21Vianet, a Chinese company, claims that it is the “largest carrier-neutral Internet data center services provider” in the country, making it a sensical fit for Microsoft.

21Vianet has 81 data centers in 42 cities in China, meaning that it can serve Azure effectively in the country. Microsoft previously estimated that the number of firms that could use Azure in China is in the “millions.”

And, a key point: It is something of an early mover in the country. Amazon’s AWS suite of cloud products that compete with Azure have a data center in Singapore, and has a minor presence in Hong Kong.

The Azure-21Vianet has a hardware and scale advantage. It’s worth nothing, of course, that Amazon’s AWS services enjoy more market and mind share in most of the world, most notably in the United States. Still, China is a massive market, which could help Microsoft untip the current market facts.

Azure recently announced that its revenues had reached a run rate of $1 billion per year. Azure also recently announced that it is heading to Australia.

A short take on how seriously Microsoft takes Azure’s move to China: They sent Steve Ballmer, and the US Ambassador to China, Gary Locke, was on hand at the launch event. This is a big-dollar deal.

Final caveat: Given the public issues regarding cybersecurtiy and hacking, Azure in China could be a sensitive affair; if there is even a whiff of government interference, Microsoft could lose brand equity in other regions; the Chinese Internet market is in some ways unique, both positive and negative. Let’s hope that when it comes to data security, and government non-intervention, Microsoft has its path straight.

Top Image Credit: futureatlas.com

Article source: http://thenextweb.com/microsoft/2013/05/22/microsoft-confirms-azure-cloud-computing-services-coming-to-china-on-june-6/

Weidlinger Associates, Inc., the developer of PZFlex, a 3D virtual-prototyping and wave-propagation analysis software, and CliQr Technologies announced the launch of PZFlexCloud on CliQr’s CloudCenter platform. PZFlexCloud extends the market reach and performance of PZFlex’s engineering software by exploiting the power, elasticity, and ubiquity of the cloud. Running on HP Cloud Services, HP’s public cloud, PZFlexCloud is offered as a professional service as well as an additional feature of the full PZFlex solution suite.

“Cloud computing’s almost infinite on-demand resources, with its utility billing model, combined with our PZFlex finite element analysis [FEA] software as a service, is a game changer for the scientific and engineering communities,” said Dr. Robert Banks, PZFlex director and senior associate at the Mountain View, California, office of global engineering firm Weidlinger Associates. “PZFlexCloud represents a step change in the way high-fidelity FEA solutions can be accessed by a broad set of users, from large enterprises to innovative departments and individuals.”

By taking advantage of the power and elasticity of cloud computing, PZFlexCloud will permit experienced users to realize unprecedented performance and flexibility of use. An accurate multi-run 3D simulation for piezoelectric and wave propagation analysis that traditionally took 32 days was recently completed with the CliQr platform and PZFlexCloud in just 14 hours, allowing for more test iterations and shorter analysis times. PZFlexCloud also makes advanced FEA available to a broader market. With CliQr and PZFlexCloud, new users who have had to compromise on functionality can now use the PZFlex suite on a pay-as-you-go basis without the costs and complexities of building and maintaining capital-intensive physical computing resources.

Dr. Banks added, “PZFlexCloud eliminates the longstanding trade-offs between advanced speed, functionality, and approachable economics. Customers can get simplified access and high-performance use of the PZFlex solution without having to design, build, or maintain their own information-technology infrastructure.”

Contributing to PZFlexCloud’s success, the CliQr Technologies CloudCenter platform simplifies the migration and runtime management of the PZFlex software suite without requiring any modification of the leading FEA software. With CliQr’s CloudCenter, PZFlex was able to benchmark the price and performance of their application across all possible cloud environments and determine where their offering could deliver the best value for their customers. Running on HP Cloud Services, PZFlexCloud makes it easy, powerful, and secure to perform complex FEA on the cloud.

“CliQr shares Weidlinger’s value and vision to make the most sophisticated cloud solutions approachable and manageable by the broadest user base,” said Gaurav Manglik, CEO and co-founder of CliQr Technologies. “CliQr understands that software vendors want to take advantage of the cloud while protecting the time and investments they have already made in their core offerings. CliQr provides a complete platform for businesses like Weidlinger and their PZFlex offering, looking for an integrated approach to commercially use the cloud and maintain the ability to flexibly adapt to future changes in the cloud-computing landscape.”

“Scientific and engineering communities are looking for ways to access 3D virtual-prototyping solutions without having to build and maintain their own physical infrastructure,” said Dan Baigent, senior director, Business Development, Cloud Services, HP. “Running on HP Cloud Services, PZFlexCloud provides users with the ability to access PZFlex in the cloud in one click, which leads to much shorter analysis time at much lower cost.”

Tagged as:
Hewlett-Packard,
HP Cloud Services,
Information technology management,
OpenStack,
PZFlex,
Weidlinger Associates

Article source: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/CloudNewsDaily/~3/Q2Atot5PjMM/

Since the Galaxy S4′s launch, Samsung’s been eager to make security one of the device’s stronger selling points. Through its partnership with Absolute Software, makers of LoJack for Laptops, Samsung will soon embed a theft recovery system right into the the phone’s firmware. LoJack for Android smartphones, launching exclusively on the Galaxy S4, joins SAFE for Knox in Samsung’s quest to develop “the most comprehensive mobile security solution” on the market. While there are plenty of apps that can locate misplaced phones via GPS and wipe their contents, the hope of retrieving a stolen phone is slim to none. In addition to content-clearing software, LoJack will offer a service in which “recovery specialists” attempt to return lost phones to their owners. There’s no guarantee that said recovery specialists will be able to successfully track down thieves and reclaim stolen devices, but it’s nice to dream. Subscriptions for LoJack for Android will start at $29.99 a year, though there’s no official word yet on a release date.

