What Your Search History Says About You (And How to Shut It Up)

With this week's revelation that the NSA secretly hacked into the data centers that power Google and Yahoo users' emails and documents (allowing them to check out users' files at will and without warrants), one is forced to wonder if Americans are aware of exactly how much personal information the NSA might find there -- and how much they agreed to provide.

After all, type anything into a Google search and its auto-complete function provides a peek into the sometimes-dark reaches of our collective psyche -- for better and, more often, for worse. But how does Google start to guess at what you're looking for? By tracking you and all its millions of other users and analyzing the data.

But before you decide it's time to use Yahoo! or Bing instead, you might be interested to know that they're often doing the exact same things as Google, despite Bing's infamous "Scroogled" ad campaign. So if you don't want to let big business -- or Big Brother -- keep track of that which you store in the dark recesses of your brain, what can you do?

First off, read each site's privacy policies. No time for that? Here's the CliffsNotes version of the information that the three major search engines collect on you.

• Google: The privacy policy states that by signing in, you allow Google to collect information about you -- including whatever you give them. This includes your name, address, phone number--maybe even a credit card number and a photo. In addition, utilizing Google's services allows them to collect information about your devices (including your cellphone number or other unique device identifiers), your location, the details of your calls (like who you call and how long you spend on the phone), archives of your searches, your IP address, a unique identifier for any software you are using (like Chrome) and cookies or other tracking identifiers stored on your device.



• Bing: This search engine's privacy policy says that it also uses cookies, including multiple ones if you are signed into a Microsoft service while using Bing. For each search, you're associated with an IP address (which is deleted after six months) and an approximate location. Bing also records the type of device you are using and what you searched for when you searched for it. Unlike Google, Bing explicitly says that it stores search terms and cookie IDs separately from the personal information of who conducted the search. Like Google, Bing may use your searches to better target advertisements to you.



• Yahoo!: Yahoo collects as much information as Google from registered users if not a little bit more -- name, email address, birth date, gender, ZIP code, occupation, industry and personal interests, some of which is required to register on the site. The company additionally offers services that require giving your address, Social Security number (a query about which you should always be cautious), and information about your assets -- none of which is anonymized as you use its products. They assemble information about all of your interactions with them and "some" of their "business partners," record information about your computer, browser, IP address and what you visit on their site, and place cookies on your machine. They use the information garnered from all of that to customize ads and your searches, contact you, conduct research and "provide anonymous reporting for internal and external clients." Yahoo also shares your non-anonymous information with "trusted partners" who "may use your personal information to help Yahoo communicate with you about offers from Yahoo and our marketing partners."

Ready to opt out? Well, here's where things get a little complicated. If you're using any services from Google, Microsoft or Yahoo, you're already giving them at least some of this information. And if you use their services, they all retain at least some anonymized level of information about what is being searched and which results are being selected, whether that's connected to your personally identifiable information or not. And even when you opt out of information tracking for advertisers, you have to accept a cookie on your computer for those preferences to hold. Plus, as all the sites warn, opting out of all tracking might mean your search results aren't as fine-tuned to what you might normally like to see.

While there is no quick fix, if you want to ratchet up your privacy settings for search engines, here's how to do it:

• Google: Log out before searching! This is the easiest way to keep your searches and your profile separate. Next, sign into your dashboard, scroll down and find out exactly what Google knows about you and the privacy settings for each product you use. You can also disable location information and remove your web history. Next, visit your ad settings and see what Google's got on you, what it assumes based on your searches, and then edit and delete as you see fit. Finally, visit the Google advertising network's opt-out page to limit the companies who can place cookies on your computer.



• Bing: Again, always log out of your Microsoft account before searching. Longer-term, visit Bing's "Search History" page and delete your search history and turn off its ability to recall your search history. Then visit Microsoft's advertising privacy page to disable personalized ads -- targeted ads that make use of your data -- and potentially dig into what other information Microsoft collects on you if you have an account. Finally, if you haven't already done so for Google, Microsoft uses the same advertising network opt-out system that will turn off many tracking cookies.



• Yahoo: If you don't want your account and your search history linked together, log out before you search. Next, visit Yahoo's "Search Preferences" page to stop it from logging your searches (though it won't apparently delete that which it has already logged) and, if you have an account, opt into "Safe Search" to eliminate most explicit content. You can opt out of targeted advertising, including advertisements based on your searches, by visiting the Ad Interest Manager, and opt out of many third-party ads by visiting Yahoo's advertising network opt-out system, which covers many of the same sites as the one employed by Google and Bing.

Here's the bottom line: no matter where you go on the Web--be it Google, Bing or Yahoo to search; Twitter or Facebook to social network; or your email provider or favorite shopping sites--you're giving up a little piece of yourself, and sometimes enough to cobble together your identity. At the very least, you are granting access to information about your computer, location and browsing habits, and the more they ask for, the more they can make connections between the real-life you (or others these services think are "you," like friends, neighbors, children or your spouse, when they browse on your computer) and the online you.

When you're shopping for a new phone, you check the specs, read the reviews and make sure you know what you're getting yourself into with a new contract. Going online should be no different. Read Terms of Service carefully, proactively manage your privacy controls and remember that unless and until you've opted out of something, you've most often already opted in.

City of San Francisco CIO: Simplify, Accelerate!

I recently interviewed Marc Touitou, the CIO of the City of San Francisco, about IT led business transformation and the changing role of the CIO. Touitou is a 30-years veteran with extensive experience in the private sector semi-conductor industry, with incredible zeal towards improving the customers experience, who brings with him his tried and true motto, "Simplify. Accelerate". When most of us think of a government agency "speed" is probably not one of the first words that comes to mind, but Touitou, a champion of mobile, social and cloud technologies with a customer-focused agenda considers himself to be a change agent. By collaborating with all the government agencies to work on something that is bigger than himself, he is setting out to drive change and to do some good in the smart city - and what better city to do it in than San Francisco? Working side-by-side with companies like Twitter and Salesforce.com, the spirit of innovation in the people and culture in San Francisco bleeds through to what Touitou is trying to do with the Department of Technology. It is this spirit that he is trying to preserve and enhance in the city and is the driver behind everything they do. Touitou and his staff are currently looking to hire more than 40 IT professionals in order achieve their mission.


Marc Touitou, CIO of San Francisco

You don't need to be the CIO of one of the most technologically-advanced cities in the world to be a change agent. Touitou gives IT departments everywhere, and organizations alike, his advice on how to break through the status quo. He tells us, "It is not an option to say it is what it is. IT is an enabler and as a change agent must act as a Chief Marketing Officer of Chief Enthusiast Officer to spread the word, ignite energy and put the means in front of people to help them execute."

4 Steps to Becoming an IT Change Agent:


1. Focus on your customer's business requirements as priority #1: : Getting things done and done quickly in a government environment, and in any organization where different lines of business exist, is a challenge. To handle the resistance that all change agents will encounter, Touitou says that the first thing you need to change is your tone and your approach. Never underestimate the power of words. When you visit your peers you need to treat them as customers and understand their business goals and then see if you can help. All lines of business have different needs and priorities. When Touitou encounters resistance, he changes his tone and appeals to the business principals and to the greater good, pointing to the critical needs that everyone shares. He says, "Even when the person you are dealing with is tempted to resist, if you build trust and are persistent they will usually agree to give it a shot and that's a start."

2. Identify and deliver to the common ground: The decentralization challenges that a government agency faces are the same as in the private sector - divisional CIOs and shadow IT exist everywhere. When you are in a company with 12 different business units, each agency has specific needs, but commonalities also exist. In the Department of Technology for the City of San Francisco, Touitou strives to identify, leverage and share the common assets and processes. He says the key is to prioritize and to focus on fixing the fundamentals - bringing the city together on the most critical infrastructure issues is always the right path.

According to Crawford Del Prete, chief research officer at IDC, the fact that by 2016, line of business executives will be directly involved in 80 percent of new IT investments, will have vast implications for how the CIO works with the line of business. In a CIO Magazine article, Del Prete says the CIO should really think about how they can work with business leaders around the company not only to deliver services internally but to use technology to help the company differentiate and expand the business.

