For Apple Legal, Resistance is Futile

As I mentioned in a quick note on The Apple Blog yesterday, the latest rumor du jour is that Apple is set to soon release shorter, wider versions of the iPod Nano in a variety of new colors. While the initial "spy shots" on some sites have been blurry at best, subsequent requests by Apple Legal to a number of those sites, from 9to5mac.com to Gizmodo, and most recently, Paris Lemon, for them to remove the images, seems to be a lot like asking for the barn door to be shut after the cows have been released.

Once a rumor or leak hits the Web, it's out, period. If it's an Apple rumor, it's likely on Digg. Other Mac users, like I did, downloaded the images to their hard drives en mass, in the event the takedown notices were issued. If the photos were reposted anywhere, they're on blogs, and Google Images would be next to reindex the images in their library, and cache them forever. Archive.org may crawl the page and take a picture. Even if Apple Legal reached out to everyone, and everyone complied, those images are out for good.

It's an oft-repeated sport for the Mac rumors sites to seek out leaked info, and then for Apple Legal to go after them. But even though I respect Apple's need for secrecy and privacy and for them to break the news, in the world of the Web, with such a maniacal fan base as they have, resistance is futile, and they might as well focus more on those internally who broke the rules, instead of shooting the messengers.

Register.com Laptop Stolen, With My Credit Card Data

With all the stories in the news over the last few years of misplaced laptops and lost data tapes containing personal information, including financial details, such as credit card and social security numbers, it figures that is has now come time for me to finally be the victim. Register.com sent me an e-mail this evening saying that "while less than 2%" of the company's customers were believed to have their account and credit card data on a stolen laptop, that I was one of the lucky ones to be impacted.

As the company's customer service director writes, "you are receiving this letter because we believe that your customer data and credit card information was on this laptop."

Register.com, the domain name service by which I registered louisgray.com and host the site, says that the company has no evidence my data has been misused, that there is a low likelihood of my information being compromised, and that "appropriate third parties and law enforcement agencies have been notified." Yet, despite all of these things, the company still recommends I notify my credit card company, and enroll in an identity theft protection service from Equifax. Helpfully, Register.com is offering me the first 12 months free, though I have no doubts I'd be asked to pay up come a year from now.

Beyond the obvious annoyances this poses, the timing of the e-mail is extremely suspicious. The e-mail was sent after 4 p.m. on a Friday just before an extended holiday weekend. If there were ever a time to try and hide a major security incident from the press, now would be a great time to do so. And despite the potential for identity theft, mysterious charges and significant hassle, the company wraps up the e-mail by saying, "thank you for your continued business partnership with Register.com."

They can only hope so. We'll be watching this situation very closely. Have you ever been the target of identity theft or been alerted your data was at risk?

BitTorrent Bails Me Out on TiVo's Simpsons Miss

This evening, after work, I settled down in front of the TiVo, expecting to find last night's season finale of The Simpsons. Long anticipated, knowing the finale was to feature Keifer Sutherland and Mary Lynn Rajskub of "24" in a mashup of the two popular Fox shows, I was shocked to find The Simpsons nowhere on my TiVo listings at all.

Due to an unfortunate season pass error, a rerun of Gilmore Girls (not my idea, trust me) had overtaken Marge, Homer, Bart, Lisa and Maggie's would-be dual offering. Lucky for me, the Internet was there to back me up. Though I typically steer clear of the peer to peer sharing networks, I believe that if every intent is made to obtain media through mainstream means, they do offer an acceptable alternative, especially for free media like broadcast television. (Side note: If The Simpsons were available on iTunes, I'd have gone there instead)

Sure enough, both episodes of The Simpsons from Sunday were available in crystal clear quality. Clocking in around 174 megabytes apiece , the two AVI files opened up in QuickTime, and delivered the amusement I was seeking. Despite the fact I watched both episodes on my 15-inch PowerBook instead of on the 42-inch plasma TV, the viewing experience was excellent. While The Simpsons can vary from week to week, both shows were very solid, including the excellent 24 mashup parody involving the "Counter Truancy Unit" or... CTU.


Click Either Image to Enlarge and View Higher Quality

As you can see in the inline snapshots, the quality of online video is nearing that of DVDs. Thanks to easy access and high speed broadband, the delay to download didn't make much of an impact. While I'd prefer to have gotten the shows off TiVo or iTunes, BitTorrent sure did come in handy.