Article source: http://www.engadget.com/2013/05/22/lojack-for-android-galaxy-s4/

IBM has published this infographic that shows its gains from its private cloud. Worth a close look.

Tagged as:
IBM,
IBM Private Cloud

Article source: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/CloudNewsDaily/~3/FTB5A7F8JFA/

This so-called Facebook “fatigue” was neatly illustrated early this month when the Pew Research Center released a report concluding teens were tiring of the service and losing interest. Interestingly, all this happened just before Yahoo bought Tumblr, an unprofitable social networking platform focused on a similar demographic. 

Yes, you read that correctly. Yahoo went and bought a customer base that is unprofitable with a two-year attention span –  announcing a plan to make the service profitable in about the same timeframe they are likely to lose those same customers. Now Facebook’s inability to retain customers is pretty dumb, but shelling out a billion dollars to buy the most fickle demographic in social networking is even dumber. Clearly, youth and inexperience are driving foolish behavior.

Zuckerberg the Fool

It is hard to point to a multi-billionaire and call him a fool, as building that kind of wealth isn’t the act of a foolish man. Nevertheless, failing to recognize you are in over your head and unnecessarily putting that wealth at risk is definitely not the smartest move. To be sure, Zuckerberg built a product for people he didn’t really understand, given he thought folks who  used Facebook were stupid. Actually the words he used were even more derogatory. While later comments suggest Zuckerberg has learned a lot since he made disparaging remarks, it appears his core beliefs probably haven’t changed all that much.  

From his perspective, Facebook users are “Dumb F,” and well, we’ll leave that word to his actual quote. Essentially, the problem is to effectively design and keep relevant a product you believe is only used by stupid people. This clearly makes the creation and success of the offering accidental – meaning Zuckerberg lacks the capability to understand and reach the core audience that Facebook currently serves. As such, it should come as little surprise that users are losing interest in the service. 

You can’t really, at least over a sustained period of time, retain customers you clearly despise. As such, Zuckerberg likely should have stepped out of the CEO role and passed it on to someone more socially inclined and thought better of his or her target audience.  

Meyer the Fool in Training

New CEOs are under a ton of pressure and Yahoo’s Merissa Meyer is no exception.  Coming after a string of more experienced failed CEOs for Yahoo, her chance of being successful was pretty remote. Under massive pressure to make things happen, Meyer is clearly having leadership teething problems as reflected by her abuse of executive power in eliminating telecommuting and being the poster child for competitive mothering (the practice of showcasing just how good you are at favoring work over your kids).  

She has yet to articulate a strategy for Yahoo which was struggling with its future and clearly saw Tumblr, an increasingly popular unprofitable social media company as her Hail Mary. Unfortunately, she clearly missed the problems that MySpace suffered and Facebook is currently struggling with, namely retaining the young demographic. Yes, Meyer paid a huge sum to buy a customer base that is anything but loyal to brands, products, or even appearances for more than a few years at a time. This is largely because its members are going through massive emotional, educational, and social changes as they move between schools and into careers (or back home to mothers and fathers given the job market still largely sucks).    

So $1B out of her war chest to buy into a market that Facebook is showcasing as disloyal and difficult to retain suggests that while Zuckerberg is dumb, Meyer may be remembered as even dumber.  

Wrapping Up:  Lessons Learned

If you are going to run a company that sells something, the folks at the top should really have some expertise about what it is you are selling. So yes, the head of a social network site should have some kind of core social networking skills, meaning, an engineer likely shouldn’t lead the effort given social engineer is an oxymoron.  

The other lesson? Take a good look around before making a massive move like buying Tumblr. If the market leader is having issues because the very same customer base is fickle, then perhaps buying or building a service like LinkedIn which doesn’t have the same problem, or steering clear of social networks would be the better path.

Remember, Netscape failed trying to out Microsoft Microsoft as did Sun. Meanwhile, Yahoo almost failed trying to out Google Google, and Redmond clearly ran into a wall trying to out Apple Apple with Zune. Perhaps a better path is to go someplace where no one else has yet set up shop, kind of like Steve Jobs’ Apple did, along with Google and Microsoft, at least initially.

Frankly, it is somewhat funny how these highly paid folks don’t seem to get what should be a relatively easy and clearly demonstrated lesson – seeming like they would rather chase each other in a competition about who is the dumbest. Go figure.  

Article source: http://www.tgdaily.com/opinion-features/71805-the-facebook-and-yahoo-ceos-dumb-and-dumber

By Evelyn M. Rusli

Facebook sa id Wednesday that it joined the Global Network Initiative, an advocacy group that promotes online privacy and freedom. The organization already features several other technology giants such as Microsoft Yahoo and Google , as well as rights groups such as Human Rights Watch and Human Rights in China.

“Advancing human rights, including freedom of expression and the right to communicate freely, is core to our mission of making the world more open and connected,” said Elliot Schrage, Facebook’s vice president of communications, marketing and public policy, in a statement.

By backing GNI, Facebook is taking a tougher stand against governments that suppress online freedoms and privacy. The group provides its member companies with guidelines on how to work with governments that may be pushing them to violate users’ privacy or online freedoms. It also conducts independent reviews of its member companies’ practices to ensure that they are upholding GNI’s goals.

While the group has the backing of many privacy groups, some experts have questioned whether GNI’s policies could be stronger.

For Facebook, aligning itself with a group like GNI could help it navigate countries such as China, where other big Silicon Valley firms have had very public run-ins with censorship policies.