3. Bring the lines-of-business together to accelerate change for the common good: One of Touitou's key initiatives for 2013 is to provide Wi-Fi access throughout the city. This initiative was jump started with a gift from the private sector that allowed the city to offer Wi-Fi at 31 of their 200 city parks. Touitou says that Wi-Fi is not a nice to have, and considering the fact that for every 10% of broadband penetration there is 1% of GDP growth attached, it is essential to start now. It's not just Wi-Fi; it's the infrastructure that goes with it. As such, they are installing fiber broadband capacity for the city as well. Touitou says, "It is never fast enough, we want more and always more." By helping the government agencies understand that everyone should want to have connectivity as a right and that accelerating the deployment of fibre is good for the city - for start-ups, digital inclusion, and people that can't afford to have a cell phone plan - builds a great source of enthusiasm across the agencies. "We are going to do something good here and people are working around the clock just to be a part of that," says Touitou.

Touitou is applying the same strategy to his cloud vision: he says that the smart city must leverage cloud solutions aggressively. He will try to be successful in convincing his colleagues, peers and partners that for the greater good of San Francisco, they should start marching faster towards cloud solutions.

4. Embrace collaboration by adopting an open mindset: With an IT department in every agency in the City of San Francisco, the challenge for Touitou becomes less about shadow IT and more about bringing IT together on what they should be together on. For Touitou, "shadow IT" would be departments not working together on a solution that could benefit all departments. His biggest challenge is to convince his colleagues of the fact that together they are stronger than they are as individuals.



Just as Kim Stevenson, CIO of Intel, embraces shadow IT as something to learn from and feels that if there is a gap, shadow IT can fill that gap, Touitou agrees that if there is innovation you have to be grateful for it and embrace it or else people will get frustrated. For CIOs that find it difficult to embrace shadow IT, Touitou offer this advice: "The number one smart thing you can do to tackle things that pop up that you did not expect is to have an enterprise architecture landscape so you can understand how different technologies interact with each other. If you don't have an architecture framework, get one." Stevenson also encourages her peers to demand more of IT in term of innovation and business alignment.

Ray Wang, Principal Analyst and Founder of Constellation Research offered the similar advice to CIOs as they work together with the lines of business: "You need to help them think through the integration framework that is required. You have to help think of the data security and the data models that you have to put in place, the process models that are there and if you can help people get there, then at least they can move forward but not move so far apart from where you are."

Anyone that had the opportunity to watch our CXOTalk with Marc Touitou would agree that the "I" in his CIO title stands for Innovation, Integration, Imagination, Infrastructure, and Intelligence. It you want to work (and do good) in San Francisco, the competition is fierce but the City of San Francisco Department of Technology is looking to hire 40 people, including a "Social Media Guru" position.

You can watch the full interview with Marc Touitou here. Please join me and Michael Krigsman of Asuret every Friday at 3PM as we host CXOTalk - connecting with thought leaders and innovative executives who are pushing the boundaries within their companies and their fields.

FoxL Dash 7 Review (Bluetooth speaker)

You don't have to be a rocket scientist to create a great Bluetooth speaker, but it evidently helps. Dr. Godehard Guenther, the founder, president and CEO of Soundmatters - makers of the FoxL Dash 7 (black/black, black/white, black/red) - is indeed a former rocket scientist, and boasts Ph.D.s in astronomy, nuclear physics and physical chemistry.

With all that, you might expect the Dash 7 to glow in the dark. It doesn't - it's more a sober black, and quite elegant. The white and red versions are mostly black as well, with a color stripe on the side, around the circumference of the speaker.

The elegance also comes from the distinctive shape of the device - long and thin, perfect for using next to a tablet. It's dimensions are Height: 0.75 inches / 18mm x Width: 7.5 inches / 190mm x Depth: 2.1 inches / 53mm. Weight is a mere 7.1oz / 201 grams.

That's very svelte, but this speaker punches above its weight. Translation: you get more volume, and more bass, out of the Dash 7 than expected. That bass is accomplished partially by using the internal battery as a weight to increase the bass. That makes the Dash 7 great for watching movies on a tabby.

What about rocking out at parties? Here, it depends on the size and noise of your get-together. The Dash 7 can't deliver quite the volume of, say, the JBL Charge (reviewed in my Bluetooth speaker roundup). It comes close, but at the cost of some distortion.

The Dash 7 also doesn't deliver as much bass as the JBL Charge, which is a larger and heavier device. Instead, the sound is a bit brighter in the mids and highs, and the bass is noticeably less present.

That said, the Dash 7 is a versatile speaker that's easy to carry on trips around town, on campus or across the country.

In fact, it's a great speaker to carry around the world. That's because the box includes 4 different wall plug adapters that slip on to the USB charger. You have a choice of two cables to plug in to the adapter. One is the expected micro USB cable, while the other is a hybrid USB / round pin cable. The manual says that the latter charges the speaker much faster than the micro USB cable.

Also included is a 3.5mm cable for use with non-Bluetooth sound sources, such as an older phone. And, of course, there's a manual. This one's no afterthought - kudos to the tech writer and colleagues for a well-designed, well-written booklet. It's 7 pages, long and thin (the same shape as the speaker), the equivalent of 14 normal size pages.

A couple caveats about the Dash 7: it's also a speakerphone, but the party at the other end of my test call could scarcely hear me because of excessive feedback. That may be because the microphone is behind the speaker grill, i.e., right next to the speaker itself, unlike the placement in most Bluetooth phones.

Also, the manual says the speaker says that the Dash 7 can be paired with up to eight phones, tablets and other Bluetooth devices (only one can be in use at the same time, of course). That's capacious, but here again a caveat: if you want to pair with a ninth device, you have to manually erase all eight from memory. That's unfortunate. Most Bluetooth speakers simply bump the oldest device from memory. Still, it's unlikely that you'll ever hit this limit unless you share the Dash 7 among more four roommates, each of whom uses two devices as music sources.

Missing from the box is a cloth carry bag. It would have been a nice touch, given all the cables and ac adapters. However, as far as protecting the speaker itself, the box includes a carrying sleeve with magnetic flaps. The case also unfolds to make a stand that holds the Dash 7 at an angle. The speaker also has rubber feet, so you can simply set it face up on your desk.

Another nice feature, not seen on most Bluetooth speakers: the Dash 7 has a subwoofer output. You can use this with the Soundmatters FoxLO palm-sized subwoofer (not reviewed).

All in all, the FoxL Dash 7 (black/black, black/white, black/red) is a sleek speaker that's sure to delight. It's not inexpensive, but if you want a high-quality speaker that's small, lightweight and attractive, it's a great choice.

For more Bluetooth speakers, check out my Bluetooth speaker roundup. For other reviews (especially of devices for mobile, click here.

Disclosure: The manufacturer provided product for this review.

We Need a Geneva Convention on Cyber Warfare

The term "Geneva Convention" (or even "Geneva Conventions") is a rather vague term, encompassing a whole sheaf of international agreements on the proper conduct of war. In the first place, the "convention" doesn't refer to a group of people but rather to the agreements themselves. In the second place, what most are referring to when using the term is a collection of international agreements reaching back to the late nineteenth century; some agreed upon in Geneva, Switzerland, and some elsewhere (the Hague, for instance). But while the term itself is a collectively vague one, what is being referred to is usually pretty clear: nations of the world banding together and deciding that certain conduct in wartime is simply unacceptable for being too inhumane.

Of course, that's a tough target to hit, to put it in military terms. There are many weapons and tactics which are pretty downright inhumane which are still completely legal under the Geneva Conventions. And being killed in one fashion rather than another certainly doesn't bring much comfort to those loved ones left to mourn. Even so, the accomplishments of the Geneva Conventions are many, from the introduction of the International Red Cross to definition of acceptable treatment of prisoners and non-combatants.

