Recent Posts...
Page 145 of 260
Archive
Quite normal, really | Aug 11, 2006 10:09
View the gallery for this post
I think one more thing needs saying about the information released in this week's AOL calamity: it's so ordinary. While we all amuse ourselves finding bizarre search records at Don't Delete, it is worth noting that the top search terms in the data are just people going about their business: it's google, ebay, yahoo, mapquest, myspace and the weather.
You have to go down as far as 41 on the list to find "porn". "Sex" is two places below, and then it's a long way down the list to a handful of other smutty searches. It serves to emphasise how much a part of life the Internet has become.
A couple more points before we leave the topic. Nigel Horrocks of NetGuide came up with a worrying one. User 1627022 reeled off searches for "alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.child.male", "boylove belarus" and the like - and then "university jobs new zealand" and "social work new zealand", which took him to the recruitment pages of four New Zealand universities and, creepily, www.cyf.govt.nz. Someone might want to have a look into that. (A reader has pointed out that the string of access to very, very dodgy images may have been for legitimate research purposes, and that did occur to me, but I'm not sure that even a researcher needs to spend that much time looking at actual child porn. At the least, some questions would need to be asked for purposes of clarification.)
And, on a happier note, PA reader Hamish pointed out that in the course of those 20 million searches, there were four hits on this very website. Wooo. That's some famous data we're in, huh?
Other mysteries. The incredible Annette Presley mash-up - a Telecom astroturf job? Some clever young chap at Saatchis? No? You sure?
And yes, that masked man was Don Brash. Brash has confirmed that he posted a couple of comments to Kiwiblog this week, after several correspondents brusquely informed Jordan Carter that he was a ninny if he thought it was really The Don.
It came up in the course of yet another exchange of fire over the pledge card spending issue. For the record, Labour's guilty: it was warned that the pledge card would be regarded as election spending (the leaders' fund cannot be used for electioneering) and went ahead and did it anyway. I'd like to see it pay the money back, even if it means emptying the coffers.
But I'm a little weary of National and its cheerleaders running around the moral high ground waving their arms and screaming "corruption!". One thing Labour did declare in its return was advertising by trade unions that advocated for Labour. On the other hand, National didn't count the huge spend by the Exclusive Brethren, which we now know was originally proposed to Brash himself as a campaign advocating for National, and even after a few tweaks still looked that way. You'll recall that as part of the same campaign, EB members distributed their own leaflets and National's, and also erected National billboards - they also lied and breached electoral laws by using false addresses. And, of course, it famously took Dr Brash a while to recover his memory of those meetings at Parliament.
Further, the Maxim Institute's deceptive nationwide MMP "education" campaign explicitly urged conservative Christians not to vote for smaller parties to unseat the government, but to vote National. It defies belief that this message was fortuitously developed in isolation from National's own, identical message. But that didn't count either. National wasn't as brazen as Labour last year, but it was arguably more devious.
The sheer breadth of apparent breaches in the uses of the leaders' funds suggests that the rules do need sorting out. And I'm not sure that simply saying that billboards and publications funded more than 60 days out from an election aren't campaigning, and everything else is, is quite the way to do it. The funding is there to communicate policy: whether that means you and me paying for billboards with clever, dubious slogans is another question.
Earlier this week, I was part of an excellent turnout for the launch of Paul Shannon's debut novel Davey Darling at Grey Lynn's nice new bookshop, Dear Reader. I'm always amazed at the way fiction writers can, as Paul did, spend years writing stuff that won't be published before they get the voice right and get to meet the public at last. I'm really thrilled for Paul that now it's finally out there the reception for the book has been so strong - I don't think Geoff Walker was kidding when he said it heralded a major new talent.
I enjoyed the Metro short story that was the seed for the book, but I haven't started the novel yet. That's because I'm still partway through Chad Taylor's newie, Departure Lounge, which has another cool, amoral anti-hero and more of the elegant, economical descriptive prose that is Chad's signature. I always get the impression that he visualises every element of a room and then strips out all but a signal few features. Even if he doesn't mention the carpet, he knows what colour it is.
BTW, my darling says Rachel King's The Sound of Butterflies is a cracker too.
And finally, this morning. I dug up an email relating to a once-planned trip to the US, at the invitation of Amazon.com. The email's date? September 11, 2001. As you might guess, that trip didn't happen.
