think about clothes clears his mind. He avoids the angst of needing to think should it be the gray T-shirt again or maybe a blue or black one. It also saves closet space--one drawer is all he needs for a half dozen or so.

In the Times piece he did acknowledge Steve Job's inspiration--well and good--but claimed he is also influenced sartorially by Barack Obama.

Yes, he did comment about the "simplicity" of Obama's wardrobe. He didn't elaborate, but I suppose he means that Obama always turns out in one of his signature navy or dark gray Hart Shaffner Marx suits. Like Zuckerberg that too enables the president to make as few decisions as possible while serving the community. In his case that community being the United States of America.

In the meantime I worry about poor Steve Ballmer, former CEO of Microsoft, and Eric Schmidt, chairman of Google. Both are far from buff, a bit roly-poly and though they try to look sleek and youthful, when they appear on stage to reveal the latest in cloud computing or Google Glasses in their version of Jobs-Zuckerberg outfits, they look a bit disheveled.

But at least they don't try to stuff themselves into T-shirts.

April 18, 2014--Forced Arbitration

Now there is another reason not to "tell" Facebook that you "like" something.

I visit Facebook less and less frequently as more and more advertisements show up on my Facebook page. For example--I have a cousin, who shall remain nameless, who has serious reservations about capitalism. And I am speaking euphemistically. He is way beyond Progressive. But his Facebook postings (don't ask me why he is a member of Facebook--no one is without contradictions) is filling up with ads.

Next to his posting warning about the military-industrial complex and another relishing the fact that Comcast was voted the 2014 "worst company in America," popping up are ads for the iPhone 6 and Tim's Cascade Style Hot Jalapeño Seasoned Potato Chips.

So much for Facebook serving as a forum for progressive discourse or for my cousin's eating habits.

But there is more.

As reported in yesterday's New York Times, companies such as General Mills and Kellogg's are attempting to use consumers' "likes" as a way of disallowing potential plaintiffs from suing the company for damages. So, if a box of, say, Raisin Bran, contains broken glass, the person eating a bowl with as much glass as raisins by this sleight-of hand logic would be forced to participate in arbitration rather than being able to take their claim for damages to the courts.

This would pertain to anyone telling Facebook that they "like" Raisin Bran but also to anyone who downloaded a discount coupon or entered a company-organized sweepstakes or contest.

The claim is that if you participate in any of these things you are deriving a "benefit" and as such are holding Kellogg's, in this instance, legally harmless.

If this sounds outrageous--that by doing something as innocuous as using a discount coupon you are in effect assigning away your right to sue--it is derived from a number of under-the-radar Supreme Court decisions that are a part of a spate of SCOTUS rulings that hold corporations less accountable to the public.

According to Julia Duncan, director of federal programs at the American Association for Justice, a trade groups representing plaintiff trial lawyers, "It's essentially trying to protect the company from all accountability, even when it lies, or say, an employee deliberately adds broken glass to a product."

My advice--read the fine print, cancel your Facebook membership, and eat granola.

April 17, 2014--Today's Luddites

A young friend who is making his way quite nicely in the IT field (he is a software builder with investable ideas for a company of his own) was talking the other night about the Luddites.

In addition to being impressed that he knew anything at all about them, he had interesting things to say about today's version.

We began by comparing the power of the Gutenberg Revolution with the advent of the Internet--"I think," he unsurprisingly said, "that the Internet will prove to be an even more powerful cultural and work-shifting technology. Everything is and will change, from knowledge acquisition to the way work is structured."

Though two generations removed from his, though feeling threatened by so much change that I do not and never will fully understand, I agreed. But, I wondered, as we moved on to compare the structure of work brought about by the Industrial Revolution with the Cyber Revolution, that the changes we are seeing globally are likely to be much more disruptive than those brought about when we shifted, less globally, from an agriculture-based economy to one dominated by machines and mass production.

"You're making my point for me," he said, wanting to retain control of the direction of the conversation. "But though I am in my small way contributing to these paradigm-shifting developments, I am worried about some of the trends that I see, unintended consequences--there are always some--that may not turn out to be either benign or progressive."

"Say more," I said, pleased to cede the direction of the conversation to him.