As growth in the North American and European market slows, Facebook has increasingly focused on its expansion in developing countries. China has more than half a billion people online, according to a recent government report. However, despite the promise of growing middle classes and the rapid growth rate of developing economies, especially in Asia, advertisers and consumers have historically spent less in these markets.

With its GNI membership, Facebook is also taking another step to assure its members that it supports privacy. The issue has been a prickly one for the company: At times, tweaks to its privacy features have inspired loud protests from users and government scrutiny.

Shoring up user comfort and satisfaction is likely a topic Facebook executives are increasingly thinking about, as the company tries to attract more young members and — more importantly for its bottom-line — get all of its users comfortable with sharing data used to target ads.

On Tuesday, a Pew Research Center report revealed that Facebook may be having some trouble with the youth part of that goal. Although the data showed that Facebook is still the most popular network among teens, the group is spending more time on Twitter these days, with usage up significantly from 16% (in 2011) to 24%. The report said teens exhibited “waning enthusiasm” for Facebook because of the increased number of adults, over-sharing and “drama.”

Article source: http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2013/05/22/facebook-joins-gni-online-privacy-and-freedom-group/

There is a surprisingly rich and dynamic academic literature developing around the concept of “sousveillance,” a term coined by the University of Toronto professor and inventor Steve Mann to describe privately made recordings that can serve as a counterweight to institutional and government surveillance. Mann is famous for approaching these questions from the perspective of wearable computing, a field in which he is one of the earliest pioneers; his apparent eccentricity is belied by the gravity and lucidity of his writing, which is heavily influenced by Foucault’s views on panopticism:

One way to challenge and problematize both surveillance and acquiescence to it is to resituate these technologies of control on individuals, offering panoptic technologies to help them observe those in authority. We call this inverse panopticon “sousveillance” from the French words for “sous” (below) and “veiller” to watch.

Sousveillance is a form of “reflectionism,” a term invented by Mann (1998) for a philosophy and procedures of using technology to mirror and confront bureaucratic
organizations. Reflectionism holds up the mirror and asks the question: “Do you like what you see?” If you do not, then you will know that other approaches by which we
integrate society and technology must be considered.

* * * 

A new and notable practitioner of sousveillance emerged last month: the University of Pennsylvania junior Aakash Abbi. On April 22nd, Abbi attended a talk given by the noted Republican pollster and strategist Frank Luntz. The talk was hosted by a campus club, the College Republicans; it was publicized on Facebook, and was open to the public. There were around a hundred people in the audience. After the presentation, there was a Q. A.: Luntz was asked about our current political polarization, and, according to Mother Jones’s version of events, he “replied that he had something important to say on this matter but was apprehensive about speaking openly; doing so, he explained, could land him in trouble.”

Abbi told me what happened next: “[T]here were some shouts from the crowd, and people wanting [Luntz] to be taken off the record. So he asked any reporters to raise their hands, and there was only one reporter present, a staff reporter from the Daily Pennsylvanian, our school paper; he identified himself, and was asked if he would mind going off the record. He said absolutely not, and he turned off his recording device, and that’s about when I turned mine on.”

Luntz proceeded to speak out against Rush Limbaugh and the right-wing noise machine. “[T]hey get great ratings, and they drive the message, and it’s really problematic. And this is not on the Democratic side. It’s only on the Republican side…[inaudible]. [Democrats have] got every other source of news on their side. And so that is a lot of what’s driving it. If you take—Marco Rubio’s getting his ass kicked. Who’s my Rubio fan here? We talked about it. He’s getting destroyed! By Mark Levin, by Rush Limbaugh, and a few others.”

Abbi made his recording of Luntz available to Mother Jones, and David Corn published it with his comments on April 25th. Luntz’s reaction to the publication of his own words was remarkable. The master of messaging told the Daily Pennsylvanian that he “would never return to speak” at his alma mater after the incident, that he would discourage others from speaking there, and that he would not renew a scholarship established in his father’s name for students to travel to Washington, D.C. (I asked Penn administrators for details about the scholarship—the amount, the number of recipients, etc.—and was told that they “had no information to offer” about it.)

There followed a considerable fracas in the Daily Pennsylvanian, both pro- and anti-Abbi, a bit of which spread to national political blogs. Arielle Klepach, President of the College Republicans, opened the proceedings: “Mr. Abbi’s deplorable actions are an embarrassment to not only our organization, but also our University. While identifying as Republican is no easy feat at Penn, our organization strives to foster an intellectually and politically safe environment for those who do not belong to the overwhelming political majority on this campus.”

Abbi remains convinced he did the right thing by making the tape public. “I have been accused of harming the future of discourse at Penn,” he told me. “If anything, I’d think I would have helped it. Because if [there are] politicians or public figures who don’t want to speak openly, who fear they are at risk if their words are being recorded by people who want to hear them, then good riddance. We don’t need those people at our campus. We need people who are going to advance the discussion.”

* * * 

The matter of “off the record” is a tricky one, particularly in the context of politics, as evidenced by the Supreme Court’s 5–4 split decision in the case of Cohen v. Cowles Media Co. (1991). Dan Cohen, a Minnesota Republican associated with the 1982 gubernatorial campaign of Wheelock Whitney, was in possession of mildly damaging information regarding Marlene Johnson, the running mate of Whitney’s opponent, Rudy Perpich. Cohen offered this information to reporters at three newspapers on condition of anonymity. Editors at two of the papers decided to burn their source, and Cohen was fired from his job the next day.

The Court’s decision relied on the doctrine of promissory estoppel, or, in plain English, promise-breaking: the Court’s conservatives held that the promise of “off the record” is a contractual matter of information in exchange for anonymity. On the other side of the question, Justice Harry Blackmun wrote in his dissent that it is a violation of the First Amendment “to penalize the reporting of truthful information regarding a political campaign.”