Sun vs. Microsoft, Round #293

The Sun vs. Microsoft wars in the 1990s were a delight to watch. While Scott McNealy has yielded his throne to the ponytailed uber-blogger Jonathan Schwartz, the company's distaste for all things Redmond has not changed much with time. As Microsoft sees its monopoly crumbling around it, due to poorly developed software, distaste for security and a poor user experience, it has taken to grandstanding and puffery against all things which threaten its Windows kingdom.

On Monday, a Fortune article revealed that Microsoft stated free software, including the popular Linux operating system, violates up to 235 of its patents, and it wants to get paid. In fact, Microsoft was to bold as to say the reason people are flocking to free software is due to the quality of the Microsoft software they allegedly copied. If successful, the free software would cease to be free, eliminating a very powerful differentiator from it and the software Borg.

The lines have been drawn, and once again, you see Microsoft on the site of litigation and sabre-rattling, and Sun on the other, arguing for openness and anything that doesn't smack of Windows. That's why Schwartz jumped in with a lengthy, intelligent post titled "Free Advice for the Litigious...", where he recounts how Sun adapted to a world of open source software when their Solaris operating system was under attack. Amusingly, Schwartz manages to teach Microsoft a lesson without mentioning the words "Microsoft" or "Windows" even once.

But he offers this warning: "You would be wise to listen to the customers you're threatening to sue - they can leave you, especially if you give them motivation. Remember, they wouldn't be motivated unless your products were somehow missing the mark."

Customers are always happy to pay for premium quality. Witness the iPod, the Nintendo Wii, LCD televisions and the like. If customers are trying to get around using Microsoft products, it's because they are unhappy with their quality and feel they aren't getting their money's worth. While it'd be foolhardy to claim Sun is without blemish, Schwartz is of course right. Microsoft can only lose by taking the free world to court.

Unpopular Opinion: Digg Revolt Is a Bad Precedent

Unless you've been away from the computer for the last 24 hours, you are likely familiar with yesterday's amazing mob-like takeover of the Digg site by its users, angry about the site's removal of a submitted story which offered up a code removing copy protection from HD-DVDs on Linux. While the crack itself was esoteric, and probably didn't mean a hill of beans to the vast majority of the site's users, the ensuing take-down was the effect of yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater, spawning hundreds and hundreds of follow-on submissions that swamped the front page, even leading to the eventual, short-term shutdown of the site late yesterday.

Amid the din, Digg tried to explain its stance, saying they had to comply with copyright owners. But that just fanned the flames, and eventually, Digg founder Kevin Rose capitulated, saying "Today was an insane day" and added "We hear you, and effective immediately we won’t delete stories or comments containing the code..."

The inmates had taken over the asylum.

Response to the melee is a lot like rubbernecking on the freeway. Everybody, jaws agape, had something to say on the subject, from TechCrunch and Mashable!, to parislemon to Digg competitor Slashdot. Many are cheering on the user base. Others are wondering if the takedown notice was even valid in the first place. But to me, as fun as it is to watch the mob, I absolutely see where Digg was coming from, and the response, to give the users what they want, is in dangerous territory.

Yesterday's explosion was around a code most of us would never use. But what is to stop the next round of Digg mobbery from promoting software piracy as Microsoft Windows Vista registration codes are passed around, or the latest TV shows and films are posted to BitTorrent? As Digg had first said yesterday, "We’ve been notified by the owners of this intellectual property that they believe the posting of the encryption key infringes their intellectual property rights." But the sheer volume of users took over, and changed the rules. If enough of the mob decides tomorrow that leaking a DIVX copy of the new Simpsons movie online is the topic du jour of the day, they could again revolt against Digg and make sure that Digg's hands are tied. Now, there's precedent that Digg will walk away from a tough fight, when it threatens to cripple the popular site.

There is a population on the Web all too happy to find new ways to get something for free - whether they be film and TV downloads or MP3 files, software or pornography. Now that Digg has shown it can be used for nefarious methods, another barrier has been taken down between the Internet's dark side and those who have always followed the rules.

All is Not Quiet With Apple Before Earnings

As an Apple (NASDAQ: AAPL) shareholder, these are the times that try men's souls. While remaining very positive on the company's long term goals and product trajectory, the latest spat of news coming out of nearby Cupertino has me thinking as to whether tomorrow would be an excellent time to get out of my Apple stock position, at least for the short term.

Apple announces quarterly earnings an hour after the NASDAQ market's close, and of late, the company's stock has been steadily climbing upward. Despite today's pullback of less than a quarter of one percent, the stock is above $93 a share, up 4% from last week, and more than 12% over the last three months. For me, I'm up just under 10% in this most recent short-term buy.

