Drones For Google Maps?

Big Brother is watching you even closer now!
Google has small spyplanes taking hi-res pix above some major cities - the latest step in its plan to create a digital map of the world.
Google's using a fleet of planes owned and operated by contractors, flown exclusively for Google. Asked about potential privacy issues, it said it was like all aerial imagery, and that the type of pictures have been used for a long time. Google's used planes for photos in the past, but not systemically like this before.
For years Google's had camera-equipped cars roaming the globe, taking panoramic pictures for its mapping service Street View: this raised privacy concerns here in NZ as well as other countries. You may recall in 2010, Google admitted the cars had accidentally collected emails, passwords and other personal data from people's home wireless networks. The Street View cars have driven more than 8million km/5million miles photographing streets all over the world, for the one billion active users of its maps.
When asked if it had plans to use unmanned aerial drones to gather 3D photos, Google dodged the question, saying drones were still being evaluated by the Federal Aviation Administration: "That's a larger can of worms that we're not going to get into here." Yes or No would have been more reassuring.
So there's already global satellite imagery on-line, Google Earth, Street View with cutesy 3D buildings, coupled with publically-supplied photographs of locations via Panoramio, now what sounds like a highly-detailed flight simulator. With such a deluge of hi-detail imagery available, I have one simple question: WHY?
No-one spends this much money just to share pretty pictures...

Facing Up To Facebook

Facial Recognition software used to be the stuff of spy thrillers.
Now it’s in common use, everywhere from border security to building access... even to identifying a deceased high-value resident of a certain Pakistani mansion. But did you know Facebook uses it too?
Facebook scans faces in the photogaphs you upload, and tries to recognise other users. True!
Facebook looks at all the shining smiles and searches for matches in its slightly creepy database of faces. If it sees someone it thinks is one of your friends, it asks you if you want to "tag" them in the photo.
As if that isn’t dodgy enough, Facebook has started including users in this service without actually telling them and - just as importantly - without giving them the choice of deciding whether they’re interested. So just by uploading pix to Facebook, everyone's part of the programme!
As you know, your images are kept in a centralised storage that can be accessed and matched at a second's notice. Is that a real hazard? Probably not but, in principle, it's a bit disturbing. Remember, that information stays available…forever.
To be fair, Facebook did announce the partial launch of its facial recognition programme late last year (remember how that launch came with its own set of privacy problems?). What's new now is that Facebook has rolled out the feature to more users in more countries - without first giving them a heads-up…and everyone was included by default.
Once again, it’s said “Opps, sorry”, but this is becoming a bad habit! How many times can it act first and clean up the mess later?
Facebook is a massive global service that people trust with their personal data. I suggest if it can’t/won’t give priority to users’ privacy, that trust may be misplaced. Caveat emptor.

Google: "Big Brother" Update

When your pal is not necessarily your friend...
Google has admitted for the first time its "Street View" cars have collected more personal data globally than previously revealed, including complete emails and passwords! At this stage it's unknown just how many people may have been affected.
The disclosure comes just days after Canada claimed Google had collected complete emails, and accused Google of violating the rights of thousands of its citizens. France, Germany, USA and Spain, among others, promptly opened investigations.
In May this year I posted that Google's "Street View" cars collected data from unsecured wireless networks in over 30 countries. At the time, Google said the information was limited to only "fragments" of unencrypted data, because its cars were always moving and because their wireless equipment automatically changed channels about five times a second (back then, Google also said that it was sorry - which of course makes it all ok, right?).
Google wants to delete the captured data as soon as possible: it has already deleted it in countries where regulators gave permission. Investigations in six countries including New Zealand have closed - but continue elsewhere, so Google can't delete the data until those conclude. 
This accidental (unproven) collection by a "benign" operator is a good illustration of how vulnerable unsecured networks can be. Imagine what information could be collected by a malignant hacker!
PS: 14 Dec.2010 - Google apologises to NZ for privacy breaches.