"In the past, the actual, historic Luddites got it wrong. They thought that brining waterpower and machines to the manufacture of textiles would both alienate labor further and ultimately lead to fewer jobs--machines would replace workers."

"What you're saying is correct. They did go about literally and metaphorically smashing the very machines that they felt would replace them."

"And they turned out to be wrong. Right?"

"Say more."

"Rather than replacing workers, though many were dislocated and/or needed to learn machine-based skills, over time the capital invested in mechanization, which temporarily shifted the economic balance more toward capital (things like machines and factories) than workers and wages, over time--and this is important--the balance shifted: more workers were ultimately needed and the demand for them, plus unionization, led to higher wages."

"Correct. Classic economic theory," I said, wanting to sound relevant, "says this is what happens historically as the result of capital outlays and aggregation."

"But back to my but," he pressed, "I do not see this happening now. And maybe it will not happen even during the upcoming decades."

"What won't be happening?" I admitted to myself that he was leaving me behind.

"IT, information technology . . ."

"I know what IT is."

He smiled at me. "It may turn out that IT will permanently not only dislocate workers but also make much of human, hands-on work work itself redundant."

"Redundant?"

"OK, obsolete. No longer needed. And, here's the worry, this may wind up permanently replacing the old, classic economic model. We may see a longterm shift in the balance between capital and wages. A shift in the direction favoring capital. The data in many countries, very much including ours, are trending in this direction."

"OK. But what about the Luddites?"

"Well, it may be a generational thing--with people from, forgive me, your generation serving as the contemporary Luddites. You, I mean they," he smiled again, "may be decrying these cyber innovations because you, I mean they, are feeling left behind by more than age. But, they may be right."

"Slow down. You're losing me. Right about what?"

"That the new machines, actual and virtual, will in fact replace hands-on workers (except maybe in health care and restaurant work). Replace them for the foreseeable future. Maybe permanently. Maybe if displaced, redundant workers acquire new skills there may not be enough jobs for them. Look at what goes on in auto assembly plants these days. Cars are now made more and more by robots. Yes, at the moment humans have to make the robots but after they are deployed (capital investment) very few actual workers are needed. Just maybe to grease the machines and manipulate them via computers."

"Wow," I couldn't help but say. "That's quiet a future you're presenting."

"To be truthful, these are not only my ideas. There are people who know tons more than me about this who are studying what's going on and alerting us to the changes."

"I know that," I said. "I've been reading some of their stuff too."

"And I'm seeing it where I work. What in the past would have required dozens of workers requires very few. Considering the economic size and reach of a Google and a Facebook, to mention a couple, they have relatively few workers. That's one reason they're so profitable. And my own guess is that if you look at them five years from now they'll be even bigger and will have even fewer employees. This is a very big deal." I

"Could you pour me a little more wine? I need some." I slid my glass toward him.

While doing so, he concluded, "In other words, you Luddites are right!"

July 25, 2013--Un-Friending

A couple of years ago when the film Social Network was the rage, to keep up with what everyone else was up to, we drove to Rockland to catch a 2:00 PM show.

I came away confused. If Facebook was all about meeting girls, why had, by then, more than three-quarters of a billion people from all around the world signed up to be members? There must be, I thought, additional reasons.

Since I knew I would never figure out how to get with it, I was inclined to want to write about Facebook and social networking from a curmudgeonry perspective.

Rona said, "How can you write authoritatively about something you don't know or understand?"

"Simple," I said, "I do that all the time. If I don't know something, I make it up. If I know a little about something, I exaggerate. All, of course, to make a better story."

"That sounds irresponsible," Rona chided me, "If you want to write about Facebook, you should take the plunge and sign up. So you can report about it from a real, as opposed an imagined point of view."

"That sounds responsible," I said. And so I began the process of becoming a member.

As you undoubtedly know, one begins by making a list of all the people who you want to become your Facebook friends. And once you enter those names, while waiting to see which of the half dozen people I listed would agree to become a friend of this kind, up popped a much longer list of names of people I know, or about whom I have vague recollections, to see if I would agree to be their friends.

I raced down that list quickly, declining the proffered "friendship" in every instance.

Observing me at this, Rona said, "This is not the way Facebook is supposed to work. If you want to give it a fair test you have to agree to be friends with at least some people. That's what this is all about."