But in the midst of this, in the last few weeks, Apple has confirmed their next generation operating system, Mac OS X 10.5 (Leopard) will be delayed until the fall, rumors have arisen that the much-awaited iPhone is suffering from stability and battery issues, and the SEC's inquiries into stock manipulation and backdating continue. Today's well-documented news reported former CFO Fred Anderson's settling by paying fines of more than $3 million, and issuing a press release that CEO Steve Jobs instructed him to institute the irregularities in the first place. (See: GMSV)

Whether true or not, any suggestion that Jobs could be at risk sets shudders down the spine of any good Apple investor or Macintosh fan. As the company's business and marketing leader, Jobs represents the soul of the company, and is given the lion's share of the credit for all good things that have come to pass at Apple in the last decade. On the news of Anderson's finger-pointing, some in the media admitted to having cold feet, and selling all their Apple stock.

I've bitten the poisoned Apple a few times myself over the years, holding when I should have sold, yet also selling just before a rally. Even if the company reports stellar earnings, with all these questions, will the Street be satisfied? I'm not so sure. Come this time tomorrow, I just might not own any Apple stock. And truth be told, I might not be happy with my decision either way.

Initial Scrutiny of Virginia Tech Police Unfounded

This week's horrific shootings at Virginia Tech defy any in-depth analysis. Although the incident may eventually be more fully documented than any other in our nation's history, in part due to the killer's own use of the media, and vigilante student journalists' attempts to record it with their cell phone cameras or handheld video cameras, no amount of knowledge can let us understand why it happened, or what really could have been done to prevent it. While some look at the two hour gap between shootings and the police's inability to stop it a massive intelligence failure, I can't possibly hold the law enforcement liable.

As I've mentioned a few times on this blog, for just over a year I was the full-time crime reporter for the UC Berkeley student newspaper, the Daily Californian. While most stories consisted of tracking the occasional assault and battery or in more fun times, a rash of vending machine thefts, I did have the occasional proximity to bloodshed. And in one incident off-campus, I was at the scene of a double homicide, whose perpetrator, as far as I know, was never found.

That's where I look for some small parallel to the Virginia Tech massacre. To campus police, the shooter had taken two lives in an apparent domestic incident, and fled. While they were of course looking for him, there was no call to cancel classes or lock down the campus, in fear he had more violence in him. In the incident in Berkeley, there was no call to cancel classes or warn neighbors that the unfound gunman would strike them next. It was seen as a domestic incident, and nothing more.

What separated the Virginia Tech incident from the one in Berkeley in the fall of 1997 was, of course, that the killer wasn't done killing. Not by a long shot. For a domestic dispute to balloon into one of mass murder and chaos is so incredibly rare, it's without shock that the shooter caught the entire university community unready for what had come next. And going forward, as there are more calls for police scrutiny, ramped up security and furor to avoid copycats or more bloodshed, it may all be for naught. We cannot predict the next move in the mind of a deranged killer, and we shouldn't expect our law enforcement to be super-human. Given everything they knew at Viriginia Tech, and their expectation they were dealing with a domestic dispute gone bad, we cannot blame the police or the university for what happened next, as horrible as it was.

As easy as it is to find somebody to blame, there can only be one person - the one who pulled the trigger. It's not the police force or the university, or video games, or even the laws which let him purchase the guns. As they say, when there is a will, there is a way, and in this time of terror, his will was unstoppable.

Viacom Goes After $1 Billion of Google's Cash

It has a nice "Dr. Evil" ring to it. Viacom is suing Google for $1 billion dollars, saying the company, through its acquired YouTube video sharing property had used its programming online without authorization. The suit is more than just saber-rattling and content takedown requests, but poses a very serious threat to the future of YouTube.

Viacom famously demanded that YouTube remove all of its copyrighted content from its servers, more than 100,000 clips, and give up the names of those who had posted the files, ranging from Comedy Central "fake news" to MTV videos. Meanwhile, Mark Cuban and others railed on Google and YouTube's seeming inability to filter uploads to prevent the posting of copyrighted material. But Google, as many ISPs have when their users go astray, said the onus was on the individual.

Viacom, I believe accurately, says that "YouTube's strategy has been to avoid taking proactive steps to curtail the infringement on its site." After all, Google and YouTube before it, are in the business of selling ads, and whatever drives traffic to the ads is money in the bank. After spending $1.65 billion to acquire YouTube, Google has a very big potential headache on its hands now, as one of the biggest media giants on Earth isn't messing around.