This 1991 decision essentially means that a promise of “off the record” is legally binding, but it must be entered into by both parties in advance. Presumably, Luntz would have had to secure a separate agreement from each of the attendees at his Penn talk in advance in order to be able to claim he’d been wronged based on a promise of anonymity.

But was it legal for Aakash Abbi to record Frank Luntz without his explicit permission? I asked Max Kennerly, a Philadelphia trial lawyer, about this. He replied:

The federal Electronic Communications Privacy Act and Pennsylvania’s Wiretap Law both protect from recording oral conversations “uttered by a person exhibiting an expectation that such communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying such expectation,” a formulation that is both maddeningly vague and sublimely elegant. On the one hand, it gives almost no advance notice to people trying to figure out if a given conversation will be protected. But, on the other hand, it recognizes that the nuances of each given situation (and of changing and varied social norms) preclude us from coming up with fact-specific rules, and so the law gently instructs juries to evaluate whether the speaker exhibited an expectation of privacy and whether that expectation is one that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable. (That latter language comes from the opinions themselves; see, e.g., Com. v. Blystone, 549 A. 2d 81—Pa: Supreme Court 1988).

It’s clear that the “expectation of privacy” would vary a great deal based on circumstances, but the matter of “changing and varied social norms” bears further scrutiny. Is the proliferation of recording devices altering our concept of privacy itself? I asked Abbi, who is a P.P.E. major (Philosophy, Politics, and Economics), whether he thought the “expectation of privacy” had changed in his lifetime. His response was striking:

People my age know that there are probably twice as many photos on the Internet of us, that we’ve never seen, or even know were taken, as there are that we’ve seen. It’s a reality we live with; it’s something people are worried about, and try to have some control over, say by controlling the privacy on their social media accounts.

But at the same time, people my age tend to know that nowhere is really safe, I guess. You’re at risk of being recorded all the time, and at least for me, and I think for a lot of people who are more reasonable, that’s only motivation to be the best person you can be; to exhibit as good character as you can, because if all eyes are on you, you don’t really have the option to be publicly immoral, or to do wrong without being accountable.

Kennerly had a different response to the same question:

In many ways, the ubiquity of recording devices (we all have one in our pockets) doesn’t really change the analysis: you’ve never had the guarantee, by law or by custom, that a roomful of strangers will keep your secrets, even if they say they will. Did Abbi violate some part of the social compact by deceiving Luntz? In my opinion, yes. But falsity has a place in our society, and, as the Supreme Court confirmed last summer in United States v. Alvarez, certain false statements (outside of defamation, fraud, and perjury) can indeed receive First Amendment protection. As Judge Kozinski said in that case (when it was in front of the 9th Circuit), “white lies, exaggerations and deceptions [ ] are an integral part of human intercourse.”

Let me quote Kozinski at length:

Saints may always tell the truth, but for mortals living means lying. We lie to protect our privacy (“No, I don’t live around here”); to avoid hurt feelings (“Friday is my study night”); to make others feel better (“Gee you’ve gotten skinny”); to avoid recriminations (“I only lost $10 at poker”); to prevent grief (“The doc says you’re getting better”); to maintain domestic tranquility (“She’s just a friend”); to avoid social stigma (“I just haven’t met the right woman”); for career advancement (“I’m sooo lucky to have a smart boss like you”); to avoid being lonely (“I love opera”); to eliminate a rival (“He has a boyfriend”); to achieve an objective (“But I love you so much”); to defeat an objective (“I’m allergic to latex”); to make an exit (“It’s not you, it’s me”); to delay the inevitable (“The check is in the mail”); to communicate displeasure (“There’s nothing wrong”); to get someone off your back (“I’ll call you about lunch”); to escape a nudnik (“My mother’s on the other line”); to namedrop (“We go way back”); to set up a surprise party (“I need help moving the piano”); to buy time (“I’m on my way”); to keep up appearances (“We’re not talking divorce”); to avoid taking out the trash (“My back hurts”); to duck an obligation (“I’ve got a headache”); to maintain a public image (“I go to church every Sunday”); to make a point (“Ich bin ein Berliner”); to save face (“I had too much to drink”); to humor (“Correct as usual, King Friday”); to avoid embarrassment (“That wasn’t me”); to curry favor (“I’ve read all your books”); to get a clerkship (“You’re the greatest living jurist”); to save a dollar (“I gave at the office”); or to maintain innocence (“There are eight tiny reindeer on the rooftop”)….

An important aspect of personal autonomy is the right to shape one’s public and private persona by choosing when to tell the truth about oneself, when to conceal, and when to deceive. Of course, lies are often disbelieved or discovered, and that, too, is part of the push and pull of social intercourse. But it’s critical to leave such interactions in private hands, so that we can make choices about who we are. How can you develop a reputation as a straight shooter if lying is not an option?

As Big Brother’s threat to our privacy grows ever larger, so does Little Brother’s reach expand, with a defining awareness that public spaces are fair game for all, and a corresponding awareness of what really constitutes, or should constitute, our private spaces and private communications. When we are in the street, we all belong, in some sense, to everyone.

Illustration by Tom Bachtell.

Article source: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/elements/2013/05/mother-jones-video-rise-of-little-brother.html

Ten years ago, Nick Denton started Gawker with the idea of capturing the gossip that journalists tell one another privately but won’t put into print. Since then, he has been at the center of several legal battles with celebrities looking to protect secrets.