One example most use to cite success isn't even really all that valid. The horrors of mustard gas in World War I were supposedly banned in 1899, under the "Hague Convention," but hundreds of thousands still died choking in the trenches. The "Geneva Protocol" of 1925 further prohibited "asphyxiating, poisonous or other gases" but that didn't stop the United States from moving stockpiles of mustard gas to Germany in 1943, just in case Germany might use chemical weapons (which resulted in a tragedy, when the Germans bombed the town).

International agreements are not perfect. The United States now gets on a moral high horse over Syria's use of chemical weapons, but we didn't start destroying our own stockpiles of chemical weapons until just a few decades ago (and we still haven't completed the task). It took until 1997 for the "Chemical Weapons Convention" to finally and ultimately prohibit such weapons -- 80 years after World War I.

Even though it took a long time to get to this point, it was an effort worth making. Which is why the nations of the world should now start a new conversation in some internationally-neutral city, with the expressed purpose of defining what is and what is not allowable for the future of warfare (and spying). Three major topics of such an agreement should be: passive cyberwar (spying on communications), active cyberwar (virus and other attacks), and robot warfare (drones and other automated weaponry).

Right now, the passive and robot forms of warfare are prominently in the news. The United States is roundly being criticized by its allies for vacuuming up enormous amounts of digital communications data -- including listening in on phone calls made by world leaders of countries we are supposed to be allied with. This has followed revelations of massive domestic spying in America, but are more troubling to citizens of other countries, for obvious reasons. And just last week, two respected rights organizations released a report which essentially labeled America a war criminal for how we've been using drones to drop lethal bombs and missiles on people in countries we are not at war with.

The third subject isn't as recent, but it wasn't all that long ago that Iran's centrifuges were attacked by the "Stuxnet" virus, which reportedly set the program back in a major way by giving the centrifuges the instructions to destroy themselves (this is a vast oversimplification, but it will do for the sake of discussion). Closer to home, America has long complained that China's military has a specialized unit whose sole goal is to launch cyberattacks on America's computers and infrastructure.

Although I've used mostly American examples here (due to the current news), what the folks in the Pentagon worry about is not so much how to attack other countries, but how vulnerable we are to such attacks. Vice President Dick Cheney recently remarked that he was concerned that the pacemaker device he uses to keep alive might have been vulnerable to hacking. There are so many devices which are "online" these days -- from traffic signals to household electric power meters -- that it wouldn't be all that hard to plan a serious disruption of American life as we know it. What would the results look like if some foreign power took down our air traffic control system suddenly? Or our GPS system? Or blocked every cell phone call in the country? Or -- even more frighteningly -- took out all three systems at the same time? The prospects are pretty grim. And that's just a handful of scenarios -- there are plenty more to contemplate which would cause an equivalent amount of chaos.

Preventing any or all of this by means of international diplomacy might at first glance seem to be a fool's errand. But it's certainly worth a try, considering what could be avoided if it were successful. Hammering out exactly what will and will not be allowed in cyberwarfare will be a tough task -- made even more tough by the knowledge that any such agreement would almost certainly have to be updated (at a minimum) every decade or so, to keep up with new technological developments.

America has lost a lot of its moral standing in the world, since 9/11. This is not a partisan problem, either. Both Republicans and Democrats alike have given their consent to practices which we used to consider not only illegal, but downright abhorrent and inhumane. This includes waterboarding and all the other Orwellian-named "enhanced interrogation techniques" (which we used to consider ourselves morally above using), to dropping bombs from remotely-controlled airplanes to assassinate people we consider fair targets (how would we feel if people in Peoria were being assassinated in this fashion?).

But while this might leave the U.S. open to cries of "hypocrisy" from other countries, leading the effort to define allowable cyberwarfare techniques would go a long way towards regaining some of that moral standing. America could make the case: "OK, look, we may have crossed a few lines in our war on terror, but a lot of this stuff is brand-new, so we just had the opportunity before other countries were faced with similar choices -- and now that we've had time to consider, we think there ought to be some rules to cover futuristic battlefields, both real and virtual."

America should be the one to call for another Geneva Convention in the cyberwar realm. "Let's lay down some rules" we could say to the rest of the world, and then we could all start creating a few definitions and banning certain tactics (like, for instance, a cyber attack on hospital management software -- which could grind hospitals' capacity to deal with emergencies to an absolute standstill). American politicians -- after secrets are revealed by leakers, of course -- always say "we welcome this conversation," from President Obama on down. But this conversation needs to include the whole world.

The whole effort could be doomed to failure, of course -- but this is always true of diplomacy. It could take a century to actually have any effect, as just the dates of the chemical weapons bans of 1899 and 1997 prove. But that doesn't mean that banning chemical weapons wasn't a worthwhile thing to attempt. We could indeed have to see a future cyber disaster of "World War I mustard gas" proportions before the nations of the world even begin to take such a thing seriously. In fact, it is very easy to be pessimistic about the chances for success.

But again, that doesn't mean it isn't worth the attempt. The "brave new world" of computer warfare -- in all its frightening aspects -- desperately needs some rules and limits. Communications spying and drone attacks are only the precursors for what could be eventually deployed against the United States. If we don't take the lead now in calling for some definition of what is humanely allowable even by countries at war with each other, we may seriously regret not doing so later.

 

Chris Weigant blogs at:

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
Become a fan of Chris on The Huffington Post

 

'Marvel's Agents Of S.H.I.E.L.D,' 'Girl In The Flower Dress' Recap: Fire Villain Scorches Team

Note: Do not read on if you have not seen Season 1, Episode 5 of ABC's "Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.," titled "Girl in the Flower Dress."

Somebody over at "Marvel's Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D." has been listening. This week, we got some much-needed character development as well as a more substantial tease about our larger menace -- they even got a name! In fact, names were very important in this episode. They give something weight and meaning. And a name can turn a simple street performer into a power-hungry supervillain. What's in a name, indeed!

It was nice to see this elite S.H.I.E.L.D. team taking on a bona fide supervillain this week, even if he was somebody they already had on their "Index." That's a database they have of people and objects with powers. Don't worry, it's a short list ... for now. Apparently, S.H.I.E.L.D. assigned an agent to keep an eye on street magician Chan Ho Yin, and told him not to use his powers. This suppression approach seems likely to blow up in their faces down the road in a much larger way.

Chan was someone who was reasonably frustrated at being forced to hide who he truly was and what he was truly capable of. He's also probably representative of the frustration others on the "index" are feeling as well. This made him easy pickings for the alluring Raina -- portrayed by Ruth Negga, who purred every one of her lines. She lured Chan into a sense of comfort before packing him away to Centipede. That's probably not the organization's real name, but thanks to Skye's "hacktivist" boyfriend Miles, that's the name S.H.I.E.L.D. is now using for them.

Centipede got their hands on Chan's name, as well as details on his pyrokinetic abilities, because Skye's one-time mentor and lover, Miles, hacked the S.H.I.E.L.D. database and sold the information for a million dollars. He thought it was a benevolent and harmless eco-research lab that studied centipedes. In truth, "Centipede" is the organization behind the Extremis serum seen in the series premiere.

It turned out that Chan's blood platelets were fireproof, which is why he didn't burn when using his power. It also meant that his platelets could be used to stabilize Extremis so people would stop exploding. So, Raina and her doctor friend simply took them from Chan. By this point, the ruse was up. He was never going to be a superhero named "Scorch" like Raina had promised. He was never going to be famous like his idol, Harry Houdini. So he decided to settle for infamous, but wound up just dead.

It was a little odd how murderous he became. Maybe it was because it was S.H.I.E.L.D. who came to his rescue, and he had years of resentment built up toward them. Maybe it was the agony that using his power caused him now that his platelets had been stripped out. Whatever it was, Chan took it all out first on his S.H.I.E.L.D. handler, and then the doctor who'd extracted his platelets. Her death was a nice special effects moment, though gruesomely horrific at the same time. Raina managed a quick escape to purr again.

