Internet community rallies around detained student

UPDATE (AP): Aschenbach arrives in Boston, is resting comfortably in his Brookline home

"I'm just happy to be home. I can't wait to take a shower, change my clothes, take my exam, and. . . .hey, is that the bathroom over there? I really have to . . . . ". That was the immediate response of Bill Aschenbach upon finally arriving at Boston's Logan airport last night at approximately 5:30 pm. After missing several cancelled flights, he managed to valiantly fight his way on another route at 2:15 pm, but the nightmare was just beginning. "Man, we just sat there for like 45 minutes man, it really, really sucked. I'm like 'hey, get goin' flyboy!' but the dude (pilot) was like 'look pal, we ain't movin until these planes ahead of us take off, so why don't you shut yer trap?' and I'm like 'yeah, make me!' and he's like 'yeah, I will!', it was really messed up!" commented one frustrated passenger on the 2:15 pm flight being held on the runway prior to takeoff. Then, during an unusually slow, tumultuous flight, the plane was forced into a holding pattern over Providence, RI for what seemed like an eternity.

Fortunately, Web 2.0 technologies such as Blackberry and Blogspot, along with many cups of coffee and chewing on Pez allowed Aschenbach to maintain contact with Professor Jerry Kane of Boston College, and his MI703 classmates, througout the whole ordeal. "It definitely got me through in one piece. I just can't believe how great everyone's been through this whole thing, its humbling! I feel like Ferris Bueller" said Aschenbach in response to the numerous notes of well-wishing he received from his MI703 colleagues. Indeed, the incident sent ripples well beyond the Boston College classroom and blogosphere. Outrage over the flight delay resonated through traditional media sources as well, becoming fodder for radio and cable television talk-show hosts, who eviscerated the habitually tardy airline industry. In yet another of an embarrassing series of public appearances, USAir CEO Doug Parker, was forced to comment on the incident.



Aschenbach is currently home safe and sound, and plans to take a make-up examination with several of his classmates on Wednesday, 12/17. He sends his sincere gratitude to the many well-wishers who used Web 2.0 technologies to help him through the ordeal.

Courageous student wisely uses Web 2.0 to alert professor of emergency

BREAKING NEWS (AP)

Bill Aschenbach is currently detained at the Philadelphia International Airport

Boston College evening MBA student Bill Aschenbach had hoped to end his week-long trip across the country by landing safely in Boston, MA just after lunch on 12/10. However, his dreams of landing, showering, and getting a few hours of final preparation for his MI703 final examination appear to be slipping away faster than Rod Blagojevech's political career. When he arrived at the Philadelphia International airport after brief stints in San Francisco and Pittsburgh, he was informed that his USAir flight 1725 was cancelled. In fact, most flights between Philadelphia and Boston have been cancelled this day, so the chances of making it home in time to take the exam, and avoid a 30% black hole in his final grade, are starting to look slim.

However, after spending the last 4 months in MI703, Aschenbach realized that he could use Web 2.0 technologies to help him alert his professor of the situation. First, Aschenbach sprinted to a distant gate to catch another flight, and pulled a hamstring in the heroic effort.

Then, Aschenbach was able to (hopefully) secure a seat on a later route. Realizing the airport offered free WiFi access, he booted up his laptop and took to his blog to share this thrilling story with his professor and devoted readers. At the time of this release, many questions remain unanswered. Might "Twitter" have been better choice given the circumstances? Possibly (except he doesn't know how to use it). Will Aschenbach get on the flight and make it to Boston in time? Much like George Bush's legacy, historians will debate this one for years to come.

Social (Drag)networking: the legal avalanche continues to build

So in what must be the 4th or 5th major legal landmark in the last few weeks, the American Civil Liberties Union has filed a federal lawsuit against a high-school principal who suspended a former student for posting negative opinions about a teacher on Facebook.