Eye In The Sky

Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) have been around for well over a decade: we're all familiar with the USA's extensive use of drones for both surveillence and attack in the Middle East. You may not be aware that our forces also have this technology, albeit on a much smaller scale.
This is the NZDF miniature UAV (called the "Kahu" - because everything in NZ seems to require a maori name). But with a range of only 25km, two hours' flight time, and a payload of .6kg., it'll never carry any missiles.
They've been operated by my old unit, 1 Locating Troop, 16 Field Regiment, Royal New Zealand Artillery since 2008. They give excellent "over the hill" view to commanders on the ground. And mini-UAVs are often used here by private companies for photography purposes: Google even uses them for street mapping.
With slight modification, they can also be used by the Navy. They have search-and-rescue potential, carrying a thermal-imaging camera to detect the temperature difference of a body in the water. UAVs can cover a larger area faster than a ship, and cheaper than an aircraft. One difficulty with naval use is recovery at sea, but a reliable automatic system will be aboard one of our new patrol ships this year.
So, given the obvious benefits, I was somewhat surprised that a request this week, by our soldiers in Afghanistan, for mini-UAVs has been rejected. NZ Defence Minister Wayne Mapp has asked for an update on the UAVs. He'll want specific logistical information before considering their deployment, given that sending UAVs would also require sending support personnel. The NZDF claims the mini-UAVs are not ready for operational use, but that's bollocks!
Mind you, with a lot of NZers limp-dick about using our forces in the roles they're trained for, the government will be cautious about escalating our involvement...

Child Abuse: Maori To Pay

Paula Bennett called a spade a spade last week, and hit maori leaders right between the eyes with one! Our Social Development Minister said maori had to make a stand and pay up for child abuse.
About a quarter of NZ children are Maori, but they comprise half of the abuse cases and family violence deaths. Bennett said efforts were needed to find children before they were abused, by identifying mothers with low self-esteem who let "mongrel men" into their homes as they searched for "some warped kind of love". She also said maori had to stump up with their own funding, so abused kids could be placed in iwi not state care.
Bennett challenged the Iwi Leaders Forum to "put your hands in your own pockets" to find care-families within their own iwi "because the government doesn't have the money, quite frankly."
Ahhh-haa! Take responsibility and action - the crux of the matter. Now read the response...
Ngati Kahu chair Professor Margaret Mutu said the suggestion iwi provide funding and resources was ridiculous: "We can't. We don't have them. It's a state responsibility. We know how bad it is, we know the helplessness and hopelessness... that we are the only ones who can save ourselves. But we also need resources and the support of the state to do that."
Ngati Kahu can't afford it???!!! A quick Google search says otherwise! Their treaty settlement with the Crown (Sept.2008) scored them a sweet $21.5 million - $14m financial redress and $7.5m for 'social revitalisation'. If protecting kids from abuse and murder is not 'social revitalisation', I dunno what is! (I've used Ngati Kahu as an example here, but collectively maoridom can afford it!)

This takes me back to the sentiments of my post during July's Maori Language Week: "...maori working FOR maori with maori MONEY, maori DIRECTION, maori PROGRAMMES... (it) requires a major commitment of time, effort and money... from maori (which) will only work if maori WANT to make it work."

So the gauntlet is down: do maori really want to make it work?

The Elephant That Never Forgets

Google CEO Eric Schmidt claimed recently we share too much personal information online, and people may one day reinvent themselves to escape their digital past. Sounds extreme, but social networking HAS forced us to look closer at on-line privacy and identity.
The WWWeb and social networking bring many benefits. Facebook and Twitter have enabled people to reconnect with friends and family. They've also transformed online search and breaking news. But social networking also allows you to embarrass yourself or ruin your reputation - once it's online, it's global in seconds, and can still be found decades later!
It is not uncommon now for a job application to include social network account information: tech-smart employers may check out Facebook profiles and Tweeting histories. This gives employers an unfiltered look at who you really are, and is a much more effective tool than psychological personality tests: what you say/do online says a lot about you.
So, a bad idea to bad-mouth your boss or job on-line, or post pics and status updates about the fun you're having at the beach... after you called in sick. Employers are watching.
Who you know may decide if you get a loan. Some banks check your social contacts that also do business with them. Based on their credit history, the bank may make an assumption about what sort of credit risk you are. So ask yourself: how well do I really know those 10,137 friends?
Lawyers too find these sites can be evidentiary gold mines. Did your husband's new girlfriend tweet about getting jewelry? Courts might see that as marital assets being disbursed to a third party. Did your wife tell the court she's incapable of getting a job? Then why is she chasing job interviews on-line?
The Internet is "the elephant that never forgets". I would not recommend changing your whole identity to dodge your digital past, but I always recommend discretion and common sense online.

