Digital Clues to the end of Lost
In a few minutes, the 6th and final season of Lost will premiere on the West Coast. Like many Lost Heads, I’ve eagerly awaited this date. Will the plan work and will a hydrogen bomb catapult our team back to the present day, re-setting all the craziness of the last 5 seasons?
I’m writing about Lost on this blog because it represents everything that is great about digital content today. Of course, it’s a highly creative, award-winning show with a kickass storyline. But the great thing about Lost is that its story lives on beyond the end of each episode. In fact, the show’s creators and ABC have done an amazing job seeding the web with fan-focused sites to cater to the most obsessive of us. You can look up every piece of Lost trivia – no matter how trivial – in the Lostopedia (jointly sponsored with Entertainment Weekly), or even enroll in an online course on the Physics of Time Travel at Lost University.
The latest digital teaser has got me thinking about how Lost will end – just what ABC intended to do when it released 3 promo photographs last month. The photos, inspired by Leonardo Da Vinci’s The Last Supper, offer clues to the Season 6 storyline via a tableau of Lost cast members in various stages of conversation. One version features the group in conversation, another has everyone staring at Locke and yet another version has everyone staring at you (the reader). What do these enigmatic photos tell us? Based on my analysis, here are some initial predictions:
- Kate & Sawyer end up together (because they are sitting together in each of the photos).
- John Locke is a Savior of some sort, with Jack following closely behind in some sort of supporting role (they are next to each other in each photo, Locke sits and stares ahead while Jack hovers over him).
- Jin and Sun are reunited in one reality, but not in another (they are not always together in each version of the photos)
- I guess that means that we are still dealing with two different realities.
- Frank Lapidus becomes an “Other.”
- Juliet is gone (she is not featured in any of the photos). Does this mean that the team still makes it back to the present day successfully?
I will probably revise these by the time next Tuesday rolls around. Enjoy the show!
A Cry for Regulation
A bizarre thing happened at the FTC’s second Exploring Privacy Workshop which was held in Berkeley this week. Many of the web’s most popular companies – several of whom were featured panelists – were seen publicly urging the FTC to regulate the web. As the day-long workshop progressed, it became clear that we have reached a point in the Internet’s evolution where regulatory guidance is critical. For a company whose very business model relies on data mining of some sort – predictability regarding data security and online privacy rules is fast becoming a need, not a want.
The FTC understands these concerns and has been particularly responsive during the last few months, reaching out to stakeholders – web companies, academics and consumer advocacy organizations – all of which were well represented at last week’s workshop. Based on the day’s discussions (you can see a replay of my live blog here), it became clear that participants were falling into two camps – one which urges clear guidelines and self-regulation, the other which wants more mandates and enforcement. Then there’s the FTC’s current view – as discussed in this recent New York Times interview with current FTC Chairman Jon Leibowitz and David Vladek, the head of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection.
One thing everyone does agree on is the need for better and more consumer education – particularly around data flows. With this type of education, the need to regulate data security and online privacy so stringently may be alleviated. For instance, much has been made during this workshop and in previous discussions, about the failure of privacy notices. I wonder however, how much of that failure is because consumers simply don’t understand the significance of an opt-in or opt-out, especially when it comes to their personal or identifiable data.
Obviously, there’s a joint role here for all stakeholders – an educated consumer is your best customer (to paraphrase the Syms slogan). Companies should be thinking about ways to partner with regulators on public education initiatives – just take a look at what the alcohol industry has done by partnering with state AGs on underage drinking awareness campaigns.
The FTC’s third Exploring Privacy workshop will be held on March 17th in Washington DC in March. Here are the questions posed by the FTC in anticipation of this final workshop:
- How can we best achieve accountability for best practices or standards for commercial handling of consumer data? Can consumer access to and correction of their data be made cost effective? Are there specific accountability or enforcement regimes that are particularly effective?
- What potential benefits and concerns are raised by emerging business models built around the collection and use of consumer health information? What, if any, legal protections do consumers expect apply to their personal health information when they conduct online searches, respond to surveys or quizzes, seek medical advice online, participate in chat groups or health networks, or otherwise?
- Should “sensitive” information be treated or handled differently than other consumer information? How do we determine what information is “sensitive”? What standards should apply to the collection and uses of such information? Should information about children and teenagers be subject to different standards and, if so, what should they be?
Live Blogging the FTC’s Privacy Workshop
I will be live-blogging the FTC’s next Exploring Privacy workshop which will be held at Boalt Law School on the UC-Berkeley campus tomorrow at 8:30 a.m. You can find the agenda for the workshop here.
Please check back here at 8:30 a.m. tomorrow (the 28th) and click on the link below to access the live blog.