How to Keep a Celebrity Sex Tape Off the InternetConvicted Girls Gone Wild Mogul Joe Francis Breaks Silence: ‘Retarded’ Jury ‘Should Be Shot Dead’

The network of Gawker sites have become celebrated for its scoops, most recently uncovering Manti Te’o‘s fake girlfriend and Toronto Mayor Rob Ford smoking crack cocaine. Denton also has overseen many high-profile battles with stars including John Travolta, Hulk Hogan and Sarah Palin. His digital empire now attracts tens of millions of readers monthly.

Denton  occasionally will admit to having made a judgment error. See what he has to say about a Lena Dunham book proposal below. But overall, Denton is unrepentant and argues an unconventional point of view on privacy that surely will keep the Hollywood legal community busy in the years to come.

We recently spoke to Denton about a decade worth of living on the edge online. Also joining the conversation was Gawker editor John Cook.

THR: When you started Gawker, did you have an idea that you were going to change things?

Denton: Yeah. The basic concept was two journalists in a bar telling each other a story that’s much more interesting than whatever hits the papers the next day.

THR: Do you think journalists censor themselves?

Denton: Well, I used to think it had to do with legal reasons and people being too fearful of libel. But actually, now I think the larger factor is a journalist’s desire for respectability — not wanting to expose themselves, not wanting to say, “Hey we’ve heard this, we’re not completely sure whether it’s true.” People are talking about this. We’re just going to share with you as we would share with our colleagues what we have.

THR: What have you learned along the way?

Denton: We’ve removed a lot of obstacles to free journalism and yet –

Cook: There is still the desire to be right. That is still important to me and to everyone we work with. We want to get it right. Our standards for getting it right are different from larger, more established institutions, and we do not just throw out every tip that we get on the site. We evaluate and report.

Denton: That is a disagreement between us. That’s a disagreement between me and a lot of our journalists is that I would like more of the tips to be published. Maybe not published under John’s name but published under a tipster’s name or under a tipster’s anonymous handle. I would like them to be published.

THR: One of the legal issues that’s always coming up for Gawker again and again and again is privacy issues. Do you have a larger philosophy on privacy in this age?

Denton: I think the world is coming around to our presumption on privacy, which is that when somebody becomes the publisher, as people do at quite a young age on Facebook. To the extent that they are published and they are viewed, they become some sort of public figure. That blurs the line between public and private in a way that has never been done before.

THR: Gawker has been accused of invading people’s privacy on many occasions, from George Clooney complaining about “Gawker Stalker” to the Hulk Hogan sex tape.

Denton: Just once in a while, I think it’s worthwhile to take stock and recognize that the supposed invasion of privacy has incredibly positive effects on society. It has. … Ten years ago, people maintained very different private and professional personas. Now that line has been obliterated. An employer would be a complete fool to let an image like college partying influence their hiring decisions. Because so many of those photographs have been published (in social media), it’s been normalized in a way. Take attitudes towards gay sex and gay relationships. Yes, in part that’s been driven by the outing of celebrities like Anderson Cooper, something I’m proud to say we played a part in, but more of it is just in the self-outing of people’s friends through party photographs, through the random indiscretion on Facebook that makes it actually increasingly difficult for people to maintain secrets.

THR: Have there been instances where you’ve drawn the line, where you’ve seen a story that’s about to come out and you say you can’t go there? 

Denton: Not that I want to remember. … It still drives me crazy that we haven’t broken about about ———– being gay. [ed: celebrity name censored]

Cook: I think it’s a matter of what the opportunity is. It’s just a question of do I want to wake up in the morning and be like, “Hey, how can I do a ———— item today?” No. If it presents itself, we will do it that way. If we had photos and if we had an account of an assistant, we would do it. Am I like spending all day trying to find his ex-assistants and pay them money to say something? No.

Denton: It drives me crazy that there is something that is widely known that I hear about from friends — basically, friends who have set him up with guys. Not everyone here agrees we should do this story. This is the primary dynamic within Gawker, but I hope the presumption is that we should get stuff out.

THR: Do you think you walk a more dangerous ground when you pay for information?

Cook: I mean, honestly, we don’t generally pay for information. We pay for documentation.

Denton: The fact that a person is interested in money gives one a little pause. You probably check into their story more.

THR: You got some heat for publishing a column from the “Fox Mole.”

Denton: I wish we hadn’t done that story in exactly the way we did. Perhaps it would have worked better as a discussion. Like you want to know how something works there or what [Fox News president] Roger Ailes has on the wall. We set up the story as if he was going to give some great revelation of things at Fox News. There was nothing that was a story in a traditional journalistic sense, but there were many things that would make for great gossip in conversation.

Cook: Nick has a habit of taking whatever the most successful story that we’ve done and shitting on it.

THR: How do you think Fox handled the situation?

Denton: Usually they come after us.

Cook: They did come after us. Roger Ailes has had his personal attorney, Peter Johnson, go after us for publishing. I got police records for all of his times he called 911 for his house. His house is in Jersey, in Putnam County, and we published it, and his attorney was coming after us for invasion of privacy.

Denton: And then Fox News came out — fortunately — an incorrect phone number for me and encouraged people to call. They do retaliate, but antagonism is so constant [from Fox] it’s very hard to know what’s related to what.

Up next: Lena Dunham’s book proposal, Hulk Hogan’s sex tape and potentially selling Gawker …

Article source: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/gawkers-nick-denton-explains-why-526548

Microsoft’s new Xbox, the Xbox One.

(Credit:
James Martin/CNET)

REDMOND, Wash. — Microsoft’s got a new Xbox on the way, and according to the company, it’s the foundation for the next 10 to 20 years of home gaming and entertainment.

The console, which has not yet been given a price, release date, or live game demos was shown off here on Tuesday and left just about as many questions as it did answers about where Microsoft is taking one of its most popular products.