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/breaking-news/story/805585.html

In this case the ACLU, on behalf of the student, claims that the school suspension violated the student's First Amendment right to free speech. Now I may be a bit dated here, but this is basically the same thing I might have "allegedly" been suspended for writing something about a teacher on a bathroom wall.....except the element of vandalism doesn't apply since the "wall" in this case is virtual. Now I'm no lawyer (nor do I play one on TV, like this guy) but in my opinion, both parties in this case have their heads buried in some inferior/posterior location. In the case of the girl, she wasn't exactly prevented from exercising her right to free speech, but merely suffered consequences for what she wrote. In an analogy, could one not expect to be fired from a job if they were caught slamming their boss? Granted, she didn't exactly slander the teacher or post hate speech, but still. . . .in calling out a superior by name in a public forum, she had to do so knowing there was at least a risk of some consequence. And in the case of the principal. . . .the student was soliciting opinions, albeit not very nice, on an internet site that had no affiliation with the school whatsoever. It seems he's on somewhat shaky grounds as well.

For those of you keeping score, over the last month we've had a criminal conviction in federal court for "causing" a suicide online (where no legal precedent existed), civil charges in another for writing unflattering prose about an ex-spouse on Craigslist, and now an ACLU-spearheaded 1st Amendment suit over a high-school suspension. The legal avalanche is coming folks, get yer snowshoes ready!

For Lori Drew, "MySpace" may be a prison cell

THIS SPACE IS RESERVED . . . .HA! HA!

Okay, I know this blogpost is a bit. . . . ehh, empty at the moment. But, considering that when I wrote my last one on the Second Life divorce, I was beaten to the punch by Lauren Van. Its a dog-eat-dog world when you're an internet sleuth trying to scratch and claw up the ranks of Technorati. So, I decided to do the only decent, honest thing I could . . . . and completely screw everyone in class over by calling "SHOTGUN" on this breaking story:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/11/26/internet.suicide/index.html?iref=newssearch

Its about a 49 year-old woman, Lori Drew, who was just convicted of misdemeanor counts (and felony charges are being deliberated) for the suicide of a 13 year old Megan Meier. The short version is: Drew created a bogus profile of a teenage boy on MySpace, feigned a romantic love interest in Meier, who eventually committed suicide when the "teenage boy" (played by Drew) rejected her.

What kind of 49 year old loser actually takes the time to mess with the emotions of a 13 year old? I don't know. . . .but I'm sure THIS GUY can tell you.

I'd write more now, but I'm trying to get out of here for Thanksgiving. But, I heard this on the radio on the way home from work and, I swear to god, sped home so I could get this posted before being scooped again by Lauren Van.

Yes, I suck. I know this much!
Happy Thanksgiving



The big follow-up: okay, I'm back, what did I miss?

First of all, regarding the question "what kind of 49 year old loser messes with a 13 year old's emotions?" Well, as it turns out, THIS is that loser. Incidentally, does anyone else think she looks alot like Kathy Bates in "Misery?"

Lori Drew was indicted under a federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, which has been used in hacking and trademark theft cases. Among other things, Drew was charged with conspiring to violate the fine print in MySpace's terms-of-service agreement, which prohibits the use of phony names and harassment of other MySpace members. In this case, no state (of Missouri) charges were filed, because there was no precedent, but federal charges were filed under the Fraud and Abuse Act because MySpace's headquarters are in Beverly Hills, CA. After the suicide, however, Missouri passed a cyber-harrassment law and federal legislation for the same is being considered.

"This was a very aggressive, if not misguided, theory," said Matt Levine, a New York-based defense attorney and former federal prosecutor. "Unfortunately, there's not a law that covers every bad thing in the world. It's a bad idea to use laws that have very different purpose."

This is going to get really, really interesting. With respect to the cyber-harrassment thing I'm tossed on the idea. Certainly there are some extremely dangerous individuals out there for whom the internet serves as an optimal vehicle to stalk, and possibly harm their victims and we as a society need to do something about that. But as for prosecuting individuals who create bogus ads, I'm not so sure. Now, I don't have hard statistics to back this up, but I'm also not one to let little things like "facts" get in my way . . . . many of you probably know that there are numerous fraudulent ads on MySpace, Facebook, etc. In fact, I have several friends who use free online personals like Yahoo, Match.com, etc and one of their biggest complaints is that so many of the ads are fake . . . . put up by pay services to direct them to another site (e.g., "hey, you like this guy/gal . . . . surely $20 isn't too much for the opportunity to talk to him/her!"). Are prosecutors going to start going after companies that post these type of ads? Are they going to start targetting people who put up "alter ego" ads to harmlessly live out some kind of fantasy, and prosecute them because someone on a receiving end feels wronged in some way? Or, if any of you remember the blogs on Second Life last week . . . . could a precedence like this bleed over into these kinds of sites? Granted, the whole point of the site is to be as fraudulent as one's little heart desires . . . . but what if that woman who caught her husband nailing a virtual prositute committed suicide instead of filing for divorce?