Coulson felt responsible for Chan's descent into madness -- this S.H.I.E.L.D. policy of power suppression is going to be trouble, I'm telling you! -- and yet he knew he was going to have to take him out. Chan was too far gone, and so they too him out. But maybe Skye isn't

Coulson knew that Skye was holding onto a secret, still, and so he had May follow her when they were initially trying to track the leak that had exposed Chan to Centipede. As such, May caught Skye when she tipped off Miles that S.H.I.E.L.D. was coming after him, and then slept with him. Don't shows usually do the extended underwear scene with their hot, young female lead in the first episode? "S.H.I.E.L.D" waited until Episode 5 to have Chloe Bennett walk around in her bra and panties for a ridiculous length of time. It seems like they saved a lot of stuff that should have been done sooner for Episode 5 -- like character development and "big bad" reveals.

That said, underwear scenes like this are nice and all for the younger male demographic this show is catering to, but even those males can see that this one was gratuitous. And it wasn't just for the fellas, either. Miles was in his underwear, though it was those black boxer briefs that every male on television seems to wear these days. At least his shirt was off. Ladies!

At least the underwear was a practical decision in one sense. We got to see that Skye keeps an SD card in her bra. That came back at the end of the hour when Coulson gave her one last chance to not get thrown off the plane. After betraying the team, she needed to come clean or she'd be dumped off in Hong Kong with her former lover. And so she told him what was on the SD card. It wasn't intel she'd gathered on S.H.I.E.L.D. It was intel she'd gathered on her parents.

Turns out a huge part of her motivation to join Rising Tide and target S.H.I.E.L.D. was to track down her parents. Her investigation into them came up blank, save for one document -- a document completely redacted by S.H.I.E.L.D. And so, Coulson agreed to help her, but regaining the trust of the team is going to take a little bit more time, which should be fun to watch.

This kind of friction within the team will be a good thing. Especially as the relationship between Ward and Skye is quickly becoming one of the strongest on the show. I'm sure the 'shippers in the world are already seeing them together, but I like the idea of him being more like a big brother to her. Their playful banter is wonderful as is. It humanizes Ward, which is desperately needed in most episodes, as well as giving Skye a personal reason to stick around. Well, after this week's reveal, I guess it's two personal reasons.

I was a little taken aback when Coulson gave Skye the same bracelet he'd given Miles, though. Coulson told Miles that it wouldn't allow him near electronics for awhile, and it would allow S.H.I.E.L.D. to keep an eye on him. I get the latter for Skye, but isn't electronics kind of her point for being on the team? Maybe hers is programmed differently. I'm sure she could hack it anyway if she really wanted to.

All in all, I was very encouraged by the developments this week. We got a few scenes with Rayna representing Centipede and making moves that our team doesn't know about. Giving the enemy both a name and a face, as well as hinting at their ultimate agenda, was just what "S.H.I.E.L.D." needed to do. Now, we know what they're up against in a more tangible sense -- and we even know a bit more than they do.

That said, there is a limit to how far you should go with the witty banter. I get that absolutely everyone in this universe is clever and full of quips, but they shouldn't be finishing each other's jokes.

"Either they're guarding the world's largest vacuum..." Agent Kwan said outside the Centipede facility. Coulson finished it for him, "...Or that's where Chan's being held."

No. Just, NO!

"Marvel's Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D." airs Tuesdays at 8 p.m. ET on ABC.

When Disaster Strikes: Why You Need to Create a Virtual Firebox for Your Photo and Video Memories

Nearly one year ago, Union Beach was hit hard by Sandy. Last month, the Ocean County, New Jersey planning board estimated that 26,000 people were still unable to return to their homes, and AP News reported that "full recovery from Superstorm Sandy is still elusive." Sandy has become the second-costliest storm in U.S. history at $65 billion, trailing only Hurricane Katrina's $125 billion cost.

Homes and lives are being pieced together even today but for many people, there's something that can't be replaced and is the most valuable of all: memories captured in photos and videos. There is no price tag for baby pictures, no set value for video of a wedding or birthday party. These memories truly are priceless.

Just ask the people who have lost them.

Jeannette Van Houten's home in Union Beach was destroyed by six feet of water damage. Within a month after the hurricane, she found photos washing up on the Jersey shore, and decided she had to do something about it. Jeannette created a Facebook page to reunite her fellow citizens with their photos:Sandy's Lost Treasures invites visitors to post misplaced pictures in case their rightful owners came looking. Within days after Jeanette created it, the page had over 4,000 visitors, all of whom who were desperate to be reunited with their photos.

In an interview with the New York Daily News, Van Houten said, "Sandy destroyed metal and wood and steel and concrete. But we're finding these pieces of paper, these photos, and their images are still beautiful."

Union Beach resident Sharon McMahon found many of her family photos via Van Houten's Facebook page: "I kind of thought it was a lost cause, but then someone tagged my fiancé and me in a picture and I started to go through them. There were tons," McMahon told the Daily News. "My baby pictures. Ones we didn't have digital copies of."

Through any post-disaster devastation, a sadness that knows no social, economic or political boundaries creeps into the hearts of victims as they sift through the rubble of their homes: a sadness over the loss of memories.

Pictures, home movies, and family photo albums -- the very essence of memory in its most tangible form -- are the seemingly small mementos that leave the biggest void for many victims of natural disasters. Kitchens can be remodeled and floors be retiled, but these delicate pieces of the past cannot be replaced.

Technology Can Save the Day; Put Your Memories in a "Virtual Firebox"

"Save your family photos; use a storage bin, any water proof container, and make sure to store them someplace dry!" Such were the warning cries of former flood victims offered in the days leading up to Sandy on cyber communities like Reddit.

Thanks to technology, there are ways to avoid the frenzy of tossing photos, negatives, and videos into plastic containers and attempting to lug them out with you when disaster strikes. Instead, save that footage of your first birthday or parents' wedding online, where these memories can live forever and be accessible to you, even when the originals are lost. Many retail locations -- Target, Walmart, Sam's Club, CVS and Costco and locally owned stores -- offer customers a service to transfer old home movies and photos to an online account. For those who prefer the do-it-yourself approach, scan old photos into a computer and storing them in a web-based service like Google Drive, iCloud or Dropbox.

Saving your old home movies and photos in a 'virtual firebox' in the cloud can save you heartache later. If you ever find yourself facing a natural disaster, you don't want to have to think about which of your memories you can save; skip the plastic storage bins and switch to a virtual firebox -- and if something does happen, you will always have the option of printing off more photos, you'll be able to watch your home movies online from anywhere in the world and best of all share them and pass them down to further generations all digitally.

Floods, Fires and Just the Ravages of Time

Hurricane season isn't the only reason to consider safeguarding home videos and photos. Floods, fires and whatever else Mother Nature's wrath may have in store can be equally as devastating -- and simply the passage of time can damage your photos and videos.

In 2011, the National Fire Protection Association reported that U.S. fire departments responded to 370,000 home fires, and this year has already seen unprecedented damage resulting from forest fires:

• 30 homes destroyed by the September 2013 California wildfires
  
  


• More than 100 homes destroyed by the July 2013 Arizona wildfires
  
  


• 486 homes destroyed and 37 damaged by the Colorado forest fires
  
  

Full disclosure, I know this situation well, as the CEO of YesVideo, I oversee the digital processing of thousands of tapes, film reels, and photos every day; but still, we estimate that 17 million tapes will be lost this year to natural disaster, degradation or just plain negligence.

Of course many of us think that the odds of ever facing a major natural disaster are quite small. But in addition to loss from catastrophes, millions of old tapes and family photos tucked away in the basement or attic are slowly decaying just due to the passage of time. A 2012 InfoTrends Video User Study showed that 4 out of 5 people (78 percent) did not realize that video tapes degrade in quality over time, making them unviewable.

Temperature is a key factor in making film deteriorate at a rapid pace. Even if stored in optimum conditions, time itself takes its toll on our video memories, and causes the dyes in the film fade a bit each day, making it all the more critical to save your memories virtually before they literally fade away.

Save Yourself the Heartache of Loss

"What would you take with you if your house was burning down or flooding?" Most of us would answer this question with "My pictures and videos -- those things that are irreplaceable." But, lugging a firebox out the door doesn't have to be part of your evacuation plan, and we can't always count on heroes like Van Houten to come to the rescue when our priceless mementos are at stake.