CNET sat down with Jeff Henshaw, the group program manager for
Xbox Incubation, to try to get some of those answers. That includes whether the company thinks naming a console “One” when it’s technically the third-generation is confusing (spoiler: Microsoft thinks it won’t be), whether the company will keep its much-disliked Microsoft Points currency around, and whether there will be hardened privacy for a system that depends on a camera designed to watch your every move.

Read on for an edited transcript of our chat.

Microsoft’s Jeff Henshaw.

(Credit:
Josh Lowensohn/CNET)

CNET: There seems to be some confusion here about the ability to resell Xbox One games, or reuse Xbox One games among other users.

Henshaw: Let me clear that up unequivocally. Xbox One will support the reselling and used game market for Xbox One games. We have not announced details about exactly how it’s going to work, or how licenses are going to be exchanged. That’s all coming up later in the year. What we have announced is that a used game ecosystem will be supported, so people can breathe easy. They will be able to get used games.

CNET: You say you’re going to support it, but is it going to be different from the way you’re doing it now?

Henshaw: We haven’t shared any of those details yet. The key thing to bear in mind is that in the coming generation, obviously retail sales are going to play a huge part in that ecosystem, and people will continue to buy shiny discs. But increasingly, content sales are going to happen online. That’s what Xbox Live and the Arcade investments on 360 have all been learning towards, and Xbox One is really going to take that to the next level. The entire content portfolio will be available as well.

CNET: You showed off some of the ways the Xbox One can be used with other devices like tablets, but the example was a
Windows 8 tablet. Obviously not everybody has those. What’s the plan for Xbox One with the multitude of
Android and iOS devices?

Henshaw: We want people, regardless of what device they’re on, to be able to participate in the Xbox One ecosystem. Even today, we have Xbox Smart Glass apps on Android and iOS, and Windows Phone and Windows 8 tablets. So we’re covering a very broad spectrum today, and we continue to invest more heavily with Xbox One in broadening the reach of the Xbox experience to multiple devices.

CNET: Kinect now needs to be on all the time. But there are obviously some people who say “I don’t want this camera in my living room.”

Henshaw: If you want privacy, we’ll give you modes that ensure your privacy. And we actually have a little bit about this on the Web already. We will have something similar for the Kinect with Xbox One. The system is designed to have Kinect be an integral part of the experience. It’s not the case where you’ll be able to remove the camera altogether. But you’ll be able to put the system in modes where you can be completely secure about the fact that the camera is off and can’t see you.

CNET: Are there any sort of restrictions from cable or satellite companies that keep the Xbox One from working as a TV companion?

Henshaw: We want to offer that experience to people regardless of where they get their television. We recognize that people have a very diverse set of sources for where they get TV. Increasingly people are using over the top applications like Hulu Plus, Netflix, in fact those are some of the most popular experiences on Xbox 360 today.

Many people still have direct, for-pay relationships with their cable and satellite providers, and abroad it’s an even broader spectrum. A lot of people, especially in Europe, have free, over the air transmission. And net tuners are starting to come along too, the ones that used IP-based tuners to relay digital signals. We want all of those to work with the Xbox One … as long as it has HDMI out, Xbox One’s going to have it covered.

CNET: Speaking of watching movies and TV, Netflix on the Xbox 360 has always required a paid, Xbox Live Gold subscription. No other hardware makers with streaming boxes are doing this. Are there any plans to change that with the Xbox One?

Henshaw: Nothing to announce there yet.

(Credit:
Josh Lowensohn/CNET)

CNET: The Kinect showed up on Xbox 360 first, then came a separate version for Windows. Will the new Kinect work with Windows right out of the box?

Henshaw: The new Kinect is specific to Xbox One. We haven’t announced any additional “flavors” of that generation of Kinect yet. Those are all things we’ll be talking about soon.

Microsoft’s new Kinect.

(Credit:
James Martin/CNET)

CNET: What’s the benefit of the Windows kernel in the Xbox One for developers?

Henshaw: The benefit is tremendous. Xbox One has several powerful subsystems. There’s a very predictable, incredibly powerful gaming subsystem that game developers write their game titles to. On the second is a Windows kernel-based media experience with Skype, Snap mode, and more general application experiences. That is closer to Windows 8 than anything we’ve ever built before, and it definitely paves the way for a broader spectrum of application experiences on Xbox One, and you started to see that today. It gives not just developers, but us here at Microsoft the ability to innovate much faster than ever before.

CNET: So should we expect to see more about developing for the Xbox One at Microsoft’s Build conference at the end of June?

Henshaw: I don’t know the Build agenda, but I would assume not. Build is going to be very forward-thinking about Windows itself.

CNET: We want to know more about the Game DVR feature. Will it work with every game? How long can clips be? And where else can you share it?

Henshaw: The system has become powerful. Xbox One is the only system powerful enough to keep a running trail of the action you’re playing — in any game. Any game. There will be some points where you do something you think is a really big deal. Today, a lot of the time this happens offline, when you’re by yourself. This gives users the ability to pick a segment of their gameplay, or a game developer can also trigger this from within the game. For example if you beat a big boss, or trigger a certain achievement, the game will recognize and tune the clip to that particular segment. Then you can share it out.

Today we talked about how to share it out with your gaming audience. We’ll have more to talk about about where you share beyond that in the future.

CNET: What kind of file will it create? Is it a video recording, or something that’s rendered in realtime?

Henshaw: That’s a level of detail we’ll talk about later on.

CNET: We have to ask about the name confusing people who think it’s the first-generation one, and hey, the Playstation 4 is also on the same shelf.

Henshaw: The original Xbox was just the “Xbox,” it wasn’t “One.” But this vernacular formed where people referred to it as the Xbox. Even today during interviews, I’ve slipped.