You’ve Been Tagged (and now you know it)
In a clever and clearly self-regulatory move, the Future of Privacy forum and a coalition of companies have come up with a symbol that lets you know when advertisers are using your behavioral data and demographics to serve ads. Read more about it in today’s New York Times.
Are We Ready for Electronic Health Records?
With health care reform fast fading from the national agenda, we can’t forget that one part of that reform – adoption of electronic health care records (or EHRs) – is still alive and kicking. In fact, there’s a huge push by the federal government to articulate standards around privacy and data security – especially for medical health information. To give this push some oomph, the feds are giving out $19 billion worth of incentives to entities who adopt EHRs, a move that is funded by provisions of the “HITECH Act“ under the stimulus bill. Healthcare organizations will receive increased Medicare/Medicaid reimbursements if they adopt EHRs by 2015 – which is why we’ve seen a big boost in medical IT spending, with companies like GE providing financing for medical IT projects.
With so many companies jumping on this bandwagon, EHRs should provide a much-needed jolt to the tech sector while also giving patients more control over their medical information and treatment (both laudable goals). And yet, many uncertainties remain surrounding the push to digitize medical health information (a recent investigative piece on EHR adoption by Huff Post highlights some of these concerns). An additional uncertainty arises from the increasingly complex regulatory web that has started to encircle the medical health information sector.
Under federal law, HIPAA – administered by Health & Human Services – protects personal health information held by healthcare organizations (known as covered entities). The stimulus bill extended HIPAA’s reach even further – to include the business associates of covered entities. Put differently, a medical IT provider, working with a health care organization on their EHR adoption, could be liable for HIPPA violations (and should be thinking about compliance accordingly). And while the old version of HIPAA provided for an affirmative defense, the new version does not – increasing penalties significantly, from $25,000 to $1.5 million (for willful violations that have been corrected).
The stimulus edits to HIPAA also give State Attorneys General the right to bring actions for HIPAA violations. Earlier this month, AG Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut brought the first HIPAA action by a state AG against HealthNet, a Connecticut based insurer that allegedly waited 6 months to report the breach of private medical and financial information of 446,000 of its members. And in addition to HIPAA, state law also may apply — since many states include “medical information” in the definition of “personal information” under their data breach notification statutes.
The Federal Trade Commission also has a stake in the issue – along with HHS and the state AGs. In fact, Congress has asked the FTC and HHS to study the issues around medical health data privacy and issue a joint report on their findings. Congress will then decide which of the two agencies has the resources and expertise to enforce the ensuing regulations.
The regulatory uncertainly and patchwork will lead to increased compliance costs – especially for entities operating in multiple jurisdictions. But the bigger concern here is whether business is even ready to comply- a recent study by the Ponemon Institute and Crowe Horvath LLP found that only 6% of the 77 companies surveyed were prepared to comply with the HITECH Act provisions.
Technology, Free Speech and the SCOTUS decision in Citizens United v. FEC
Technology figured in today’s landmark Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. FEC. The 5-4 decision removes limits on campaign spending by corporations, non-profits and unions and will result in a lot more money being poured into the political process, starting with the 2010 mid-term elections. The decision also gives some insight into how the SCOTUS views the link between technology and the first amendment in political campaigns — and whether certain technologies should be treated differently than others when it comes to political speech.
Notable dicta from the majority opinion centers around the importance of technology in the decision to strike down campaign finance laws that date back to the Tillman Act of 1907:
…”Rapid changes in technology—and the creative dynamic inherent in the concept of free expression—counsel against upholding a law that re- stricts political speech in certain media or by certain speakers…”
The facts of this SCOTUS case centered around Hilary, the Movie, a 90 minute slashing critique and documentary about Hilary Clinton that was released during the 2008 Presidential race and funded by a conservative, DC-based nonprofit named Citizens United. Citizens United sought wider distribution of the movie through a cable on-demand service, but was blocked from doing so by the Federal Election Commission. The issue before the court was whether a full-length movie fell within FEC regulations that prohibit corporations and unions from using their general treasury funds to fund “electioneering communications” through cable, broadcast or satellite transmission. Surprisingly, the court sought to expand the inquiry further (for reasons you must read in their decision), choosing to issue a decision on whether any limit on campaign spending by corporations or unions is constitutional.
A tangential issue was whether to differentiate between video (or cable) on demand vs. broadcast services for purposes of electioneering communications. At oral argument, noting that consumers choose to watch on-demand programming just like they do DVDs, Justice Scalia remarked: “Here you have a medium in which somebody listens only if that person wants to listen. So the person speaking wants to speak, and the person hearing wants to hear. It seems to me that’s a stronger First Amendment interest.”
