Philip Jong

Earlier this year Microsoft finally released the long-awaited computer operating system Windows Vista. With an installation base of more than 90% of all personal computers worldwide, this upgrade constitutes the largest consumer-based computer software implementation in history. Few companies, if any, in the technology industry enjoy the monopolistic dominance which Microsoft has in the computer software business. While companies that are in a position as Microsoft is in undoubtedly deliver innovative products to the benefits of consumers, the lack of competitions also means that consumers are left with little or no choice in what they can use. At a time when our daily lives are so intertwined with technology, most of which are dependent on software such as that made by Microsoft, it is frightening to speculate on the consequences of this dependency if a major breakdown ever occurs in the software on which our technology depends. Moreover, when there is only a single source or provider (Microsoft or otherwise) of the software that drives all of our technology, the risk of a breakdown and the magnitude of its consequences on our living are doubly increased. More than ever does our way of lives depend so readily on some binary strings of 1’s and 0’s in a computer program, written to serve a purpose larger than it is originally made to do.

Currently there is a heated debate among internet stakeholders on the merits of network or net neutrality. Although the term was only coined in 2005 by Tim Wu, the fundamentals of net neutrality actually dated back to when internet protocol was first conceived to guide data exchange across a global network. At the most basic level, net neutrality guarantees the indiscriminate delivery of information packets across the internet, regardless of their sources or destinations. Proponents of net neutrality, including many academics and Tim Berners-Lee (the father of the World Wide Web), have advocated such unrestricted access as a basic right of freedom to information. Opponents of net neutrality, such as the telecommunication industries, have argued for their right to rely on market economics to prioritize access to information on the internet. The latter is based on existing practice by common carriers, such as in cable television, where consumers are charged to pay differently depending on the level of content delivery. However, such argument ignores the fundamental differences between the internet and traditional media channel on how information reaches its consumers. As an avid consumer, my right to access such information must never be determined by economics or politics. Any challenge to this right is simply censorship, regardless of the regulatory disguise under which this censorship may hide.

Earlier this month the city of Toronto in Canada announced a plan to implement citywide wireless hotspot access to the internet. The plan would use radio access transmitting points mounted on street lamps to provide of a blanket of WiFi (Wireless Fidelity) coverage throughout the city to the public. The service would be run by a municipal-industry partnership between the city and Toronto Hydro. Such an initiative is similar to those already introduced in several other cities in North America, including San Francisco and Philadelphia. If successful, this framework will bring Toronto one step closer to the true vision of the Global Village put forth by Marshall McLuhan in 1961. Yet, while the ideal of a Global Village has been thoroughly debated to date, the practice to which this vision should be carried out has not been properly eluded. This is because any mass exposure of new technology is prone to be abused by a few individuals attempting to take advantage of the innocent public who is less familiar with such technology. For an electronic medium such as the internet, policing against such frauds and abuses on a global scale may not likely be possible. Without due diligence to implement measures ahead that will protect the public, I am afraid that this Global Village can easily be poisoned and all of us who live in it will pay an unwanted price for a technology that we still do not fully understand.

Wikipedia is the poster child of public domain knowledge database. Found in 2001 by Jimmy Wales, the utilitarian goal of this “free” online encyclopaedia is to provide a platform where the “total” knowledge of humankind can be permanently recorded for prosperity. To keep up to date, this online knowledge repository can be continuously edited by anyone who chooses to contribute. With the increasing use of Wikipedia by the public, critics of Wikipedia have raised concerns about the credibility of such public domain knowledge database where no one truly polices the accuracy of the information within.

In November, the trustworthiness of Wikipedia was seriously called into question in an USA Today exposé by John Seigenthaler Sr., a former assistant of Robert Francis Kennedy, about his discovery of a false entry in the online encyclopedia in which he was implicated in the assassination of both Senator Kennedy and his brother President John Fitzgerald Kennedy. Last week, the New York Times reported the perpetrator to be Brain Chase, who entered the false information into Wikipedia as a gag directed against the eminent Seigenthaler family in Nashville where Chase lives. This single act of sabotage exposes the vulnerability of Wikipedia in that the information within can easily be falsified by anyone for unethical gains.

In contrast, the accuracy of Wikipedia on scientific information appears to fair better. In a research paper just published from the prestigious scientific journal Nature, a peer-review comparison between Wikipedia and Britannica Encyclopedia on their contents across a board range of scientific disciplines found that the difference in accuracy between the two encyclopaedias was only small. On average, a scientific entry in Wikipedia contained about four errors as compared with three errors in a scientific entry in Britannica.

The creation of a public domain knowledge base such as Wikipedia is of great benefit to humankind. With proper safeguard to ensure the accuracy of its content, further development of such database should be actively encouraged and not prematurely abandoned because of “teething” problems.

The dominance of Microsoft in personal computing is undeniable. The launch of the Xbox 360 last week marks the next effort following the original Xbox by Microsoft to dominate the personal gaming market. Its competitors are the Sony Playstation 3 and Nintendo Revolution that are not due out until 2006. More than a gaming console, the new Xbox differentiates itself from other systems by also billing its own to be the ultimate convergence device for all digital media—music, video, and pictures. Little attention, however, has been given to the “social” convergence that this device may bring. While the powerful hardware of the Xbox 360 is no doubt a technological marvel, its Xbox Live service may turn out to be the “killer” architecture that will bring on true convergence. The development of a persistent online community with its Live Marketplace creates an unique social construct through which gamers around the world can interact seamlessly with each other without ever meeting face to face. Over time, this social convergence beyond any geographical border will make a greater impact on our young generation than any technological convergence such machine may bring. Regardless of which platform emerges as the winner of this console war, ultimately it will be the social and not technological impact it may make that will determine its legacy.

