About Internet Technology

Internet Technology has been a member since September 17th 2010, and has created 15 posts from scratch.

Internet Technology's Bio

Internet Technology's Websites

This Author's Website is

Internet Technology's Recent Articles

Tweet of the Day: Steve Jobs Tells J-School Student, ‘Leave Us Alone’

The author of the post, Adrian Chen, Long Island University senior Chelsea Kate Isaacs emailed Jobs on Thursday complaining that Apple’s PR department wasn’t replying to any of her e-mails asking about the use of iPads in academic settings:



Mr. Jobs, I humbly ask why Apple is so wonderfully attentive to the needs of students, whether it be with the latest, greatest invention or the company’s helpful customer service line, and yet, ironically, the Media Relations Department fails to answer any of my questions which are, as I have repeatedly told them, essential to my academic performance.”


Jobs allegedly shot back a terse reply:



Our goals do not include helping you get a good grade. Sorry


Incensed, Isaacs shot off another e-mail to the CEO, saying it was a common courtesy to respond to people’s questions. After a few more back-and-forths, Jobs attempted to wrap up the conversation with a deathblow:



Please leave us alone.


Cold. But just about what you’d expect from the world’s most famous ninja.


Apple did not immediately respond to my e-mail requesting comment on the e-mail exchange. Maybe I’ll send a note to Jobs myself whining about the potential impact on my salary. I have cats to feed and a gym membership to pay, you know.


Joking aside, this is especially hilarious for anyone who covers tech, because we all know that Apple’s PR team usually doesn’t respond to professional media outlets — so the thought of them responding to a student puts a toothy grin on my face. But congrats, Isaacs: If your story is real, you got a response from the legend himself, which is more than most of us tech journalists can say.


View the original article here

Gorgeously Retro Fujifilm X100 Sports Optical + Electronic Viewfinder

Fujifilm’s retro-fantastic X100 is probably the hottest-looking camera you’ll see this year. Announced at this year’s Photokina tradeshow, the magnesium-clad compact makes it look like Fujifilm took the wish-list of many photographers and made it real.

The first thing you’ll notice is the styling, which looks almost exactly like the rangefinder cameras of the past, right down to the flash being placed where the little bright-line illuminator window would go on, say, a Leica, and the giant viewfinder being placed over to the left (from the user’s point of view).

In fact, the whole camera is laid out like an old-style rangefinder. The shutter-speed is set by turning a dial on the top plate (as it the exposure compensation). The aperture is set by twisting a dial around the lens itself and the on-off switch is a collar a round the shutter-release. In fact, from the product-shots, it appears that the shutter-release is drilled and threaded for a manual cable-release.

Then we get to the lens. The ƒ2 lens is a fixed 23mm, which equates to 35mm on a full-frame camera. This is the classic focal-length for a rangefinder, and coupled with the 12.3MP SLR-sized APS-C sensor, means that you’ll be able to throw backgrounds out of focus, as well as shoot in very low light (the maximum ISO of 6400 will help there, too).

But the real “holy shit” moment comes with the viewfinder. It works just like a normal optical viewfinder, but has a prism stuck in the middle. Light from the scene in front passes straight through to your eye, but off to the side is a tiny 1,440,000 dot LCD screen. When on, the panel can either superimpose camera-info onto the image or – get this – function as a super high-res optical finder. You can switch between modes with a hardware button (it’s the lever on the front) Here’s the picture:

To be clear, this means that you can use this like an old-style camera, with distraction-free framing but also with the parallax errors of a non-through-the-lens finder, or you can swap to see what you’d see in an SLR. I’m guessing that you’d also get the focus points shown, and maybe even an in-finder histogram? [Update: The histogram is in there].

The X100 will also shoot 720p video, and has a regular 460,000 dot screen on the back, along with the usual host of digicam buttons, and there is even a built-in 3-stop neutral density filter so you can cut out some light and still use the lens wide-open in bright sunlight.

I’m ridiculously excited by this camera. It’s coming out in March of next year, and, at $1000, I predict that Fujifilm won’t be able to make them fast enough. This, you probably already know, is the camera Leica should be making.

9-19-10-finepixx1001

Finepix X100 [Fujifilm]

See Also:

Follow us for real-time tech news: Charlie Sorrel and Gadget Lab on Twitter.

View the original article here

Facebook Phone? Maybe. Good Idea? No

It was quite the weekend sensation: TechCrunch thought it had a resonant story — though perhaps not in this way.

It’s hard to say exactly why the TechCrunch piece on Facebook developing a branded phone caught so much fire and ire. It might, however, be because Facebook took the somewhat unusual step of denying it (or … did it?) rather than ignoring it.

We don’t know what Facebook is up to, or if the sources TechCrunch still has faith in are wrong or right or — if the latter — such a project is much more than a twinkle in Mark Zuckerberg’s eye.