PS: 20 Jan.2011 - And if you need proof, here it is...

Please Engage Brain When Using SmartPhone

In America – the land of opportunity – the best way to fend off the embarrassment caused by your own stupidity is to find someone to drag through court.
In the case of Lauren Rosenberg, struck by a car after walking into a busy flow of traffic in Utah, she's dumping the blame for her 'lack of situational awareness' squarely on the shoulders of Google Maps!
According to her, Google Maps told her to walk along busy State Route 224 to reach her destination. But she says the map didn't warn her it was a high-speed road with no pedestrian paths. It obviously didn't tell her to open her eyes either...duuhh!
Rosenberg, trying to weasel US$118,000 from Google to cover medical bills and loss of income, says the warning on the PC version of Google Maps (as you can see in the picture, in yellow highlight) is not on the portable version she was seeing on her ironically-named BlackBerry smartphone...

And to cover all her money-grubbing options, she's also suing the motorist who struck her, for "severe permanent physical, emotional, and mental injuries"... though her mental state may well have existed prior this incident!
Do all instructions need to add: "Please use brain when following these directions"?

"Quit Facebook" Day

Facebook members unite! And quit!
Following issues over users' privacy, a global Facebook exit is being urged for Monday May 31 2010. And momentum seems to be building: just last week, the phrase "how to quit Facebook" generated nearly 17 million Google results and "how do I delete my Facebook account?" close to 16 million...in a one-day period! Granted, the 33 million search results do not mean all of those users will actually delete their Facebook accounts, but it indicates a lot of pissed-off people!
One of the major problems users had was new privacy settings: lengthy, confusing and many members made private information public unknowingly. Then there was the constant stream of notifications and puerile quiz results. Plus there have been tragic cases where women have gone to meet men they'd met on Facebook, only to be murdered.
There're many articles to help users delete their Facebook accounts. Of course, they need to know that, although deleting their account means they’ll never see that data again, Facebook can - and will continue to use it for data mining.
If you're going to quit Facebook, remember it takes two weeks to be fully deleted (note that 'delete' is different to 'deactivate'). If you log-in to your account within these 2 weeks (just to check you're actually deleted), the request to delete your account will be voided and you'll still be in the loop.
PS: 27 May 2010 - Facebook suddenly announces easier privacy settings! Sounds desperate to me!
PS: 30 May 2010 - ...and reviewers are saying: "Is that the best you've got for us?"

Google Knows...

Google is now your 'Big Brother' - with all the 1984 connotations!
Google has collected personal internet data from NZ homes, including the names and unique numbers associated with residents' wireless networks...all without their knowledge or consent. How? By multi-tasking its Street View cars...
Street View involved cars travelling the world's streets with 3D cameras, capturing panoramic views to overlay with Google Maps. When that came on-stream, we all thought it was fab... and started googling images of friends' houses everywhere. So, on the one hand, the data is publicly available and being happily used but, on the other hand, consumers never dreamed their wireless points would be used for data snatching.
Google argues that, as the info is public, it's not breaking any laws but concedes the gathering "could have been better publicised". Privacy advocates want assurances that its use will not extend beyond Google Maps: after all, it's only the company's word as a guarantee it's not misusing the data. But despite ten governments (including NZ) requesting details, Google has not issued any explanation. Perhaps its PR department is still drafting a believable answer!
PS: 15 May 2010 - Google's answer..."Opps! Sorry."
PS: 07 June 2010 - "Sorry" isn't good enough! Australia launches a probe into Google's Street View.
PS: 12 July 2010 - Google found guilty by Oz of privacy breaches...