She had me there, and so I revisited the list that had popped up and agree to become friends with about 20 people. "That should be enough," I said to Rona, who by then was quite fed up with me, "to see how this kind of networking works."

After a week or so of checking my Facebook page at least once a day, I felt I had enough experience to do my thing. If you are interested in seeing what I had to say at the time, check my November 1, 2010 blog posting.

About half my "friends" proved to be reasonably amusing, reporting wittily and self-depricatingly about their various comings, goings, and occasional peccadilloes. I had expected that Facebook would bring out the worst of their narcissistic tendencies. Not mine, of course, but theirs. I feared I would be hearing about every jot and tittle of their lives and very little about what they were thinking, reading, experiencing, and struggling with. And thus I was pleasantly surprised.

S_____ keeps his friends up to date about what is happening in New York City. Here is a typical Facebook posting form him about the latest in men's hair styles--

Trending in NYC just now: top of the head pony tales. Let me be very clear about this--unless you are a famous samurai warrior or a remnant of the Manchu Empire from the 13th century, this has got to stop. Stop it now before it goes too far. Please.

Of all my real and virtual friends, S_____ is the only one I know who's up on the Manchu Empire. He also knows more about Hadrian's Wall than half the historians at Oxbridge.

If I need to know about fired chicken, I can always count on R_____ :

Trying to order fried chicken delivered to Soho, you'd think I was after the rarest caviar. BonChon won't come up from John Street or down from 35th Street. Dirty Bird (rudest of all) will come to Houston or up to Canal. I mean, honestly, I'm going up to Charles Fired Chicken in Harlem, which beats them all hands down anyway and costs a lot less.

R____'s right.--living downtown isn't easy.

And if I need to know about the geology of the coast of Maine, there is A____. And for what's best at the movies, L_____. For snarky political commentary, more fun than Politico's, there are the daily jabs from D____ , who lives up in Alaska.  Just the other morning, on his Facebook page, he said--

I was wandering around last week looking for Sarah Palin, hoping I'd run into her so I could get advice about some good summer reading or where to find a moose to shoot or skin. I couldn't locate her, but wandered into the place where she used to get her hair done. Lots of pictures of her on the walls. Everything teased real high. The woman who runs the place told me that as soon as Sarah made her millions she ran off to live some place down in Arizona. Where, she assumed, the Palins joined the militia and are patrolling the border looking for Mexicans. 

But about  year ago, less and less of what was being posted was interesting or entertaining. Just as I had expected when I joined, narcissism began to be unleashed.

Now I'm hearing about the death of pets (with accompanying cute photos); children's' bridal showers and weddings (with dozens of photos attached, including many of the haul of gifts); endless reports about trips here and there with pictures again but almost nothing about what may have been learned or the personal changes the travel and trekking may have engendered; and endless reports about the weather (stifling), undistinguished recipes from last night's dinner; pictures of grandchildren "graduating" in caps and gowns from pre-school; and much to do about Mad Men, which this year foe me became almost unendurable.

So, to retain positive feelings about my "friends" who are in fact friends, I am beginning to selectively un-friend them.

All along, Rona had been expecting this. "You're fundamentally too unsocial for a social network. You're happiest staying home alone with a book."

"I wonder what Sarah's reading these days. Wouldn't it . . . ?"

Before I could finish, Rona was back outside working in the garden.

June 18, 2013--Big Data

In Big Data: A Revolution that Will Transform How We Live, Work, and Think, Viktor Mayer-Schonberger and Kenneth Cukier write--

Internet companies have been particularly swamped [by data]. 

Google processes more than 24 petabytes of data per day, a volume that is thousands of times the quantity of all printed materials in the U.S. Library of Congress. Facebook, a company that didn't exist a decade ago, gets more than 10 million new photos uploaded every hour. Facebook members click a "like" button or leave a comment nearly three billion times per day, creating a digital trail that the company can mine to learn about users' preferences. Meanwhile, the 800 million monthly users of Google's You Tube service upload over an hour of video every second. The number of messages on Twitter grows around 200 percent a year and by 2012 had exceeded 400 million tweets a day.

Think about it.