I think what we've witnessed here is a rather pivotal moment in our judicial system. And I'm glad that I, Bill Aschenbach, was here to bring it to you FIRST!

Please, get a (second) life!

Disclaimer: if you're reading this post with any expectation of technological insight, or any intellect whatsoever, please go elsewhere because you're in the wrong place.

Second Life. Even if you're as clueless as me, I'm sure you've at least heard it mentioned before. If you haven't, suffice it to say its an online social networking community on steroids. Basically, anyone who is dissatisfied with their life (read: 99.9% of the population) can create an alter-ego in this online 3-D virtual world and become just about anybody or anything they want.

Stuck at a desk in "Storage-B" at work? . . . . Second Life!

Got shot down by the cool guy or the hot chick in high school? . . . . Second Life!

Still living down the time you struck out in little league, or dropped that pass, and lost the big game for your team? . . . . Second Life!

Now, despite what you may think, I'm not here to bag on people who try to play out their fantasies. Hey, I had plenty of imaginary friends when I was a kid, and there's still that Elizabeth Hurley thing I'm sure will happen any moment now. But when I saw this story below, I knew I had to take to the blogosphere where tens of people would (be forced to for class credit) read my words.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/11/14/second.life.divorce/index.html

Basically, this story on the main page of CNN.COM is about two folks in London who met online in a chat room, dated and fell in love in Second Life, and were married in a lavish ceremony with hundreds of avitars watching enviously from their mom's basements. It was the perfect faux life, so how did this whirlwind romance end in divorce? Well, as it turns out the groom, 40 year-old David Taylor, couldn't stop hitting the "enter" key . . . . with another woman. Yes, you read that right . . . . his wife caught him having sex with a virtual prostitute.

"I went mad -- I was so hurt. I just couldn't believe what he'd done," (Bride Amy) Taylor told the Western Morning News. "It may have started online, but it existed entirely in the real world and it hurts just as much now it is over."

Now here's the part that almost made me do a spit-take on my computer screen: Amy and David Taylor were divorced in real life. I know, I know you have to follow me here . . . . they met in an online chat room, got married in real life and in Second Life, she got suspicious and hired a computer detective who caught him having online sex with a virtual prostitute.

I guess there are two things about this that are making my head hurt right now. First is the fact that we have people who have become this enmeshed with the virtual world. I mean, clearly these two had more issues than Super Mario bumping uglies with Lara Croft, but for crying out loud to stand in front of a judge and cite this as the reason for ending a marriage? We all need an escape from reality from time to time, but when I see stories like this I start to think this whole virtual thing is getting a bit out of hand. And, when I actually have to read 3 different accounts to distinguish what happened in real life and what happened online, I know things are out of hand! The second thing cramping my cranium is the fact that in the middle of a presidential election, an economic meltdown, etc CNN.COM actually put this on their main page. I could probably go on an on about how this is what results from a 24-7 continuous "news" cylce. But then again, this is the same organization who attempted to have a serious political debate show with a guy wearing a bowtie.

If any of you are wondering how Amy Taylor is faring these days, fret not. Since the divorce she's actually recovered quite well, and already met another love interest . . . . in World of Warcraft.

Is the internet almost full, or is AT&T full of . . .?

At 12:01 am on January 1, 2000 all computers in the world will malfunction at once because years in their internal clocks are represented by 2 digits and can only count to 99. There will be mass chaos, Armageddon, dogs and cats will be living together people!!

That didn't happen? Uhh, really? Boy, is my face red. But wait, don't go away before I tell you about the next great catastrophe.........THE INTERNET IS RUNNING OUT OF SPACE!