We often realize the importance of something only when it's gone. Heed the warning of those who've lost their memories, for it's not the replaceable kitchens and homes mourned most, but more often, the irreplaceable photographs. As Van Houten said, "You can replace a home. You can replace possessions within the home. But you're never going to get the first photo of your newborn baby back."

Take time now to research companies that specialize in home video and photo transfer techniques, or make time to start saving them yourself. You can make your memories last forever by keeping them safe in a virtual firebox, and ensure they will survive the ravages of time and anything else Mother Nature sends our way.

Video Games Represent the Most Powerful (and Potentially Dangerous) Era in Storytelling

Over the course of one weekend, I lost 12 hours, 42 minutes and 1 second. I don't know how it happened. It took me like a fever.

I somehow slipped into watching a 56-part YouTube playthrough of The Last of Us, a video game recently released by Naughty Dog Inc. The game, which earned a 95 out of 100 on Metacritic, features a gnarly but loyal 48-year-old named Joel and a scrappy teenager named Ellie. In their world, there has been a viral catastrophe, and Ellie, somehow immune, represents the only possibility for a cure. The game takes the player -- sometimes as Joel, sometimes as Ellie -- on a journey across post-apocalyptic America, seeking help in a world that's all but hosed.

It is, I should say, a truly top-notch game.



The characters, story, and aesthetic are complex and well-composed, and as a result, everything about the game feels literally (and figuratively) 3D.

Increasingly, this seems to be the objective of the gaming industry. Developers are piling resources into making each video game's world, content, and choices as high-res-real as possible. And this, to some, represents a problem. Some critics of video games claim people, especially children, struggle to distinguish between gaming fantasy and everyday reality. This, for one, may contribute to violence (specifically gun violence) in children and young adults.

So, do you buy it?

Maybe you should, but not as it's stated above. There may be something more impressive at work.

Video Games as Expressive and Formative

In the 2006 documentary, The Pervert's Guide to Cinema, celeb cultural theorist Slavoj Zizek expounded on the 1999 blockbuster, The Matrix. (He's written a paper on the topic, though it's too technical to discuss here.) In one memorable scene, Zizek berates The Matrix for its proposal of a reality/fantasy dichotomy, represented in the film by iconic red and blue pills. He rejects the dialectic and instead demands a third pill. This pill, he says, would offer an understanding of the "reality within fantasy itself."



Here, I urge you to consider Zizek's proposition seriously; it's really not so esoteric. To explain it, Zizek uses video games and the gamer as an example.

The dominant perspective regarding video games is that they enable players to embody their own fantasies. This is to say, video games are appealing because they allow players to become what they are not. For example, outside the World of Warcraft (WoW), a player may feel weak and vulnerable. However, inside WoW, the player is some buff, kickass ogre. A dweebie pantheon of strength.

But Zizek dismisses this popular perspective, opting instead to turn the idea on its head. He claims that, rather than allowing players to act out a fantasy persona they wish to be, video games allow players to express who they truly are. To be clear, this doesn't mean people who kill in video games are killers, or people who take on Mario are truly Mario. However, it does mean that video games allow players to express natural, all be them taboo, aggressions (and even perversions).

This isn't an "outlet" argument, though; Zizek doesn't propose that video games primarily serve to relieve us of lawfully reprehensible urges. Instead, this argument is about video games as self-expression. And I'll depart from Zizek here and go a bit further:

I claim that the virtual gaming experience -- especially considering its significant young audience -- is a formative one. As games become more complex and open-ended, they are less about inhabiting someone else's identity, and more about inserting and developing your own identity inside another body and world. This, if nothing else, is the most powerful (and potentially dangerous) aspect of video games.

And I mean it. Like all storytelling agents, video games can be dangerous. Just like television, movies, and written/spoken word, video games bear the freighting responsibility of conveying messages and teaching us about the world. The important thing, then, is to understand how those storytellers speak to us, and how video games are different. The distinction here should be obvious: relative to other forms of storytelling, video games allow for choice.

Whereas fiction readers have to glean a novel's takeaway and apply it through real life choices outside the binding, video games streamline the process. They allow players to simultaneously interpret what the game is teaching them and apply (and thereby reinforce) those teachings through in-game decision-making.

It's a simultaneous feedback loop, a sort of "When I move, you move (just like that)" scenario.

For instance, I was recently re-playing Metal Gear Solid 2, a critically acclaimed stealth shooter, when I realized something: I could play through the entire game without intentionally killing someone. What's more, by restraining my urge to go through each area guns blazing, I could earn rewards in the form of dog tags. These prizes -- available to be stolen from every, individualized guard -- indicate a masterful, crafty player. And I could only earn them if I didn't kill guards on sight.

And there it was: one of the many messages the video game teaches its players, even today.

Violence is a choice.

Thinking about that, I found myself changing how I played the game.

The Future of Gaming (read: My Marketing Pitch)

Metal Gear Solid shows us that video games aren't meaningful/dangerous because they expose us to difficult, high-stakes concepts like violence. They're dangerous because they can make things like violence into choices of the player. And they can make those choices vivid and difficult, or incredibly easy.

The key piece to remember, though, is that formative, self-actualizing experiences within video games hinge on having choices in the first place. For example, Call of Duty (a top-selling first-person shooter) provides no deep choices surrounding violence. The player begins and ends as an agent of violence, reduced to literally nothing but the butt and muzzle of a gun. More complex games, however, can provide choices around violence. And in doing so, they offer more immersive, developmental (and possibly dangerous) storytelling experiences.

This is the captivating future of gaming. This is how video games distinguish themselves from other forms of storytelling. Complex, next-gen games are going to be less and less about pretending to be another person and more and more about simply being yourself, transforming the screen into a plane of both self-expression and self-aspiration.

So what will you aspire to?

In "The Last of Us," the player's first kill is designed to always be the euthanasia of a virally infected soldier. You're not allowed to simply walk away and proceed through the game.

But what if you were given that choice? Would you leave the poor sap?

Think about what the game is really asking you: what's your personal stance on euthanasia? Not the character's stance. Yours.

Go ahead and aspire. Be yourself.

Every good developer already knows that the most ground-breaking games are going to be those that free you to do just that: aspire, be yourself. That's how games will become profound artifacts of self-actualization. That's how they'll become the greatest storytellers. Forget having the realities of human dilemma materialize through a character. Games can make those realities materialize through you.

Opting Out From the Corporate State of Surveillance

America was founded on the ideals of personal liberty, freedom and democracy. Unfortunately, mass spying, surveillance and the unending collection of personal data threaten to undermine civil liberties and our privacy rights. What started as a necessary means of reconnaissance and intelligence gathering during World War II has escalated into an out-of-control snoop state where entities both governmental and commercial are desperate for as much data as they can grab. We find ourselves in the midst of an all-out invasion on what's-none-of-their-business and its coming from both government and corporate sources. Snooping and data collection have become big business. Nothing is out of their bounds anymore.

The Patriot Act-enabled National Security Agency (NSA) certainly blazed one trail. The disclosures provided by Edward Snowden has brought into light the worst fears that critics of the overwrought Patriot Act expressed back in 2001. The national security state has given a blank check to the paranoid intelligence community to gather data on nearly everyone. Internet and telephone communications of millions of American citizens and millions more citizens and leaders of other countries. Even friendly ones such as Germany, France and Brazil have been surveillance targets --over 30 foreign leaders such as German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Brazilian president Dilma Rousseff have reportedly been targeted by this dragnet style data-collecting. More blatantly, covert devices were reportedly placed in European Union offices and earlier by Hillary Clinton's State Department on the United Nations to eavesdrop on diplomats. World leaders are not pleased, to put it mildly.

Many Americans are not pleased either. And while most of the recent public outrage in the U.S. has been directed at instances of government snooping, giant private corporations are equally as guilty of the troubling invasion of peoples' selves. Companies such as Google, Apple, Microsoft and Facebook blatantly collect and commercialize personal data -- often covering their tracks with complicated fine-print user agreement contracts that most people, whose property it is, "agree" to without any consideration. Clicking "I agree" on an expansive, non-negotiable user agreement for a website or a software program is, to most people, just another mindless click of the mouse in the signup process.