Now I'm all geared up for a top trip to San Francisco in 10 days' time and the headlines say "world travel in chaos". I'm naturally delighted that the plot has been foiled, resigned about the way it's already being politicised by the usual suspects (somehow, apparently, the discovery of a plot based in Britain and Pakistan means we should invade Iran) - and extremely hopeful that some degree of normality will be restored by the 21st.
PS: I've been greatly enjoying the Melvyn Bragg-presented The Adventure of English since it fell off the back of the Internet onto my computer. I took this screenshot of Bragg explaining the provenance of certain popular swear words widely supposed to be of anglo-saxon origin - they're actually from the Dutch. It amuses me:
Contender: Worst mistake ever | Aug 10, 2006 10:06
Earlier this week, some people at America Online did something blindingly stupid. We're only just beginning to so see the consequences of their actions, which will have a long-term impact on the Internet and may take a very serious toll on the lives of some individuals.
In a misguided attempt to reach out to the research community, AOL placed a big chunk of its customers' data online:
AOL just released the logs of all searches done by 500,000 of their users over the course of three months earlier this year. That means that if you happened to be randomly chosen as one of these users, everything you searched for from March to May (2006) is now public information on the internet.
AOL replaced the account IDs of the half million users with random number strings, but it's possible to track each user's search activity over the entire period. People type all kinds of things into Internet search windows, including details that would allow them to be identified, either directly or by deduction. And remember, these are AOL users: their whole brand is stupidity.
A Slashdot poster sums it up:
This is a fucking diaster for AOL. There will be lawsuits, and I'll bet you someone will die because of this (due to stalking, spouse finding out secrets, etc.). Use your imagination. This data is chock full of so much personal information, it's scary. I'm terrified that everything I've ever searched for in google is similarly logged in a data center somewhere and could be just as easily revealed but for whatever security they have in place, along with a dubious "don't be evil" guarantee.
But wait, there's more. AOL search is just Google search re-skinned. This marketing blogger explains what that means:
The big affiliate marketers will make millions off this, i'm already busy processing the data, and after taking a quick peak at the data its an absolute gold mine for PPC and SEO.
Google/ AOL have just given some of the worlds biggest spammers a breakdown of high traffic terms - its just a matter of weeks now until google gets mega spammed with made for adsense sites and other kind of spam sites targetting keywords contained in this list.
Another analysis:
Many commenters on Digg don't seem to see it as a problem, but then maybe their search history does not make it look like they are searching for information on their family tree, information for English teachers in a conservative US state, the website of a local church, chamber of commerce, and rotary chapter in the same state in between searching for MySpace, cheerleaders, preteen sex and strap on sex toys. AOL has kindly replaced these people's screenname with a sequential integer but I am guessing if you went to that church, Chamber of Commerce, or Rotary chapter you would be able to pick an English teacher with that surname
This being the Internet, none of this can ever be unpublished; it's out there. The original 400MB file isn't necessarily easy for ordinary folks to handle, but there is already a string of web-based search interfaces for the data. AOL Stalker offers keyword search and examination of individual search histories (it's appealing to users to report " data that actually makes it possible to identify a user" so it can be removed) and Don't Delete permits search of the database by keyword, web address and anonymous user ID - as well as an endlessly entertaining "random user ID" button.
Entertaining? Well, yes. It would be dishonest to deny the voyeuristic appeal of this thing. As they unfold over time, these search histories read like soap operas, comedies and tragedies. And frankly, given who's crunching this information already, you and I browsing the data is the least of the AOL customers' worries. Don't like it? Don't look.
User 6760296, a 14 year-old, tells quite a sweet story: from "what a girlfriend should do" and "rulebook for dating" to "how to change my password on myspace" then "ways a 14 year old can earn money" and "can 14 year olds mystery shop" and, optimistically, "get paid to look at peoples myspace". We eventually find out what the job hunting is in aid of: "cheap ipods".
A long string of searches for Biblical topics from account 1347872 is twice interrupted by a little spate of searching for "breasts" and "small breasts". (The collision of God and - sometimes quite deviant - sexual themes actually seems to be a common characteristic of the search histories. Go figure.)
A woman searches for James Blunt lyrics one night, mental health interventions for addiction the next
User 7005 has debt problems.
Perhaps account 3183956 is a family home. The terms are all over the pace: repeated searches by someone wanting to join the "dark side", shopping for kids' clothes, a series of searches for anti-immigrant sites. User 255112 is also concerned about immigration and foreign workers. That and extreme anal …
At first, user 763570's biggest problem seems to be owning a stinky dog. But things go pear-shaped: a string of searches on jails, bail, and "Texas drunk driving laws".