June 13, 2013--Itty Bitty Boo

In spite of my best attempts to distract myself, I can't stop feeling my every electronic move is being monitored by someone or another.

Who knows what the N.S.A. and C.I.A. are up to. Maybe they're checking to see if I'm googling about homemade bombs or trying to reach an Al-Qaeda e-mail address in Waziristan. In fact, I hope they are.

But I do know for sure what Facebook is up to.

My friends Hedy and Tony just celebrated their 23rd anniversary and Hedy made mention of it on her Facebook page. I sent them a note, saying something like--"Congratulations. I hope you have many more."

Less than a second after I clicked send the message, I received a note from Facebook, saying, "Surprise Hedy with a gift." And with it, up popped an icon to help me buy them a gift certificate for Fandango movie theaters.

To tell the truth, though I should know better, for a number of reasons this shocked me--

How did they know I sent them an anniversary wish without "reading" the text of Hedy's posting and/or "reading" my note of congratulations? This is a lot more of an intrusion on privacy than the N.S.A. "just" keeping an eye on e-mail traffic in western Pakistan.

And then how did Facebook know about Hedy and Tony's movie-going habits? Perhaps from their having gone to a Fandango theater and paying for their tickets with a credit card?

I confess I'm OK with the N.S.A. monitoring e-mail traffic back and forth to known Al-Qaeda e-mail addresses, including if American citizens are doing the e-mailing; but it really spooks me when I think about what Facebook and Google and my credit card companies know about me and then sell that information to various hucksters.

Thinking maybe I wouldn't go for the Fandango gift certificate, Facebook offered me 20 other anniversary gift suggestions, including--

An iTunes gift certificate; one for Starbucks; an Itty Bitty Boo stuffed bear; and, better fitting my mood, a Grumpy Cat Mug.

June 10, 2013--Snooping

There is a fierce debate underway about what data the government collects, especially should collect, in order to thwart terrorists.

Should the CIA or the National Security Agency (N.S.A.) have the authority to know who you call and for what duration? Should the Feds be able to access individual's Google searches and e-mail traffic?

President Obama, employing the authority of the Patriot Act which was passed shortly after 9/11 and reauthorized and signed during his presidency, says there are ample safeguards so that our constitutional right to privacy is being carefully protected while the CIA and N.S.A. root around looking for terrorist activity.

But Obama said on Friday, in today's world of threats, "You can't have 100 percent security and then also have 100 percent privacy."

Like it or not, this is probably true.

But there is criticism from the left--for example, from the American Civil Liberties Union--that this policy and these practices threaten our civil liberties; and there is equally fervent criticism from some on the right such as Rand Paul that the expansion of the powers permitted by the Patriot Act is yet another example of the growth of government's intrusive powers.

Polls show that Americans support what others see to be intrusive polices. To keep us safe from terrorist bombers and mass murderers, most appear to be reasonably comfortable with all the street surveillance cameras (look, they say, without them the Boston Marathon bombers would not so easily have been identified and captured) and are basically all right with police and intelligence agencies being able to read what we say on our Facebook pages or to be able to know if we are using Google to learn how to make pressure-cooker bombs.

Do we prefer to keep all of this information secret and private until after the fact--after the hijacking, after the bombing, after the plane is blown out of the sky--do we want to maintain all of our civil liberties, our full right to privacy, habeas corpus and all that (information that might be useful to prevent terrorism), do we want authorities not to have access to any conspiratorial information until after heinous deed are done?

This is very complicated; but, again, most Americans are willing to allow federal agents to do a good deal of preventative snooping.

In addition, consider this significant irony--

How many in the ACLU, how often does Rand Paul, how frequently do Jon Stewart and Rachel Maddow, how prevalent is it for the media and bloggers to talk with urgent concern and outrage about other, more substantial breeches in our privacy perpetrated by Google, Facebook, Amazon, and even the Home Shopping Network?

Though they are not governmental, still these companies make billions by gathering all sorts of very detailed information about each of us and then either run targeted ads aimed at us or sell the intimate information they have collected to data-miners and anyone who wants to sell us books, vacations, pots and pans, dating services, or Viagra.

Google knows more about you and me than N.S.A. or the CIA combined. Including the detailed sexual preferences of those tens of millions of us who search for erotica on the Internet.