These "take-it-or-leave-it" contracts leave the consumer with little power to protect their own interest. (See here for our extensive work on this issue. Also, visit "Terms of Service; Didn't Read" for a valuable resource that summarizes and reviews online contracts so that users can have a better understanding of what they are agreeing to.)

Just last week, news broke that Google plans to roll out a new advertising feature called "Shared Endorsements." This policy allows Google the right to create user endorsements in online advertisements. So, if a Googler happens to share their preference for a particular product online, his or her endorsement might end up featured in an ad without any notice or compensation. Of course, users are welcome to "opt-out" of this program -- but how many millions will remain ignorant of the fact that they unwillingly opted-in by clicking their consent to contract terms they did not bother to read out of habit. (Google's official statement claims the move is to "ensure that your recommendations reach the people you care about.")

Opting-out should be the default option for all these types of agreements.

School children are also being targeted by mass data collectors. InBloom, a nonprofit organization based in Atlanta, offers a database solution for student records between grades K-12. In theory, this service is supposed to make it easier for teachers to utilize emerging educational products and tools. But in practice, many parents are concerned about how this data will be used -- in one instance, for example, student social security numbers were uploaded to the service. One parent told the New York Times:

It's a new experiment in centralizing massive metadata on children to share with vendors... and then the vendors will profit by marketing their learning products, their apps, their curriculum materials, their video games, back to our kids.

Facebook poses another data mining risk for young children. Although Facebook does not currently allow children younger than 13 to join -- the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act prevents the online collection of data of children without parental permission -- reportedly more than five million underage children use the social media website anyway. This exposes them (and their personal information) to thousands of advertisers that use Facebook to collect marketing data and promote their products. See the Center for Digital Democracy's recent report "Five Reasons Why Facebook is Not Suitable For Children Under 13." Notably, Facebook recently changed their privacy policy to allow teenagers between the ages of 13 and 17 to opt-in to sharing their postings with the entire world, as opposed to just their "friend network."

The insatiable appetite for data is reaching beyond the digital realm, as well.

The Washington Post recently reported that Mondelez International, the company behind snack brands like Chips Ahoy and Ritz, has plans to deploy electronic camera sensors in snack food shelves to collect shopper data. These "smart shelves" can scan and save a customer's facial structure, age, weight and even detect if they picked something up off the shelf. The device can then use that gathered data to target the consumers with "personalized ads." For example, at the checkout line, a video screen might offer you 10 percent off the box of cookies you picked up but ultimately chose not to purchase. The Post reports: "The company expects the shelf to help funnel more of the right products to the right consumers, and even convince undecideds to commit to an impulse buy."

The smart shelf builds on the Microsoft "Kinect" camera technology, which has the ability to scan and remember faces, detect movement and even read heart beats. Microsoft developed the Kinect camera as a video game control device for the home. In light of Microsoft's reported connection to the NSA PRISM data gathering program, why would anyone willingly bring such a sophisticated spy cam into their living room?

Along the same lines, certain retailers are using smart phones to track the movement of customers in their store to gather information on what products they look at and for how long -- similar to how Amazon tracks online shopper habits so it can direct them to other products that algorithms determine they might be interested in. Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) has called on the Federal Trade Commission to regulate this disturbing practice. He recently announced a deal with eight analytic companies to institute a "code of conduct" for utilizing this seemingly Orwellian technology. Sen. Schumer told the Associated Press: "When you go into your store for your Christmas shopping, there'll be a sign out there that says that you're being tracked and if you don't want to be, you can very simply opt out." The details on how exactly one opts-out of this invasive technology, short of leaving their cell phone at home, is not yet clear.

With all these instances of Big Brother encroachment, one might want to opt out of the digital world entirely, and avoid supermarkets and retail chains that spy on customers. Unfortunately, that is becoming more and more difficult in an increasingly technology-obsessed world.

It's time for citizens to stand up and demand their right to privacy, which is a personal property. Mass surveillance and rampant data collection are not acceptable and should not be the status quo. Recall that there was once a time when the federal government could defend our nation without limitless access to computer records, emails, online search histories and wiretapping phone calls without open judicial authorization. Businesses could be successful without tracking and saving your shopping habits and student records were not commodities to be traded away. Why do they now do what they do? Because they can.

Remember, what you allow to be taken from you by the private companies can also end up in the files of government agencies.

This Saturday, a coalition of groups including the ACLU, Public Citizen, the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), the Libertarian Party and many more are gathering on the National Mall to protest mass surveillance by the National Security Agency. This is a positive first step in letting our elected officials know that ceasing the collection of private personal information about you is important and mass surveillance should be prohibited. Visit here for more information about this weekend's rally. Join the movement to end these burgeoning, tyranny-building abuses by runaway federal agencies.

Autographed copies of my book Told You So: The Big Book of Weekly Columns are available from Politics and Prose, an independent bookstore in Washington D.C.

Technology in the Hands of a Great Teacher

I've brought a lot of different technologies into my high-school Physics classroom over the past 10 years, and the results have been nothing short of awesome. My students learn more effectively and more efficiently thanks to services like Socrative, hardware like cellphone cameras, content like TED-Ed, and other technologies. Having witnessed the power of thoughtfully-leveraged technology in the classroom, I've become one of EdTech's biggest fans, even co-chairing my district's one-to-one Chromebook Initiative. But today, as districts rush to put a tablet in every student's hand, as policy-makers demand mountains of technology-harvested student data, and as edtech entrepreneurs declare that education is ripe for disruption, it is more important than ever to remember what great teaching is all about.

No single technology has changed the way I teach (and learn) more significantly and in more ways over the past decade than YouTube. Experiments that are too dangerous or too expensive to perform in my high school classroom become a valuable part of my lesson plans. Entertaining and engaging videos motivate students and cultivate true problem-solving skills when leveraged in the classroom as a "video lab" or "three-act task." And YouTube's mammoth collection of tutorials, like my "How to Convert Units" video embedded below and, more notably, those from the Khan Academy, are an invaluable resource for my students who may have missed a class or realized they were a little rusty with a topic.



But let's not forget: great teaching is much more than simply delivering a lecture, even if that lecture is exceptionally clear. Think back to the teachers who had the greatest impact on you during your schooling. They weren't the ones who would speak in front of a chalkboard all day, taking no questions and explaining things in only one way, as the majority of Khan Academy's videos do. Instead, those teachers were the ones who engaged you in discussion, squeezing ideas out of you in a manner that forced you to think in new and challenging ways. YouTube can be an exceptionally powerful teaching tool, but video is an inherently one-way medium, and great teaching is -- at its most basic -- a two-way street.

Google Apps is an amazing suite of collaborative and organizational tools that no teacher should be without. If you walk the halls of my school, which has been a "Google Apps District" for several years and has provided every student with a Chromebook of their own since September, you'll see a multitude of students typing away on Google's cloud-based apps platform. They are doing peer editing, collaborating on projects, collectively analyzing lab data, and sharing their work with each other and with their teachers. Google Apps allows our students to collaborate in meaningful ways more frequently than they could before we had Google Apps -- a time that now feels like a bygone era.

But let's not forget: real collaboration is much more than simply collecting and editing ideas or data. The primary reason educators assign group work is to foster the development of collaborative skills. We want our graduates to be able to brainstorm effectively, reach consensus, read social cues, resolve conflicts, and optimally distribute labor. Google Apps provides commenting and chat functions, but they can't convey social cues and are linear in nature, which are drawbacks to those seeking to reach a consensus. The platform allows students make edits quickly, but often without discussion or reflection. Google Apps is a vital tool for our students and our district, but when it comes to producing great collaborators, it is no substitute for several chairs and a round table.