Yes, you read that right. Accoring to this article at CNET.com and several other sites, telecommunications giant and provider of notoriously crappy phone service AT&T claims that without a $55 billion investment in US network architecture ($130 billion worldwide), the internet will reach its maximum capacity by 2010. The primary basis for this claim is that the current systems constituting the internet backbone will not be able to keep pace with the rapidly increasing demand for video and user-generated content. According to Jim Cicconi, AT&T's vice president for legislative affairs, 8 hours of YouTube video is currently uploaded every minute. When high definition video becomes the norm (which requires 7-10 times the bandwidth), video will comprise nearly 80% of all network traffic by 2010. Cicconi further states "The surge in online content is at the center of the most dramatic changes affecting the Internet today. In three years' time, 20 typical households will generate more traffic than the entire Internet today." Apparently, data from Cisco Systems seems to concur: "U.S. Internet video sites alone transmit more data per month than was carried over the entire U.S. Internet backbone monthly in 2000." So, taking this at face value it appears that our options are 1) "someone" throws these poor companies a financial bone to help them update their networks, 2) ISPs may be required to tier or prioritize their network traffic to meet the increased demand, thus resulting in a "restructuring" of service fees, or 3) we'll end up surfing the internet like those turtles from the Comcast commercials.

So my friends, you'd better download that video of the monkey sniffing his finger in a hurry!

Apparently such predictions for the internet's demise aren't anything new. In 1995 Robert Metcalfe, an early architect of the Internet, predicted a "catastrophic collapse" of the network in 1996. Well, we all know how that turned out. According to several sources, the claims of the internet running out of space are part of a larger political debate called "net neutrality". Briefly, the debate goes down like this: telecommunications companies claim that the Googles, YouTubes, and other Web 2.0 sites of the world cause alot of traffic, use alot of bandwidth, and should therefore help pay for increased network capacity to make room for the crowding they cause. As Ted Stevens would put it, these sites "clog the tubes of the internets." On the other side of debate, the YouTubes and Googles of the world are basically saying "ahh, no......we're already paying rent, so you can't charge us twice. And besides, losers, the only reason you have any business in the first place is because people are coming to see us, so nyahhhh!" (of course I'm paraphrasing, but you get the idea). However, on top of content providers' arguments is the concern that if telecomm companies start to "tier" or prioritize traffic that certain content may be discriminated against (ie, delayed transmission or blocked all together) for political or economic reasons. In other words, the Wild West that we've come to know the internet as could some day become more like.........Branson, MO.

So who's in the right here? To be honest, I'm not really sure. Apparently, Cisco Systems and their competitors are currently investing wads of cash on new hardware to handle the increased bandwidth, which would make one think that there is at least some smoke here. On the other hand, a 2007 report by global communications research firm Telegeography states that the growth of global network capacity has actually exceeded the growth in internet traffic and bandwidth for the last two years. If this is true, it would appear that Jim Cicconi and AT&T are full of (insert expletive here)! So as usual, what you and I are left with is a bunch of mud to dig through to get to the facts.

But, it certainly wouldn't be unprecedented for a bunch of corporate Chicken Littles to overhype a faux catastrophe so they can milk us for more money, would it?

Be careful what you wish for

Look, there isn't anyone who reaps the benefits of our ever evolving information age more than I. As a scientist, there is no better utility than having up to the minute data automatically sent to your inbox (as opposed to when I used to spend days pouring through card catalogs in an effort to dig up a reference in some obscure journal). As an audiophile, any song I want is literally a mouse click away....and usually free if you know where to look (yeah, I'm one of those, I'm sure the RIAA will eventually catch up with me). Social networking sites have reconnected me to old friends who've all but fallen off the face of the earth ......and even some who should probably stay there. And, if I read the right statistics the only industry that experienced a bump after the most recent round of government stimulus checks was online porn (hey, I'm just saying!). So all in all, life's pretty good. But to say that I'm a little concerned about where we could be heading with all of this is an understatement.

Someone much more profound than I coined the phrase "knowledge is power". I'd argue that one could easily subsitute the word "information" for "power" in that statement. Now, if you read that and nodded your head, the next logical question would have to be "well then, who holds that power?" While we're in such awe of all the cool things this constantly evolving technological revolution brings us on a daily basis, how often do we stop to think about what the possible consequences may be? I mean, its hard to consider something so ominous while we're laughing at that monkey sniffing his finger?