The record for user 3214991 is just disturbing. The same computer has been used to enter really, really nasty porn search terms and, apparently to research and book a wedding venue.
You get the picture. Other people have reported finding credit card numbers, social security numbers and many other identifying details in the data. It's quite some calamity.
Some responses to Tuesday's venturing-of-opinion on Rockstar: Supernova. Jo from hubris.co.nz said: "Rockstar, unimportant? How can you say that? It's the best show on TV! There was a moment in the INXS version that was the single greatest moment of TV last year which you really must relive on Youtube."
Eeewww!!
Jo is also ("not that I'm obsessed or anything") covering each week's show.
Over at Blogging It Real, DC-Red had words too: "Speaking for myself and the rest of 1970s-bred lower-middle class west auckland, I think it's fantastic to see rock on TV. For so long there has been nothing to appeal to our musical tastes ... the endless, tuneless/overwrought covers of Whitney Houston on the various Idle franchises just don't cut it for us, y'know, dawg? We likes what we likes, and it ain't that."
I agree. It is quite pleasing to hear rock rather than yet more R&B warbling, and me and my ol' lady (I'm experimenting with faux-Westie vernacular in search of urban credibility) sat down and watched thr whole damn thing last night. I had Dilana, Lukas and Storm in that order. But not Ryan. Ever. I hate Ryan. Like, personally.
Anyway, I'm sure you all have some random user IDs to inspect, so I won't keep you. Toodle-pip.
Profoundly Unimportant | Aug 08, 2006 11:03
I have a serious post in mind, but for now, let us wallow in the unimportant. I'm talking Rockstar: Supernova. PA reader Dave Burns has given Rockstar judge Dave Navarro a stern telling-off on his own website (you'll have to scroll down to find the comment), declaring among other things that: "I am trying to articulate why these talented young souls doing this thing bothers me so much Dave, and it comes down to this:-the whole putrid thing stinks, reeks, of $$$$, yet again."
Me? Not so much. My interest in watching the fat old bastards from INXS get themselves a new singer in the first series was somewhere south of zero, but I do find myself watching the current version.
Basically, Tommy Lee's funny, Dilana (the freaky South African girl) is an extremely talented artist and should be signed and forthwith made the new Pink, and the house band is extraordinary and arguably the star of the show in its own right. The rest of it? Who cares? People liked the serious guy doing 'Losing My Religion', but I did not. He performed a song riven with ambiguity, without ambiguity. Still, points for not grinding on anyone.
Dave - whilst agreeing with me about Dilana and the house band - went so far as to recommend to Mr Navarro Straightjacket Fits as an example of the "real rock" missing from Rockstar. He even took it up with Shayne Carter, formerly out of Straitjacket Fits, who replied, in his MySpacey, no-caps style:
i don't think dave n. will be rushing to reply to your letter cos he's a....you know... real busy guy..
yeah i liked early janes addiction but these days dave seems to be just another shameless L.A hussy. it has absolutely no taste that town. spend that long in it and you end up with, well, no taste.
but i wouldn't get too upset about that programme. i mean no ones gonna be talking about the next inxs album in 20 years time are they ? these things get their karmic reward. basically no one cares once the programme stops being on t.v. i don't think the true order of rock n roll is ever gonna be seriously threatened by these kinds of things.
as for the 'show' ? when i see it i find it repulsively entertaining. all that human desperation and greed. everyone is so awful. i think the standard of the performers is pretty much at the level of your average pub rock covers band. they all pretty much suck - tho' sometimes, entertainingly so.
I think matters of taste are indeed fairly central here. Photographer Laura Domela perceives art in her photographs of Rockstar contender Storm Large ("Storm was creative, dynamic, and playful in front of the camera …") where you and I would see tits-n-ass.
But hey, Rockstar is looking quite a lot better than NZ Idol at the moment. Perhaps it's too harsh calling it on the Christchurch round, but NZ Idolhas the whiff of tragedy. The talent's woeful, the presenter and celebrity judges don't seem to like each other and there's an unspoken gloom in Dominic Bowden's production diary in the Woman's Weekly. Iain Stables (one medical emergency so far) is not a loveable rogue and Megan Alatini is just annoying. And there's the Georgina Patea business. Even the punters on IdolBlog have mixed feelings ("Who in their right mind is going to watch a singing competition that the people in it cant sing?"). And I think everyone has now given up the pretence that winning the thing is some sort of path to a pop career. Still, there's always the chance that the show will jump the shark and become unintentionally compelling.