Remind101 is the best EdTech discovery I've made over the past few years. I've been evangelizing the free teacher-to-student text messaging service as it is the missing link of communication I had sought for so long. For years I struggled to get students to visit my class website or at at least regularly check email to receive time-sensitive class announcements, with absolutely no success. Class websites and even email just aren't on their radar, but text messages are. (I asked around 150 current and former students what was the best way to get in touch with them. Only 2 percent said email was the best method. 62 percent said texting was best.) Since then, I've used Remind101 for everything from class logistics ("Astronomy observation night has been cancelled due to clouds") to bonus opportunities that extend learning beyond the classroom ("First two students to email me a picture of themselves measuring the angular size of the moon with their pinky will receive a homework pass.") Remind101 allows of a level of connectivity between me and my students that we've never had before -- I can put Physics or Astronomy on the forefront of their mind beyond the school day, and they can know that they and their education are on my mind outside of the classroom as well.

But let's not forget: great teaching is all about the formation of interpersonal relationships, and interpersonal relationships aren't forged in 140-character bulk texts. Any additional connectivity between teachers and students is a good thing, but the memorable, rich, interpersonal connections that truly inspire students (and that are so rewarding for teachers) grow from tearful after-class talks and celebratory post-accomplishment high-fives. We should take advantage of all of the ways that technology can connect us, but we should be sure not to forget the more significant ways that we can already connect.

Video games have been continuously used to help students learn since Pong. Video games can drill skills (Mathblaster or Math Ninja), can teach content (Oregon Trail or Quantum Spectre), or even drive high-level discussion and critical thinking (as I've seen an English teacher do with Passage). Even games designed for entertainment can instruct with tremendous efficiency, as I first witnessed in college as captain of my undergraduate rugby team: having the rookies spend a single evening playing EA Sports' Rugby on the Playstation gave them a much more complete understanding of the rules of the sport than they would have received from multiple "chalk-talk" classroom sessions, even if a multitude of refreshments not usually conducive to learning were consumed in the process. Video games can be efficient instructional tools because they are hands on, have a well-tuned zone of proximal development, and toe the line between intrinsically and extrinsically motivating the learner.

But let's not forget: great teachers strive to create lifelong learners. A lifelong learner's motivation is intrinsic -- an innate desire to better understand the world, to acquire knowledge simply because that is what humans are capable of and therefore what humans should endeavor to do. How will a straight-A student at a school founded on gamification fare once his or her efforts to learn are no longer rewarded with points, badges, or unlocked content? Video games get a lot of things right, but let's be sure to keep an eye on how we are motivating our students as we gamify our curriculum more and more.

Great teachers seek to thoughtfully leverage technology in their classes, capitalizing on all of the affordances that technology can provide. But let's not let technology replace what it can't, especially when what it can't are the hallmarks of great teaching.

American Teacher (Welcome Books): Facebook, Twitter, and Pintrest

Marco Civil: Brazil's Push to Govern the Internet

Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff is staking out a leadership role for Brazil on the contentious issue of Internet governance. She has prioritized certain legislation amid revelations of widespread electronic espionage by the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA). Rousseff is also promising to introduce an international Internet governance proposal at the United Nations, for which India has voiced support [Note: Some sources are in Portuguese].

A bill introduced in 2011, known as Marco Civil da Internet (Civil Rights Framework for the Internet), has been slowly making its way through Brazil's National Congress, undergoing an extensive public consultation process. Some main provisions include privacy protections, net neutrality, and the non-liability of Internet platform providers for content posted by users (unless ordered removed by a judge).

On September 11, Rousseff formally requested that the National Congress treat Marco Civil with constitutional urgency. The request came three days after Brazilians learned that the NSA spied on Petrobras. Under the urgency procedure, each chamber has 45 days to vote on the bill; otherwise, all pending legislation must be halted in that chamber until it is addressed. It is currently in the Brazilian House of Representatives (Câmara de Deputados) and a vote is expected by October 28. Should it pass the House, Marco Civil continues to the Senate, where it will have another 45 days to be addressed. Now that it is on a fast track to becoming law, multiple Brazilian interests are rushing to insert new provisions in the bill, which risk distorting the framework that has been thoroughly debated by multiple Brazilian stakeholders since 2009.

Provisions under debate include the duration of data storage, which agencies will regulate different portions, legal protections, and net neutrality. Rousseff has come out strongly in favor net neutrality, which is the principle that Internet providers should treat all data equally, not discriminating or charging differing amounts for transmission. President Obama also supports net neutrality.

Flawed Data Logic

Rousseff's effort to include a provision that would require that Brazilians' data be stored on servers located in Brazil is especially controversial. This proposal is being touted as a way to protect Brazilian citizens and Brazilian sovereignty. However, such a requirement is unlikely to make Brazilian data more secure and some experts fear it could lead to Internet Balkanization.

Concerns about online security are understandable. The NSA is not only collecting massive amounts of data, but it has systematically undermined data encryption across the entire Internet. It has done so by working in concert with software and systems developers to build "back doors" into their products, in addition to intentionally introducing weaknesses into global encryption standards. As a result, everyone's data and privacy are more vulnerable to hackers, governments, terrorists, and criminals of all kinds.

Nevertheless, many experts note that requiring that all Brazilian data be stored in Brazil will carry costs. All governments engage in spying and surveillance, including Brazil's. Criminals and terrorists will seek to exploit weaknesses for their own nefarious ends. Any computer connected to the Internet is vulnerable. Malware and spyware can penetrate defenses no matter where the computer or server is located. Whenever messages and data travel over the Internet, they could be intercepted and decoded, even if Brazil develops its own national email system, as Rousseff has proposed.

Pedro Henrique Ramos, a lawyer and a researcher at Brazil's world-renowned academic institution Fundação Getúlio Vargas, argues that forced data localization could have grave consequences. From an economic perspective, he says that Brazil's relatively expensive servers would harm Brazilian companies by significantly increasing the already-high costs of doing business in Brazil. From a civil liberties perspective, forced data localization could make surveillance of Brazilians even easier for Brazil's police and intelligence services. Ramos notes that, according to a Google transparency report, Brazil is already the country with the second most judicial and government requisitions for user data, after the United States.

One author of the original Marco Civil bill, Ronaldo Lemos, argues that requiring companies such as Google and Facebook to build new data centers in Brazil will scare Internet companies away and make them less likely to offer their valuable services to Brazilians. A better way to bring more data centers to Brazil would be to invest in Internet exchange points, Lemos argues. More and better exchange points in Brazil would naturally lead to an increase in data centers.

Demi Getschko, adviser to Brazil's Internet Management Committee (CGI.br) and a pioneer of the Internet in Brazil, recently argued that Marco Civil should be passed without any new provisions. Other members of CGI.br have said that issues of data protection should be addressed in a separate Personal Data Protection bill that is set to be introduced after Marco Civil is passed.

Brazil is doing much to put Internet governance high on the global agenda. President Rousseff's speech at the UN General Assembly in September helped bring attention to the risks posed by an anarchic Internet. Fadi Chehadi, head of the U.S.-based Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), praised Rousseff for her support of net neutrality and for planning to host an Internet governance summit in Rio de Janeiro in April 2014. But, as Getschko said in July regarding Marco Civil, "now is the time to approve that which is widely known and debated. Last-minute changes, apart from not having gone through the scrutiny of public debate, tend to be imprecise and, many times, incoherent."

A Global Challenge

Data security and online privacy are global problems. As long as Brazil and other countries remain connected to the Internet, they will be vulnerable. Unless Brazil wants to cut itself off from the global information society and the opportunities for prosperity, learning, and advancement that it offers, Brazil will have to find a way to address security concerns without forced localization of Brazilian data. Many Brazilians are essentially saying, "It's a good law; don't ruin it. We'll deal with other issues in separate legislation."

In the United States, many are seeking to rein in the NSA, led by Senator Ron Wyden. Despite President Obama's lackluster leadership on the clear need for U.S. intelligence reform, he has ordered an intelligence posture review that will take months to complete. Moreover, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, a U.S. federal agency, last month announced it would take steps to restore confidence in encryption standards. The top two officials at the NSA will soon be gone, presenting a chance for the United States to reform its intelligence apparatus. American society is slowly mobilizing around better solutions to the threats we face.

