About a month ago an article came out about online stalking and I was the subject (the stalkee, if you will). Essentially the author collected everything she could find out about me on the public web and presented me with my dossier over a cup of coffee in Soho.
The publication, Assembly Journal, asked me if I’d like to respond and I took them up on it. The reply, which they gave the title STALKED? NOT REALLY: NOAH BRIER RESPONDS basically presents my position, which shouldn’t come as a great shock, that the value of making this information public outweighs the dangers and that most, if not all, of the information she uncovered would have been available before the web (although much more difficult to collect).
For what it’s worth, I’m especially fond of my conclusion, which I really owe thanks to my brother-in-law (who also happens to be a lawyer) for helping me articulate: “At the end of the day a breach of privacy requires some reasonable expectation that something would be kept private. Not only did I not have that expectation, but for much of the information I put on the web I hope for exactly the opposite.”
Anyway, hope you enjoy. (Oh, and sorry for the lack of posts around here. Am working on a new project that I hope to launch in the next few weeks. It’s taken up most of my blogging time.)
July 30, 2010
The Economist has a story about a group of academics that were able to create some software to extract keystrokes by just listening to people typing [the article is unfortunately now behind the Economis paywall, but Google's still got a cached version which probably won't last long itself]. The method is actually pretty straightforward:
The new approach employs methods developed for speech-recognition software to group together all the similar-sounding keystrokes in a recording, generating an alphabet of clicks. The software tentatively assigns each click a letter based on its frequency, then tests the message created by this assignment using statistical models of the English language. For example, certain letters or words are more likely to occur together–if an unknown keystroke follows a “t”, it is much more likely to be an “h” than an “x”. Similarly, the words “for example” make likelier bedfellows than “fur example”. In a final refinement, the researchers employed a method many students would do well to deploy on term papers: automated spellchecking.
The solution to potential security breaches: Turn up the music.
July 16, 2010
Six years ago today I started this blog.
Over that time I’ve gone through four designs, written 1,429 entries (including this one) and gotten 5,504 comments (some of which are certainly spam). I’ve made countless friends, launched a global coffee meetup and a little brand research tool that went on to collect millions of perceptions.
It’s helped me get jobs and is even responsible for me meeting my wife. I still am amazed every time someone tells me they enjoy my writing or takes the time to leave a comment. All the talk about blogs being dead is just dumb. While the blog as we knew it may not ever reach the mass that once seemed promising thanks to countless offshoot platforms, it’s still alive and well here and elsewhere.
Mostly I just want to offer a heartfelt thank you for finding this, sticking around, reading, commenting, emailing, meeting up for coffees and beer and just generally helping me think about the world. As crazy as it may sound, I really can’t imagine what my life would like without this site.
July 16, 2010
Kevin Kelly has an interesting piece on what screens do for reading in Smithsonian. I especially liked his thought here:
Books were good at developing a contemplative mind. Screens encourage more utilitarian thinking. A new idea or unfamiliar fact will provoke a reflex to do something: to research the term, to query your screen “friends” for their opinions, to find alternative views, to create a bookmark, to interact with or tweet the thing rather than simply contemplate it. Book reading strengthened our analytical skills, encouraging us to pursue an observation all the way down to the footnote. Screen reading encourages rapid pattern-making, associating this idea with another, equipping us to deal with the thousands of new thoughts expressed every day. The screen rewards, and nurtures, thinking in real time. We review a movie while we watch it, we come up with an obscure fact in the middle of an argument, we read the owner’s manual of a gadget we spy in a store before we purchase it rather than after we get home and discover that it can’t do what we need it to do.
To me, the most powerful thing about blogging is having this constant outlet that leads to critical reading of almost everything. What’s interesting is that while Kelly is right that new ideas do promote a reflex (just like his article has done for me right this second), the act of creating the content on top of it is actually where the contemplating happens for me. In trying to turn something I found interesting into a post I’m forced to contemplate what and why it matters.
[PS - Sorry for the bad title ... I couldn't help myself.]
July 15, 2010
With all the World Cup posts and today’s entry about Lebron this is starting to feel a little like a sports blog. Sorry about that, but here’s one more. This one is a followup to my post from a few weeks ago on the Uruguay handball against Ghana. The comments on the post were super interesting, as folks debated both sides of the ethics goal line handball.
This post, which labels the move as “rational rule breaking” sums up my opinion quite nicely:
My own view is that this is not “cheating.” It seems to me “cheating,” in its colloquial understanding, involves not just breaking the rules but attempting to prevent others from discovering you’ve done so. What happened in that game was what I would call “rational rule breaking.” There was no intent to deceive; the Uruguayan player knew the only chance he had to save the game was to break the rules, and accept the penalty, and hope the Ghanans missed the penalty kick. True cheaters don’t wish to break the rules and accept the penalty, they just wish to break the rules and avoid the penalty.
