New Matilda – Publishing Again!

The Australian indi media site New Matilda that ceased publishing new content in June as it continued to struggle to find a business model that could support the publishing structure that it had created without continued financial support by a benefactor has recommenced publishing this week. As Editor Marni Cordell explains, she has taken over financial responsibility for New Matilda as they seek to relaunch the site around a business model that is more reminiscent of those utilised by public broadcasters than of either other new media sites or even traditional media’s online portals. This is a move I support. I am not one who believes hiding content behind a paywall of some description is an intelligent business model, not for established media such as the Murdoch press and certainly not for a small independent outfit such as New Matilda which can do with all the exposure they can muster.

New Matilda promises to return to providing the same news, comment and analysis from an independent standpoint for which they became known before having to close their doors; along with a new focus upon the type of investigative journalism that many believe is all too lacking in today’s centralised media landscape. If Cordell and her team can indeed manage to return New Matilda to its former glory and, perhaps, build upon the very strong reputation they carry with them, they just might be able to find a niche within the Australian media landscape that is not only extremely valuable but also sustainable. This, however, they will not be able to do alone and unsurprisingly New Matilda are looking for people who are able to support their effort. If you value an independent media, like I do, I urge you to support New Matilda, like I have. It’s easy, just click on the link below and Fund Break will help you do the rest.

I wish Cordell and her team the best and look forward to a daily dose of quality independent media.

Google is Watching – Privacy concerns in the electronic age.

Chris Dziemborowicz, a lawyer and blogger, writes at NewMatilda.com about his concerns over Google’s recent indiscretions when it comes to the collecting and storing of WiFi data by its StreetView vehicles; a view that another blogger, zielwolf‘ argues is “collective luddite paranoia and melodrama”. I would like to suggest that zielwolf’s attitude to privacy is somewhat caviller. My response, posted on NewMatilda.com, is below.

-Pseudomorph

I cannot help think that when zielwolf states “[w]hat Google is doing here is analogous to someone walking around collecting addresses” he is fundamentally mistaken about the seriousness of the issue.

As Dziemborowicz states in his piece, Google admitted to collecting not just WiFi identifiers but also, where networks were unsecured, data sent across these networks. To further zielwolf’s analogy, this is more akin to collecting not just street addresses but also some small pieces of the content of the mail contained within the letterbox at these address. As with the mail in one’s letterbox, this information has the potential be of a particularly sensitive nature.

Secondly, and this is a point that Dziemborowicz also misses, is that notwithstanding Google’s assurances of the limited nature of the information collected, the accidental nature in which it was collected, or its assurances of its intention to destroy this information, Google not only posses the immense computing power that would enable this information to be utilised in ways that we, as as owners of this information, may not be comfortable with; it is also an organisation that is based on, and derives its primary income from, using precisely these small pieces of data in order to provide marketing and advertising services. Google is a corporation and as such it exists to make money. It does this, not by providing you services, but providing them to people who want to know about, and market to you. This is a point that is often lost when discussing privacy in the electronic age.

And finally, zielwolf’s assertion that this is only an issue for those who have not bothered to secure properly their WiFi networks is also a straw man. This argument is not only based upon the assumption that we all possess the technical ability to know how to do this but also that we this to be an issue in the first place. It further assumes that all societies operate within the same technical and social internet paradigm that we do here in Australia. Google is an international corporation and as Dziemborowicz points out these same issues have been raised by privacy advocates in other jurisdictions. Notwithstanding other arguments about network security, internet access in other countries, by and large, does not operate within the same download and bandwidth limitations that we do. This removes the economic driver that zielwolf suggests drives us to secure WiFi networks so that others can use them. The result is that in other parts of the world there are many more open WiFi networks that we find here.

I would like to suggest that Dziemborowicz is rightly concerned about privacy issues within the electronic age, albeit not concerned enough.