Google On The Gigglebox

Now with control of the web's largest video library YouTube, Google is setting its sights on another new frontier: television. It's teaming up with Intel and Sony to access the web's most popular services through TVs.
For Intel, it's a way to get more of it's low-end chips into more TVs...for Google, the money's in the advertising potential...and naturally it'll be a Sony TV bringing this into your living room.
Many of the newest TVs on the market do have internet connectivity and built-in Web-based programming. Sony's latest HDTV, for example, comes with access to YouTube (owned by Google) as well as a variety of websites. But streaming internet-based media has been hampered by regional restrictions and licensing agreements - many popular sites can't be accessed outside USA.
Google TV plans to make the Web as accessible on TV as it is on computer, giving users everywhere access to sites across the spectrum, from social marketing to media content.
What's interesting to me is that this concept was first floated back in 1995 by Nicholas Negroponte who foresaw how the interactive, entertainment and information worlds would eventually merge, conceptually and technologically.
(See? I have remembered something from uni!)

The Harawira Legacy

You may/may not be aware, but Hone Harawira (subject of recent NZ political controversy) is the son of veteran maori activist Titewhai Harawira, regarded by some as one of the most vicious women in New Zealand.
Harawira's notoriety stems from 1989 when she assaulted a psychiatric patient while heading Carrington Hospital's Maori Health Unit: she was convicted and jailed. In 1998 she reduced then-Labour Party leader (future Prime Minister) Helen Clark to tears at the Waitangi marae...no small feat! In 2000, she urged a traditional maori punishment for sex criminals - tying flax around the penis and pulling until the appendage was torn off. Two years later, she demanded pakeha (ie: all non-maori) pay rent to live in NZ: presumably she wanted the rent to go to maori.
Ex-MP John Tamihere wrote this piece in February 2004 following yet another Waitangi Day fracas...note how the Harawira clan features actively throughout. Google her name - you'll find all this and more out there in the 'public domain'. She's even mentioned somewhat derisively several times in Hansard (the offical record of the NZ Parliament).
For some interesting background on the family militancy, have a read of this Herald article.
One wonders what's in the Harawira heart, that has raised children to be as radical in their views as their mother. Figure this out, and maybe understand why Hone behaves the way he does.
Recently on Radio New Zealand's Morning Report, Titewhai Harawira said it was ironic her son's email scandal occured on November 5th, the anniversary of the destruction of Te Whiti's Parihaka settlement. She claimed that at Parihaka in 1881, colonial troops "raped the women, cut off their breasts and turned them into tobacco pouches, and murdered their children and men". Refuting this on Maori News, historian Dick Scott - author of Ask That Mountain: The Story of Parihaka (1975) that popularised Te Whiti's story - said her wild atrocity stories had no factual basis. He says Titewhai Harawira knows this, but continues to propagate her fictional version of events. (Interesting to note that two of her warrior chief ancestors fought on the side of the British against another chief, Hone Heke! How does she reconcile that..?)
In this enlightened age, with more opportunities for all, why do the Harawiras continue to wage a '70s-style campaign, using fabricated propaganda, demanding a return of all land to maori, an expulsion of all white people, control of every beach in the country, and seemingly not giving a damn about simple basic mainstream guidelines for living in and being an effective part of a modern society...?
Hone Harawira seems to have been raised by a woman with warped methodologies and beliefs, who leaves no opportunity untaken to push her radical point. This does not excuse his behaviour or outbursts, but it is little wonder he is such an angry man!
PS - See also my 10 Nov.2009 post about Hone's actions.

What's In A Name...?

Ever 'googled' your own name?
We're all curious over who-knows-what about us out there, right? Gee, someone with my name in Outer Mongolia is doing a research project on the brain patterns of newts!
Well, get this: apart from being a famous English playwright, athlete, CEO and musician, I've also appeared in the early days (Episode 88) of TV's Coronation Street!
In 1961 my namesake lived in the flat (No.15A Coronation Street) above the corner shop - now owned by Dev Alahan but, then, owned by Elsie Lappin (her claim to Coro fame was that she spoke the first-ever line in the series: "Now the next thing you've got to do is get a signwriter in. That thing above the door'll have to be changed.")
Other well-known characters to have lived in 15A include: Jerry Booth, Emily Nugent, Betty Turpin, Irma Barlow, Bet Lynch, Deirdre Langton and daughter Tracey, Alf and Audrey Roberts, Sally and Kevin Webster, Curly Watts, Ken Barlow, Nita Desai, Sunita Parekh, and so on...you really did need to know this, right?