What's next in the search for spectacle? Porn stars parading down Queen Street? Oh. Yes, actually.
Funniest bit of writing on local TV lately: Jay and Maia's authentically lesbian conversation on last night's Shortland Street about what sort of bloke would be worth "jumping the fence" for. Doug Howlett? Or something more husky and hairy? My advice, ladies? Avoid the pretty boys.
I was trying to get my yoof points up by actually doing something on MySpace yesterday, when I noticed in a thread on the Dimmer band blog a link to the "guilty secret" Top 10 of slightly ropey songs it's okay to like. Well, I'm glad it's okay, because I like FIVE of them.
1. ELO - Livin' Thing
2. Boston - More Than A Feeling
3. S Club 7 - Don't Stop Movin'
4. 10cc - I'm Not In Love
5. Gary Glitter - Rock'n'Roll Part 2
6. Foreigner - Cold As Ice
7. Billy Idol - Rebel Yell
8. Status Quo - Whatever You Want
9. Gerry Rafferty - Baker Street
10. Gloria Gaynor - I Will Survive
That'll be numbers 2, 4, 5, 9 and 10.
PS: Several readers pointed out to me the import of Jeanette Fitzsimons' comments about her former MP Ian Ewen-Street and GE issues. Apparently it was a farmer's perspective on GE that wooed Ewen-Street to the Greens in the first place, and it became clear that there wasn't a hell of a lot else on which he agreed with his fellow Green MPs. He wasn't Mr Popularity with the party organisation either: check this for a diss.
Greening | Aug 07, 2006 10:17
National MP Nick Smith's drive to embed some green credibility in his party's environmental platform is laudable. Matthew Hooton claimed recently that Smith was "progressively winning over his more sceptical colleagues" on the climate change issue, and now they have an actual former Green MP drafted in to write policy.
Whether National likes what Ian Ewen-Street comes up with is another matter, but Jeanette Fitzsimons' response was a bit telling:
Green Party co-leader Jeanette Fitzsimons says voters won't be fooled.
"I don't think the National Party going after the green vote is very credible. I have been wondering how Ian will get on with their view on genetic engineering...I can't imagine they're going to change that," she/he says.
Leaving aside the rather odd "she/he says" typo in the TVNZ story, GE is precisely the wrong issue to be brandishing here. Yes, National doesn't subscribe to the Green Party policy on genetic modification. Neither does Labour, or any other party in Parliament with the possible exception of the Maori Party.
As I remarked to my lawyer on Friday, while we drank cold beer after playing a game of tennis in the midwinter Muriwai sun, we haven't had the real GE debate yet. That will come when we're presented with a GMO - a grass, or a tree - whose environmental benefits are so compelling that we will really have to make a decision. It will happen, and I would have to think that it is more likely that it will be the Greens' 100% refusenik stance that will be challenged, and not the broader Parliamentary consensus.
I think the Greens display a clarity and an honesty in important policy areas - energy, most notably - that puts others to shame. But their line on GE will be pushed pretty hard in the next decade.
Ewen-Street will presumably be tasked with developing more market-friendly policy alternatives, and there's nothing wrong in that. But it would be nice to see National explicitly commit to the present government policy emphasis on sustainable technologies. Just quietly, that's bearing fruit.
No Right Turn has some more comment.
Billmon looks at the UN Security Council Resolution, ponders what Hezbollah's next move will be and concludes by expecting Nasrallah "to take the deal eventually, although not without some elaborate posturing designed to create the impression he's doing the Americans and the Israelis a huge favor."
More horror from the new Iraq: anti-homosexual death squads get busy.
Salam Pax' most recent Baghdad video diary for BBC Newsnight ("today, I am afraid we will be talking about death") is a couple of weeks old, but still really worth watching. I don't know how the guy maintains his sense of humour, I really don't.
James Wolcott on the wingers and the Qana conspiracies.
Fox News's own media analyst Neil Gabler spits the dummy about "opinion mongers" like Michele Malkin (check the Malkin clip linked to: she's nuts) being given FNC airtime to peddle said conspiracies.
DPF (back on a new server) notes two interesting new Pew surveys on media use and blogging.
And Stephen Johnson's Five things about blogs that no one ever needs to say again just nails it.
Page 145 of 260
Archive