I've been thinking about this subject alot over the past few years, but some recent events actually pushed me over the edge to write about it here. First, there was the simple fact that until now, I didn't know how to create and maintain a blog. Historically I've had to write on bathroom walls or staple copies of my typewritten essays to telephone poles in Cambridge to spread the good word.....needless to say uptake was kinda slow. Second, there has obviously been a ton of debate about expiring FISA bills, telecommunication lawsuits and such. Its a hard topic to avoid when you realize that not only is your phone company ramming it to you financially, but they're also selling you out to the NSA. Things seemed to be going along just fine....no men in blue banging on my door.....but then I read one of my classmate's posts about email and IM surveillance in China (you can read it yourself here). And suddenly that reminded me of a Rolling Stone article I read a few months ago titled "China's All-Seeing Eye" by Naomi Klein:

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/20797485/chinas_allseeing_eye


Klein has written several other pieces (such as her current best-seller "The Shock Doctrine") all with the unifying theme that some kind of grand event "shocks" a society, thus enabling governments to push through wildly unpopular policies. A great example in current events is this whole Wall Street bailout.....the "shock" being our tanking stock market, forclosures, and rising unemployment, and the unpopular policy obviously being our government forking over $700B of our money to collapsing financial institutions (and also slipping us the Liberace by jamming the bill with tax breaks for manufacturers of wooden arrow heads, rum, etc). In essence, "Shock treatment" is a real-life playout of the old adage "desperate times call for desperate measures". In the context of Klein's "Seeing Eye", the Chinese government used the runup to the 2008 Beijjing Olympics as a pretext to unveil a high-tech police state known as Golden Shield to the world. No, Golden Shield isn't that Eddie Murphy movie with the magic knife and the cute little kid with the shaved head. Golden Shield is, well.......why don't I let Klein explain it herself:

"Chinese citizens will be watched around the clock through networked CCTV cameras and remote monitoring of computers. They will be listened to on their phone calls, monitored by digital voice-recognition technologies. Their Internet access will be aggressively limited through the country's notorious system of online controls known as the 'Great Firewall.' Their movements will be tracked through national ID cards with scannable computer chips and photos that are instantly uploaded to police databases and linked to their holder's personal data. This is the most important element of all: linking all these tools together in a massive, searchable database of names, photos, residency information, work history and biometric data. When Golden Shield is finished, there will be a photo in those databases for every person in China: 1.3 billion faces."

The Golden Shield technology has been in development for years (obviously), and city-wide applications have been tested in over 660 Chinese "safe cities". The most remarkable of these being the city of Shenzhen, which didn't even exist 30 years ago, but is now home to over 12 million people living under the constant surveillance described above......and apparently, half the $#!+ we buy these days is made there, but I digress. A major landmark in the development of Golden Shield safe cities was in the leadup to the 2008 Summer Games in Beijing, when the Chinese government mandated that all internet cafes, restaurants, and "entertainment" venues install video cameras with direct feeds to police stations. But these aren't just normal video feeds, they are being integrated with advanced facial-recognition software to identify "dissidents" within seconds, and deploy law enforcement within seconds. Incidentally, this facial recognition software isn't being used to zero in on some mischevious kid lighting a flaming bag on someone's doorstep.....its being used to scan anyone and everyone that walks within view.

"But Bill, that's Communist China, what's that have to do with the price of gas here?" Well, I could go into alot here about how the development of this technology has been funded and is being watched, and it would probably make your head spin like Linda Blair's. And, it may possibly offend your political sensitivities. But alas, my fingers are getting cramped and you've been very patient reading this. I do suggest you read Klein's article, Trevor Swanberg's blogpost, and just keep the future of these technologic advancements in the back of your head the next time you send an email, enjoy a Katie Morgan video online (no, I'm not going to post a link to her here), volunteer personal information, or provide links to all of your friends and associates on some website because it happens to be popular at the moment. While so many of us eagerly ask for more of what the information revolution has to offer, we should be cafeful.......because we might just get what we ask for.