It only takes a little while before you realize what’s going on underneath that name. There’s something very powerful about it. Xbox One really embodies the concept that this is the first device, the combination of this very powerful console that brings all its eight cores, 8GB of RAM, super fast memory, super powerful SoC we built, super powerful dedicated audio and video processing subsystems. There’s incredible power in this device, married with the next generation of Kinect for really enabling those subtle interactions between you and your entertainment.

(Credit:
James Martin/CNET)

So to us, One is really the embodiment that this becomes one device that addresses all the entertainment that you want to enjoy on your TV, and brings it to you in a way that’s so simple, that it can be the only input you have connected through your television. It is truly the one place to go for all this. So One ends up being a deeply meaningful thing to us here. It’s almost a bar that we are striving to achieve, and I think we nailed it really well with the Xbox One.

CNET: Do you worry that people will be confused by it though?

Henshaw: No. I think after today, there’s just no question about it. I think there was a few minutes of “hmm” but then as soon as people realize what it’s all about and understand the experience, the One brand immediately gets applied to this new generation of experience.

The thing you have to bear in mind, is that if you look at the original Xbox, the experiences have grown to become so dramatically rich and different. There’s no resemblance anymore between the two. You can’t confuse them in any way. So when people say “Xbox One,” it’s going to be reflective of this new generation of experiences. I really don’t think there’s going to be any confusion.

Live from Microsoft’s Xbox One reveal (pictures)

CNET: Speaking of confusion, will there be just one model of the One?

Henshaw: We have only announced one SKU for this.

CNET: Are Microsoft Points — the money people have to buy with real money to buy digital goods on Xbox live — dead? Or will they be with this next Xbox?

Henshaw: We have not made any specific announcements yet about what the digital content ecosystem looks like. But I can tell you that everything is going to get much simpler, and we’re all going to happy in that sense.

CNET: When the Xbox 360 came out, there were tons of leaks. How did you keep it a secret?

Henshaw: We’ve definitely undergone a metamorphosis as a business unit. We know that we have built this expertise, and we’ve built this muscle over the past 13 years. We’re respectful of our role here, and we’re much more confidential about the inner workings, and that begins with how we think about early engineering and goes right through to how we secure our buildings and our office spaces.

CNET: So the Xbox 360 is going on eight years old. How long will the Xbox One be around?

Henshaw: It’s a continuous innovation cycle. I would argue that this isn’t done probably for about 10 years. Because we’re still innovating on the Xbox 360 in ways we never even imagined. It’s not done today. It wasn’t done last month. It’s not going to be done when the first unit rolls off the manufacturing line. It’s not going to be done when the first person buys one. It’s going to be done — I’m hoping — 10, 15, 20 years from now when it’s enjoyed a robust lifecycle.

CNET: Is this the last time we’ll see a hardware-based version of the Xbox?

Henshaw: You know, we’ve already begun to answer that question many years ago with Xbox Live … We’re definitely going to continue that trajectory. We’ve built Xbox One to be as future-proof as possible to support more innovation over more years than any product we’ve ever built. So I think you will continue to see very deep investments in Xbox Live, and eventually new peripherals and new accessories that will stretch what Xbox One can do.

Whether there will ever be another physical box? It’s really really hard to say. Right now I just want to see this physical box.

Article source: http://news.cnet.com/8301-10805_3-57585620-75/microsoft-talks-xbox-one-naming-privacy-and-more-q-a/

Some things you take for granted, like the fact that in Star Trek, there’s a computer that’s always listening, always observing, always standing by cataloging data. Who owns that data? Where’s it stored? Who determines how it’s used? Who knows. The shows chose to slide by those questions and focus on others. The holodeck was creepy because, whoops, maybe you’d get trapped, or addicted, or its fictional denizens might inexplicably come to life, not because the computer was collating and archiving everything you did, whether hiking a simulation of the Appalachian trail or indulging some crazy erotic fantasy.

Microsoft’s Xbox One won’t surround you with holographic fir trees, azaleas and mountain laurels, nor, as far as I know, will it dish out interactive porn. But it is going to be listening — and capturing data, and transmitting that data back to Microsoft — in ways no device in your household has ever listened to or observed you before.

When Stan Lee wrote “With great power comes great responsibility” in Amazing Fantasy #15 back in 1962, he packed a longstanding philosophical notion into six culturally resonant words. Those words couldn’t be more relevant today, with our lives awash in cloud-connected technology, generating and beaming back mountains of abstractly defined information that’s quietly sifted by complex machine algorithms and pored over by corporations in search of new ways to further secure footholds in our future lives.

So with Xbox One, which promises to streamline how we interact with TV, movies, music and games by introducing always-on, always-connected digital ears and eyes to our living rooms, I’d argue the burden on Microsoft to safeguard our privacy (and articulate that in a meaningful, non-pandering way) just shot through the roof.

Consider what we know about Xbox One for starters: The new console will come with Microsoft’s refined Kinect sensor, a detachable hammerhead-like camera with microphone that you’ll probably position somewhere high up in your entertainment center, where its upgraded 1080p widescreen eye can easily sweep your play-space. Unlike the Xbox 360, which functions whether the Kinect camera is attached to the console or not, Xbox One won’t work without Kinect plugged in. At least part of the reason for this is that Microsoft wants its new system to be instantly responsive and interactively seamless — so tuned to your physiology that the company is saying it can even measure your heartbeat simply by “looking” at you (courtesy its new infrared camera). But that sort of granularity also raises obvious and completely reasonable privacy concerns.