But would a Facebook phone make sense? I don’t think so. Facebook integration in Google Android phones is very deep, so much so that it is arguably better to use than Gmail contacts. Ironies aside, this is exactly the sort of advantage one would presume that building the delivery mechanism would get you, and they have an amenable platform to do pretty much whatever they want in software.

On the iPhone, the Facebook app seems to be a better embodiment of what social networking is all about, without all the bells and lights and noise that get you all distracted on the pinball machine that is Facebook.com.

Can the experience be improved on mobile? Sure. And it will be, of course. We know this without sources telling us, because that is the way of the world. The question is, how. The answer, I think, is not hardware.

Mobile phones are the No. 1 accessory for most people, especially the core demographic that uses a social network like Facebook. Are these customers going to pick a phone to just to perfect their Facebook experience? Would you pass on an iPhone or an Evo or the next fantastic Android handset that comes out, just to bathe in mobile-Facebook goodness?

Even if the phone is free? Even if they pay you to get one? Even if it only had to be the second, single-purposed phone in your life and you kept it in your office drawer because your enterprise network blocks out the site? Even if it really isn’t a phone but an internet appliance that depends on available Wi-Fi … you get the idea.

This seems like the tail wagging the dog. For example, there have been plenty of internet watches from companies run by smart people who hired smart people to make them — just ask Microsoft, which introduced one in the internet’s Triassic age (seven years ago.) Or LG, which unveiled one at CES 2009.

These wonders of technology do things that Dick Tracy could only have imagined. How many have you seen at SXSW? Anywhere in the wild?

Right. Because watches, like your mobile phone, are a statement.

Smartphone buyers won’t sacrifice substance for style — and they don’t have have to. Even Google doesn’t like its Android-powered phones being called Google Phones because, as powerful as the brand is, it sounds like all they do is Google stuff. The backlash on a “Facebook Phone” — that is what it would be called, make no mistake — would be tremendous.

Facebook may have ambitions outside its comfort zone, and heaven knows it has the money to entertain any fantasies it may have. But if one of them actually is sponsoring a branded handset, the company should be asking itself what we’re asking: Who needs it?

View the original article here

Ex-Child Prostitute Sues Village Voice Over Sex Ads

A teenage child trafficking victim has filed a lawsuit against Village Voice Media, for knowingly allowing her pimp to post ads for her “services” on the popular backpage.com. The pimp, Latasha Jewell McFarland, has already pleaded guilty to prostitution charges, but the victim (going by M.A. in the complaint, as she is still a minor) says that Village Voice knew that the photos being posted of her were illegal but “failed to investigate for fear of what it would learn.”

M.A. says she was 14 when she was found as a runaway by McFarland, who began pimping out M.A. for $100 per sex act (McFarland took half the earnings). In order to advertise M.A.’s services, McFarland took pornographic photos of M.A. and posted them on backpage.com in the personals section for those seeking sex. McFarland pleaded guilty earlier this month to photographing M.A. in pornographic poses, posting child porn on backpage, paying the site for the postings, transporting M.A. for the purpose of pimping her out for sex, and collecting money for M.A.’s sexual services.

In the complaint (.pdf), however, M.A. accuses Village Voice of having knowledge that the explicit photos were 1) of a minor, and 2) for prostitution services. No evidence is outlined in the complaint that explicitly points to Village Voice having this knowledge, but M.A. says the company aided and abetted her pimp in facilitating prostitution and child pornography. She also argues that Village Voice should not be granted immunity under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act—a law that has historically protected websites from being held liable for the content posted by users.

“Defendant had a strong suspicion that the aforementioned crimes were being committed,” reads the complaint. “Defendant had a desire that these posters accomplished their nefarious illegal prostitution activities so that the posters would return to the website and pay for more posting.”

The lawsuit comes just days after Craigslist testified to members of Congress about the company’s decision to close its own adult services section. Craigslist reiterated that it did more than almost any other site to help authorities catch child traffickers and other illegal activity, but that didn’t stop politicians and critics from continuing to hammer on the site for the mere existence of the adult services section. With the section (and its strict manual review process) gone, the company warned that advertising for prostitution would ooze over to other parts of the site and go elsewhere on the Internet.

“With the removal of adult services and its manual review, Craigslist fears that its utility to help combat child exploitation has been grossly diminished,” Craigslist attorney Elizabeth McDougall said.

Indeed, backpage is one of those sites that has an “anything goes” reputation; it’s not at all surprising to discover that minors were being advertised through the site. Whether or not Village Voice actually knew that the photos were of a minor and that the advertised services were illegal is another story, however, and M.A. will likely have to produce some real evidence of such if she wants the site’s Section 230 immunity waved.