Liberal democratic nations struggle with the issues presented by modern information and communications technologies. Not utilizing these new tools for law enforcement and to defend national security would be foolish, but trying to control and monitor everything risks eroding the civil liberties that make these societies so vibrant. Brazilian and American societies are natural allies and should be working in concert with other like-minded societies to build an international Marco Civil.

Restricting the global free flow of data and ideas on which commerce, growth, and opportunity increasingly depend would harm everyone's prosperity, but countries that introduce protectionist Internet policies would suffer the most. That so many Brazilian stakeholders are pushing back against the hasty inclusion of ill-conceived provisions is a positive sign. The impulse to exert greater control in an effort to protect one's citizens is understandable, but such laws should be introduced cautiously and with input from all segments of society, not rushed through in times of anger and paranoia. The Patriot Act is a prime example.

We're all worried about privacy and security in our deeply interconnected world, whether we most fear criminals, terrorists, governments, or hackers. Given the nature of the Internet as a global network, it would make sense to work together to strengthen it and to restore trust in its integrity, instead of building walls.

Engulfed Into Mobile's Future and Loving It

This year's 4th annual 2013 Always On Mobile Summit was held at the historic Fox Theater in downtown Redwood City California, the heart, as they say of Silicon Valley. I did actually cross "Sand Hill Road" twice on my way to and after dinner at the new location of Fleming's Steak House. We sat and ate in the patio, offering a combination of cold and then too hot temperature, while catching up with a colleague from my Peacemaker Corps days and marveling on the vibrancy and energy in the place. There was not a seat available at 6:30 p.m. in the dining room, so many movers and shakers having an early dinner, close a deal and go home to their family of growing children. This part of America just keeps on innovating and growing theirs and our economic base. But boy do the entrepreneurs just keep getting younger, but more on that later.

Up early, packed my bag, jumped into my rental car, we Californians, never without our own wheels. Actually there is some decent public transportation available in Northern California, especially from San Francisco and San Jose, driven by the wealth in that part of our country and the need to move between the two cities easily. One would hope that all that technical output could bring other ways of travel for those who live there. I did see lots of bicycles with commuters, mostly casually dressed not like New York City where bikers can be in suits and ties. Arriving at the Fox Theater I was early and had time for some coffee and yogurt, the beauty about Tony's Always On Conference, there is always food for the brain, good healthy food for our bodies, and sometime food for the soul. I checked my pre-arranged interviews and discovered that two appointments to interview mobile experts, one a reporter from Forbes and a mobile expert from Visa had been cancelled, since they were not coming.

I took my breakfast and the conference agenda which today was just a printed one page, folded in half and printed on each side, crammed with a buffet of participants, who have mobile on their brain, and walked up stairs to the theater's balcony where tables were placed to have meetings or a meal. I had pre-scheduled an interview with Hans Erickson, president and COO of Phunware, Inc., for the morning, and as I sat sipping my coffee, looked at my watch, I wondered if he also would be a no show. Just as I put my cup down, a gentleman approached the table and asked if I was Carole Krechman, saying yes he introduced himself as Hans from Phunware. Third time the charm as it is said.

That was perfect timing, we sat for almost an hour discussing his company and their new relationship with Cisco, his long terms view of mobile and how it is changing the face of how we live. Hans shared his view of how experience, which he and his company have lot's of, brings results. Advertisers can't value a mobile offering without analytics, and all developers want to increase their user base so what Phunware offers is an end to end solution for current creators. Looking to the future, Hans' believes mobile will become the tool of enterprise for communication and delivery of information public and then private. In my opinion Phunware is the most well positioned company to lead the pack, with history, experience and professional management. It's too corny to say that they were the adults in the room, but it is true.

Did I say a buffet, more like an orgy of information, presented to us in a brand new style of conferencing developed by Tony Perkins and staff and introduced to this very flexible cutting edge audience for the first time at this event? He calls it de-composing the delivery of information, so by having a thought leader, a host, and a group of chosen participants to share their views on a given subject, everyone in the audience had a chance to participate in some form, either by having been invited, getting an opportunity to ask a question, or voting with a system that was easily accessible by ones computer or smart phone devices. The votes were tabulated as we watched and it was fun to observe, like any survey there were winners and some losers. I still wish that there were more women in the mix, my friend Pera Vorsteher, co-founder of SMAATO, is certainly a leader in advertising for Apps and mobile websites. We have been at a few of these gathering, and are still waiting for more than two women to be invited to speak.

Which brings me to a most impressive presentation, which was made mid-afternoon by the thought leader Brian Wong, CEO of kiip, who began this company three years ago when he was 19 and is now sharing with us his thoughts of closing the $20 billion mobile advertising gap. He discussed how TV and other more traditional delivery of content grabs about 80 percent of the advertising dollar even though a much larger percent of the audience gets their content from a mobile device. He described mobile advertising as a moment of time for the consumer, and that it is important for the advertiser to own that moment. We need to push the creative envelop, surprising delights offered which keep the consumer absorbed. Brian's energy captivated the room, and there were a list of companies that are resident in this space and want to own it. There was Fiksu and their discover app, Lifestreet Media, which helps build brands, and Tobias Schmidt, CEO of wywy, which bridges the advertising from TV to Mobile. In future blogs I will go into more detail about companies who were part of the participants in this very critical discussion on this subject, since right now advertising is the economic model that drives growth and funding for the mobile space.

The day moved into early evening as we got to the last presentation which was titled Challenges and Opportunities in the Mobile Enterprise with thought leader was Tim Guleri from Sierra Ventures hosted by Larry McDonough with had the most interesting title I have ever seen on a business card, "Principal Evangelist," BlackBerry. After a very visionary talk by Tim, I wander past the stage and sat next to Larry, to share my love, longevity and loyalty to BlackBerry and how I strongly support their survival. I shared some thoughts about my company's Enhanced Mobile Video Platform EMVP and how we envisioned it to be a great tool for enterprise to share videos with employee all over the world, whom have smart phones and are not tethered to a lap top or a desk top computer. He shared with me the beauty of the new Q10 BlackBerry with the QWERTY key board, showed me the magnificence of its bright colors and I was in love. Then he looked at me, said do you want one, let me see if there are any left that I brought to give to the mobile company winners. That was the nicest thing that had happened to me at one of these conferences for all the many years that I have attended. In the end, he gave me his, which was a demo unit and I left the conference later than I had planned and scurried up to SF airport and back to Palm Springs where I am headquartered, such a smile on my face all the way home.

The week ended and I headed to the ATT store where I purchased my old BlackBerry to set up the phone with my contacts, emails, and text messages, photos and all those important pieces of your life that phone device holds on to for us. There was a long wait with so many customers there to purchase new devices and services. Mobile is certainly the rage. After waiting for about one hour, we decided to come back another day and made an appointment for Monday afternoon. After all, I had waited for the Q10 to come on the market for several years, what would two more days be. I have patience for these things most of the time.

After work we went to the ATT store and met Tony, not the one from Always On, but a very knowledgeable employee of the store, who unfortunately never worked on a Q10 before, but felt he was capable of getting me set up and on my way. Well another two hours later and it was apparent that he was not going to figure out how to download my large data base or get my Go Daddy email into the device. I was heartbroken and we left, not knowing what to do.

The next day I texted Larry and asked for help, and it arrived like a white knight on horseback with the high level technological help that BlackBerry has for its Enterprise leaders. My computer guru, that husband of mine with years of experience in computer technology spent another several hours with Mike from BlackBerry, not just to get my large database and multiple emails installed, that went very smoothly, but during those hours he learned a great deal about the phone, its operating system, shortcuts and with all this great support now he too has fallen in love with the device. We love the hub, a place on your phone where all the information that comes and is gathered into the first screen that you see. What a great innovation.

Back to the telephone store several days later with an appointment and ten minutes later walked out fully connected with a working Q10 of my own. I love this phone; it is the best of both worlds and lightweight very indestructible, an engineering feat. I hope dear readers you won't mind that I will continue to share my adventures with this phone as I move through the mobile world and observe its growth and potential. After all it was an in trusted gift from the BlackBerry evangelist and deserves to be treasured.