Microsoft’s been making the rounds in post-Xbox-One-reveal interviews, claiming that it’ll provide configurable privacy settings, but it’s been elliptical about what that means in specific terms; all we know for sure is that, at minimum, Kinect will have to be attached to the system for Xbox One to function. (To be fair, some of this pre-launch hedging is doubtless intentional, as the design team makes last minute changes — and decisions — about exactly how much control over privacy we’ll be allowed.)

We’ve also been told that while Xbox One won’t cease to function should you a suffer temporary loss of Internet, Internet connectivity will, as rumored, be required; we don’t have full details yet, but it sounds like the console will require a hotline back to Microsoft HQ at least once a day.

Bearing these things in mind, here’s my initial question list about Xbox One, narrowly focused on privacy and security concerns.

Will we be able to shut Xbox One’s camera and microphone completely off?

In an interview with CNET, Xbox group program manager Jeff Henshaw explained that while we won’t be able to remove Kinect without crippling the system, we will be able to completely disable the camera. That should please anyone worried about having to shell out extra for duct tape (you know, to manually cover the lens). But assuming Henshaw’s properly describing the final shipping product here, note that he says nothing about disabling the microphone. Will we be able to disable Xbox One’s “ears,” too? And can we disable both of these things permanently, or will we have to do so each time we reengage the console?

Can we opt out of transmitting general behavior and performance data?

Many companies allow you to transmit information about how you use their services, but allow you to opt out completely if you so choose; Apple, for instance, lets you transmit information about how you use OS X, but doesn’t require it. Microsoft, by contrast, already requires certain types of data collection when using Kinect with the Xbox 360. For instance, according to the company’s Privacy and Online Safety FAQ referring to “Kinect Performance Data”:

This information helps us continuously improve Kinect performance. It does not personally identify you, and collection of this data cannot be disabled. As you play, we collect information on how your Kinect device and platform software are functioning, usage patterns within the Xbox Dashboard applications, and other data that does not directly or personally identify you.

Notice the reference to “other data that does not directly or personally identify you.” That reference reappears in subsequent sections describing other types of Kinect data. Are claims of anonymity sufficient without disclosing what this “other data” is?

I realize other services (say, Steam) gather reams of anonymous, generalized usage metrics in trade for service access, then shop that data out to third parties, but just because no one’s cared enough to raise a fuss doesn’t mean it ought to be status quo. With Xbox One, the possibility of capturing consumer data at an unprecedented data-point resolution level in traditionally off-limits environments may seem a godsend to corporate marketing departments, but at what point does trading away your ability to control how information you’ve generated is used for access to whatever service cross the line between reasonable and invasive? If you’re going to turn your consumer base at least partially into free marketing fodder, you should at least give them the option not to participate.

Why are Microsoft’s references to “targeted advertising” so vague?

I believe Microsoft when it says Xbox One won’t try to target-advertise to individuals based on what they say or do while engaging with Xbox One. But I’m not at all convinced Microsoft won’t pass aggregate data on to third parties to use in more general terms. In a sense, you’re looking at a hypothetically vast and unparalleled sociological experiment about to embark, where companies can quietly gather behavioral information about us from within the intimacy of our households, collate that data (all while claiming, probably accurately, that it’s being done anonymously) then use it for marketing and who-knows-what-other purposes, potentially extending well beyond the scope of Xbox One. As noted earlier, just because collected taste-related data’s being anonymized doesn’t preclude us from being targeted at the demographic level.

How is Microsoft safeguarding Xbox One from hackers? What sort of security measures is it taking, both on the client and server sides?

This isn’t just paranoid thinking. Consider the case against furniture retailer Aaron’s Inc., which — whether itself or via franchisees — leased computers harboring illicit spyware to customers, computers that eventually sent some 185,000 emails containing sensitive information back to corporate computers. The idea that computers in intimate settings might, for one reason or another, surreptitiously capture what we’re doing and transmit that information illicitly isn’t fanciful worst-casing: it’s already happened.

Over the past few years, we’ve seen everything from Sony’s PlayStation Network to Stratfor to the C.I.A. hacked, whether to deface or disrupt web services or to pilfer personal information or shame companies by distributing that information en masse. An always-on, always-listening system that lives with us in our homes requires extraordinary attention to security — much more than just a wink and a smile from Microsoft in its terms and conditions assuring that everything’s under control.

Should companies that hope to place a device like this into tens of millions of households have to submit to independent, periodic security reviews? It’s worth asking the question. I don’t want to overreach, but then imagine how people might react if someone managed to hack into Xbox One — server- or client-side — captured someone engaged in highly sensitive activity, then pushed that online for public viewing.

Less a question than a request: Don’t patronize us in your upcoming Xbox One privacy FAQ, and don’t assume the only thing we care about when it comes to data aggregation and transmission is anonymity (or that that’s a sufficient definition of privacy and security).

I’m not fundamentally opposed to the idea that technology might track my comings and goings and doings at home, or that it might relay that information on to a company like Microsoft, which I’m sure intends to use it in at least some capacity to simply improve the service. Making what you do friendlier, more efficient and more relevant is an important aspect of any contemporary, Internet-connected service and there’s definitely a “glass half full” angle to much of this. But we deserve better explanations about these processes as well as reasonably broad control over how they work. And while I have no issue with a console requiring Internet connectivity to function in 2013, I do take issue with this idea that giving up certain privacy rights is an acceptable exchange for access to Xbox One’s traditional services.

In other words, if Microsoft wants to kick this “eyes and ears in your home” can down the road some more, fine, but the barrier to entry ought to be higher — a lot higher — than it’s ever been before.

Article source: http://techland.time.com/2013/05/22/xbox-one-raises-the-burden-of-privacy-safeguards-5-questions-for-microsoft/