This is not as fiercely criticized; but if we had been able to know in advance the intentions of the marathon or underwear or shoe or 9/11 bombers, if we had seen what they had been googling or e-mailing or posting on Facebook, would the ACLU and New York Times be as agitated as they currently are by what the government has been up to in gathering information about citizens and legal residents?

A final word--

If it were impermissible to gather this kind of information or, shifting the subject slightly, if our security forces were not allowed to use laser-guided weapons and drones, what would the Civil Liberties Union have us do to intercept incipient terrorist activities?

In print and on all the talk shows during which critics of the Patriot Act are given free reign, this question never gets asked--the what-should-we do question. The criticism is at times thoughtful and trenchant as it needs to be--these kinds of policies and PRISM programs need careful scrutiny and must be kept within constitutional bounds--but, once more, in this era of asymmetrical threats, where even U.S. citizens are plotting against us, what should we do?

May 29, 2013--Facebook $$$

The reason I didn't buy any Facebook stock when they announced there IPO was because, like other skeptics, I couldn't figure out how they would monitize their social network.

At the time they had about 1.0 billion participants but, with so many people--especially young people--moving on from computers to "mobile devices" (mainly smart phones) with their relatively tiny screens, how would Facebook, I wondered, be able to run money-making ads alongside the basic Facebook content.

It appears that many came to the same conclusion. The IPO was a flop and the per-share value of Facebook stock since then hasn't gotten much better.

(Actually, I didn't wonder about this at all. The whole social media thing and mobile devices and apps and Instagraming were and are mysteries to me and I didn't want to invest any of my money in things I didn't understand. Instead, I invested in international stock and bond funds, which I also do not understand. But about these I felt that if I wanted to try to understand them I might be able to do so. So much for my financial acumen.)

But as a participant in Facebook I have been interested in seeing how they would attempt to get me to buy things from the ads they run on my homepage. And, how they would target these ads using the latest data-mining techniques. Would they, for example, know that I buy a lot of contemporary novels and books about American history from independent dealers? Would they know I am a serious cook and buy pots and knives and dried mushrooms over the Internet? Would they know I take vitamins; am of a certain age; am a liberal; and divide my time in Florida, Maine, and New York?

I know enough about how Facebook and data-mining work to appreciate how hard it would be to pitch me since on my Facebook page I have no "likes" listed and never click on any of my "friends'" likes. So Facebook wouldn't know I like jazz and chamber music or that I'm especially interested in the New Deal. Unless, like the FBI and IRS, they read my blog.

So I kept track yesterday of all the ads that popped up on my Facebook homepage--

There were lots of ads for Southwest Airlines, though I never flew with them and in recent years haven't been doing much flying on other airlines.

We did buy an old table for our kitchen in Maine and haunt local antique stores there in the hunt for "cottagey" this's and that's, and I suppose Facebook somehow knows this since I've been getting ads for "Vibrant Rustic Furniture." This sounds oxymoronic to me--"vibrant" and "rustic" in the same pitch--but I am impressed that they have been able to target my furniture shopping so specifically.

I've had ads from "Friends of Hillary Clinton" and "Don't Let Paul Ryan Destroy Medicare." These too feel well directed since at this point I'm for Hillary in 2016.

Closer to home--or to my demographic--there have been ads for the "New York Brain Tumor Walk." Fortunately I do not have such a tumor but I confess when I get a headache I immediately think I do. I suppose it's an aging thing.

There was another one from "Hernia Surgery Experts." Again, as far as I know I am hernia free and if I weren't, I'm not sure I wouldn't go to one who advertises on Facebook. It's enough that I used to have a dermatologist who advertised on the subway--Dr. Zizmore.

Then I've been hearing from some company that, for a fee, would be happy to help me meet "Faithful Women." This is not for me--I'm happy with Rona but if I were looking around I'm not sure faithful would be what I would find attractive.

And then Dr. Delany, my orthopedist, must have turned me in--or told someone at Facebook about my torn meniscus--because I'm being bombarded by ads with headlines including--

Shocking Joint Discovery--Amazing Joint Relief!

So far Motrin is getting the job done and I don't need anything (yet) all that amazing.