Previously on Wired.com:

View the original article here

Six Reasons Why I’m Not On Facebook, By Wired UK’s Editor

Six reasons I'm avoiding Facebook

“David, you’re sounding like an old dude!” Matt Flannery, who runs social-lending website Kiva, couldn’t understand when I explained that, no, I wouldn’t be keeping in touch with him via Facebook. “What are you worried about?” he teased in a break at the PINC conference in Holland. “Only old guys get worked up about privacy.”

Well, Matt, I admit I’m the wrong side of 30, and that I still avoid using emoticons in formal correspondence. But let me explain why I’m not active on Facebook, nor sharing my credit-card purchases on Blippy, nor allowing Google Buzz to mine my contacts list, nor even publishing my DNA on 23andMe.com. My cautious use of the social networks has nothing to do with paranoia about privacy; and yes, I celebrate the unprecedented transparency and connectivity that these services can empower. But what’s increasingly bothering me is the wider social and political cost of our ever-greater enmeshment in these proprietary networks. Here are half a dozen reasons why.

1) Private companies aren’t motivated by your best interests
Facebook and Google exist to make money, by selling advertisers the means to target you with ever greater precision. That explains the endless series of “privacy” headlines, as these unregulated businesses push boundaries to make it easier for paying third parties to access your likes, interests, photos, social connections and purchasing intentions. That’s why Facebook has made it harder for users to understand exactly what they’re giving away — why, for instance, its privacy policy has grown from 1,004 words in 2005 to 5,830 words today (by comparison, as the New York Times has pointed out, the U.S. Constitution is 4,543). Founder Mark Zuckerberg once joked dismissively about the “dumb fucks” who “trust me”. I admire the business Zuckerberg’s built; but I don’t trust him.

2) They make it harder to reinvent yourself
“When you’re young, you make mistakes and you do some stupid stuff,” President Obama warned high-school students in Virginia last September. “Be careful about what you post on Facebook, because in the YouTube age whatever you do will be pulled up later somewhere in your life.” He’s right: anything posted online might come to haunt you permanently, yet all of us need space to grow. As the writer Jaron Lanier said in a recent lecture, if Robert Zimmerman, of small-town Hibbing, Minnesota, had had a Facebook profile, could he really have re-created himself as the New York beatnik Bob Dylan

3) Information you supply for one purpose will invariably be used for another …
Phone up to buy a pizza, and the order-taker’s computer gives her access to your voting record, employment history, library loans — all “just wired into the system” for your convenience. She’ll suggest a tofu pizza as she knows about your 42-inch waist, she’ll add a delivery surcharge because a nearby robbery yesterday puts you in “an orange zone” — and she’ll be on her guard because you’ve checked out the library book Dealing With Depression. This is where the American Council for Civil Liberties sees consumerism going — watch its pizza video online — and it’s not to hard to believe. Already surveys suggest that 35 percent of firms are rejecting applicants because of information found on social networks. What makes you think you can control what happens to your personal data?

4) … and there’s a good chance it will be used against you
Mark Zuckerberg would like to suggest that, in an ever more transparent world, “you have one identity — the days of you having a different image for your work friends or co-workers and for the other people you know are probably coming to an end pretty quickly.” That suits his purpose — but in our multi-layered lives it’s just not true. A vindictive ex-partner, or a workplace rival, or a health insurer, or a political opponent, may selectively expose information to your detriment – powerfully re-framing your identity in a way you would consider dishonest.

5) People screw up, and give away more than they realise
To understand how much personal information Facebook users are inadvertently sharing, visit youropenbook.org and search for phrases such as “cheated on my wife” or “my new mobile number is” or “feeling horny“. I’ll bet that most of the people whose intimate details you’ll get to read are unaware that their updates are being shared quite so openly. Have they genuinely given Zuckerberg their informed consent?

6) And besides, why should we let businesses privatize our social discourse?
Some day you should take time to read those 5,830 words: it’s Facebook that owns the rights to do as it pleases with your data, and to sell access to it to whoever is willing to pay. Yes, it’s free to join — but with half a billion of us now using it to connect, it’s worth asking ourselves how far this “social utility” (its own term) is really acting in the best interests of society.

Don’t take my word, Matt — young internet users themselves are increasingly wary of the social networks’ use of their private data. A recent study by the Pew Internet and American Life Project — a decent sample of some 2,253 Americans — found that 44 percent of Generation Y (aged 18 to 29) now limit their online personal information, compared with 33 percent of internet users between ages 30 to 49. And three-quarters of younger social-networkers have adjusted their privacy settings to limit what they share.

Call me uncool — but that’s a trend I’m happy to share with my friends. In person.

David Rowan is the editor of Wired UK magazine. He also writes The Digital Life, a monthly tech column in our sister Conde Nast magazine, GQ. This column originally appeared in CG’s September issue.

Follow Epicenter on Twitter for disruptive tech news.

See Also:

View the original article here