If I want to cheat at cards, say by dealing off the bottom of the deck, I’m going to do it in such a way that attempts to mask what I’m up to. I’m not going to make it obvious what I’m doing becasue I do not wish to accept the penalty. Rational rule breaking, by contrast, is done with a clear understanding of the costs and benefits and not just a willingness to be caught, but an actual positive desire to get caught because the penalty is worth preventing the outcome that will come from following the rules.
[Via orgtheory.net]
July 12, 2010
Interesting analysis of Lebron’s decision by a game theorist:
By allowing Bosh and Wade to make their decisions first, did LeBron possibly get himself into a situation where he ended up with a sub-optimal outcome? If so, it would certainly put that ESPN special in a whole new light – not just obnoxious, but possibly even counter-productive. By committing himself to a specific timetable – and remember, the demands of the ESPN show called for absolute secrecy regarding his decision – he gave Wade and Bosh a chance to both (1) move first and (2) have a little time to think through the strategic value of moving first. So in the end, the need for the King to play to the public may have led to the King himself getting played – surely not the first time in history this has happened!
He definitely misplayed that one …
July 12, 2010
I’m up in Boston for a few days for work and found myself making a pitcher of cold-brewed iced coffee with none other than Mr. Doug Pfeffer (if you haven’t explored his crazy awesome projects it’s worth it). Anyway, after getting it all done I figured I’d share the recipe for this summer delicacy:
- Mix a ratio of 1.5 cups water to 1/3 cup ground coffee (medium grind is best, which is also the same stuff you put in a coffee machine)
- Let it sit in the fridge for around 12 hours (more should be fine, less is probably not so good)
- Strain through a coffee filter or something else super fine
- Drink (over ice if you so desire)
Enjoy.
July 6, 2010
The plot: One man’s quest to raise a team from the dregs of Italian football and return them to the glory they once had ninety-plus years ago.
The catch: The narrative is entirely born out of a game called Football Manager where instead of actually control the players on the field, you make all the administrative decisions and see how your team performs.
Seriously, though, there’s like a hundred entries in this series and I’m completely engrossed (I’m about 3/4 of the way done). Every time I pick up my iPad to read it I realize how totally insane it is (I’m reading an account of a video game which is in itself an account of a real soccer team with fake players in an imaginary future). But really, it’s amazing and sometimes funny and sometimes gripping and at the very least it’s worth reading because it’s definitely different.
Here’s a small, almost random sample, from an entry titled “Wolves to the Slaughter:
When you’re right on course for a safe mid-table finish, it sometimes feels like there’s not a lot of news to report. A win isn’t a huge story, but then, a loss isn’t a huge story either, and time can slip by pretty fast as you make minor adjustments and chart the weekly ticks in your balance sheet. One game blends into the next, and before you know it, the season turns into a reverie. You’re living life like a Middlesbrough fan. If you want to be sharp, you have to fight the glide.
Enjoy.
[Via Metafilter]
July 6, 2010
For what it’s worth I fall on the side of Luis Suarez’s handball that thinks it’s one of the more brilliant plays I’ve ever seen in sports. In case you missed it, it came in the last minute of extra time between Uruguay and Ghana. After two rebounds Ghana had a clear shot at goal and Suarez stuck his hand up and pulled it down before it could cross the line. He was immediately given a red card, ejecting him from the game, and Ghana was given a penalty kick, which they went on to miss. Extra time ended a minute later and Uruguay won on penalty kicks 4-2. Here’s The Wall Street Journal on the play:
How likely was it to pay off? Two of Ghana’s five goals at the World Cup had come from the foot of Asamoah Gyan on penalty kicks, and he hadn’t missed yet. But two kicks hardly are a big sample size. Before he stepped into the box, players had made nine of 12 penalty kicks at this World Cup. (That’s not counting the penalty shootout between Paraguay and Japan, because teams can assign their best penalty taker to take penalties during games.) That’s still not much to go on. A study of 1,417 penalty kicks taken in top European leagues found that 80.1% were successful — though the rate went down to 73.3% in the final 10 minutes of games, perhaps because fatigue affects penalty takers more than goalkeepers. Another study of 459 penalty shots taken in European leagues found a success rate of 74.9%. (Thanks to Advanced NFL Stats for the links.)
Lots of folks are calling what he did cheating, but I’m not sure I see that. Yes, it is against the rules, but so is pulling a player down who is making a clear and open run at goal and that happens. To compare it a handball that goes uncalled and leads to a goal (as AP writer John Leicester did) just seems absurd. The only argument I’ll buy on this one is that FIFA needs to change the rule to make goals like this stand (making it a call like goaltending). Otherwise to me it seemed like a brilliant split second decision between going home and giving your team another, albeit incredibly slim, chance to win the game.
July 3, 2010
Hi, I'm 