In early November, reports surfaced that music CDs distributed by Sony BMG Music Entertainment had embedded hidden anti-piracy software known as Extended Copy Protection (ECP) inside personal computers used to play its CDs. The ECP software was installed in the form of a “rootkit” that were designed to evade detection by anti-virus or anti-spyware software. While the rootkit itself was not malicious, concerns quickly arose among security experts that other malware might easily exploit this rootkit to piggyback malicious codes. Initially, Sony BMG defended its policy on Digital Rights Management (DRM) by citing its disclosure on the use of such software in its End-User License Agreement (EULA). While I firmly support the need to protect copyrighted materials, I believe Sony BMG had acted in bad faith and not in the spirit of the EULA here. More importantly, such “big brother” mentality assumed an ignorance or indifference among its users that were quickly proven wrong in this case. Last week, the media conglomerate finally admitted to its wrongdoings and recalled all CDs using this copy-protection scheme. A removal tool had also been developed by the company to uninstall the unwanted software. Although its action may signal the beginning of an end to this DRM debacle, it also signals the beginning of a new threat in the era of digital living—the prospect of a big brother who is secretly watching every use of our digital media.

Last week the Associated Press reported a survey from the Pew Internet and American Life Project that found nearly a fifth of all school-age teenagers in the US had their own blogs. This compared to only about seven percent of all adults who were bloggers. The researchers cited the main reason that teenagers blogged was a desire to be in touch with friends and peers. What has not been said is that such finding also reflects a fundamental change in how our youths communicate with each other as compared to previous generations. This change is more than a mere embrace of new technology but a philosophical adoption of changing means in human interaction. In these blogs, teens can openly express their thoughts and feelings, often anonymously. Other teens can then post their honest responses online. Consequently, blogging has become the high-tech bridge on which open communication takes place in the teen world—a feat that the adult world of today has yet to master.

I am an avid gamer. I have played many video games that feature fantasized violence and stimulated killing of in game characters. In recent years, much media attention has been paid on linking video game violence to real life violence, especially in teenagers and young adults who are the primary consumers of video games. Reports of real life teenage and gang shootings have repeatedly cast blame on violent video games because of their potential to desensitize gamers to the murdering of human beings.

Scientific studies that attempt to establish a linkage between video game violence and real life violence have so far been inconclusive, and it is doubtful that a study can ever be done to conclusively confirm or refute this association. Even in cases where the accusers have claimed that the murders have been directly inspired by violent video games, isolated examples such as these cannot be used to establish an epidemiological association between video game violence and real life violence. A recent example is the highly publicized murder of three police officers in Alabama, US by a teenager who later confessed that he was inspired to kill after playing Grand Theft Auto from Rockstar Games. This is because it is not possible to exclude other factors that may be the true underlying causes of violent behaviors in these individuals or other factors that may confound the relationship between the two phenomena of interest.

We should be reminded that long before video games existed, classic works of literature also existed that were filled with stories of violence and murder. If we are to cast blame on video games, then we must also cast blame on these works of literature for promoting violence in our society. The fault thus lies not on whether violence should be portrayed but on whether violence is portrayed responsibly. If violence is accurately portrayed with due moral consequences, then individuals who are exposed may also absorb the moral value that keeps them from acting irresponsibly, regardless of the medium where the violence is portrayed. Blame should not be cast only on individuals who have committed the murderous act in real life; blame may also need to be cast on game publishers that choose to sell video games that portray violence in an irresponsible fashion.

Professional journalists are faced daily with the responsibility of going “on the record” in their writings. Those who are willing to speak “on the record” are often seen to be more credible than those who are willing to speak only in the shadow of anonymity. With few exceptions, this fact also differentiates good from poor journalism. Similarly, an unwritten rule of blogging is that you are forever bound to the words written in your blog. This is because once the content of your blog appears online, a copy of it will always exist somewhere else in cyberspace. Many search engines today, such as Google, cache the content of all web pages which they index. These caches then become indefinite records of what have been written by you online. Even years after the original blog is deleted, a copy of it may be retrieved online elsewhere. When I blog, I am keenly aware that my blog will also be “on the record” and that I will be ethically accountable to the words in my blog. Such is the price for establishing my voice in this online world.

The era of push content by the mainstream media is coming to an end. This traditional model has been used since the invent of radio and television whereby the user just passively absorb contents delivered by these medium. The invent of the internet has forced the mainstream media to shift the way information is delivered to its audience and to give its user the power on what content to select. The popularity of on demand television and radio signals another shift in the paradigm on how content is delivered through these medium. I am a heavy user of personal video recorder (PVR). The PVR allows me to select only the shows that I like to watch and gives me the freedom to when I watch those shows. Recently, I have become a Podcast user. Podcasting lets me subscribe to radio shows of my choice and listen to them at my leisure. Today, PVR and Podcasting have largely replaced my antiquated way of how I use television and radio. The future of these medium lies with on demand broadcasting where the user will have complete control of content delivery in both time and space. I doubt that Guglielmo Marconi (the inventor of television) and John Baird (the inventor of radio) would have envisioned these changes on how information is delivered through their inventions.