Today’s decision didn’t address the broadcast vs. VOD point directly, but given the dicta in this decision, we may see a different first amendment analysis for on-demand vs. broadcast political content.
And it also appears that the Court will continue to treat broadcast and internet content differently when it comes to disclaimer and disclosure requirements for political ads. In this decision, the Court rejected Citizen United’s claim that the FEC’s disclosure and disclaimer requirements were invalid because they are imposed on broadcast, but not Internet content. As this part of the FEC’s rules were upheld, we still get to know who funds a particular broadcast ad and the candidate that ad supports.
No doubt about it, a big beneficiary of this decision will be the online advertising industry – particularly marketers and campaign strategists. And now that the money will flow even more freely, it will be interesting to see what form this new advertising takes. My bet is on the long-form campaign documentary (a la Hilary, the Movie), with guest appearances by Hollywood stars and Beltway pundits, a good helping of human interest and a perfectly timed soundtrack. Candidates must already be thinking about how to marry potential content into their social media plans. And the rest of us are guaranteed to be humored or incensed (at least once), by something we see this fall – whether it’s on TV, on demand or on the web.
EJ Dionne in Washington Post – Coakley-Brown race is too close to call
Interesting perspective and recent update from EJ Dionne of the Washington Post on today’s special senate election in Massachusetts and the contest between state AG Martha Coakley (D) and state senator Scott Brown (R).
Do They or Don’t They?
The FCC will temporarily break from the thorny issue of net neutrality as it hosts a staff workshop entitled “Consumers, Transparency & the Internet” later today. Net neutrality of course was the tech issue du jour last week with the FCC squarely in the spotlight. For the agency, the issue boils down to non-discriminatory network management practices – requiring that broadband operators treat all content similarly, whether it’s a text only email or a 2.5 gig HD movie file. And while the issue remains “sexy” with policy-heads, it’s fast becoming clear that net neutrality is just a policy hook; what the FCC really cares about is prescribing rules to ensure access to the wired and wireless Internet – using the same statutory authority that it already has to regulate telecommunication services.
So far, not so good. Earlier this month, the FCC suffered a major setback when a federal appeals court appeared to challenge the agency’s authority to regulate net neutrality during oral arguments (with a final decision yet to be issued). The case involves a 2008 FCC order that forbids Comcast from selectively targeting and interfering with customers who use peer-to-peer (“P2P”) technologies such as BitTorrent. On appeal, Comcast argued that the order was based on an unenforceable FCC policy position (with no notice or indication of what conduct was permissible under such a policy). Judge Randolph, one of the 3 appellate judges asked simply: “What independent authority did the Commission have to regulate the Internet?”
Fueling this debate (do they or don’t they) is the deluge of comments from stakeholders in response to an initial FCC comment deadline on the issue. Net neutrality has resulted in some strange bedfellows; we now have the Electronic Frontier Foundation (whose evidence was instrumental to the FCC’s initial order against Comcast), Google and Verizon all arguing that the FCC should not use telecommunications law to regulate the Internet (point no. 6 in Google-Verizon joint comments).
The FCC’s aggressive moves to assert jurisdiction over broadband access are a marked change from its stance in previous years e.g. the FCC’s Pulver decision finding that a dialup service didn’t fit its definition of “telecommunication or telecommunications service. Of course, dial-up is a very different product from broadband and we want our federal agencies to be progressive. But should broadband access –including access through the wireless web – be regulated just like telephone service? Is the FCC regulatory model of notice, rule-making, a comment period (that can last anywhere from 30 to 90 days) and an appealable order really the way we want to effect meaningful and timely change in how broadband is deployed and adopted?
Two other points to consider:
1. What if the FCC lacks statutory authority and looks to Congress for enabling legislation? If the appeals court in FCC v. Comcast finds that the agency lacks the authority to regulate net neutrality, then the FCC will either have to undertake a “major reassessment of its policy framework” or require that Congress act (according to Colin Crowell, senior adviser to FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski). The last time Congress acted on a major Internet policy issue, we were left with the DMCA. In retrospect many, including DMCA architect Bruce Lehman, agree that the “notice and takedown” provisions of the DMCA have done little to preserve the rights of content creators. Should we now trust Congress to create a comprehensive regulatory system that will ensure access while preserving incentives for further investment in broadband technologies?
2. Is there a strong case for broadband access regulation? Certainly consumer complaints are a driving factor – but it’s unclear whether the complaints stem from access or price. On the other hand, broadband operators have invested over $100 billion in broadband infrastructure over the last decade, building the fat pipes that spurred the growth of the web into the entertainment medium it is today. There simply would be no YouTube if we still lived in a world of dial-up. An AT&T policy brief points out that in 1999 there were 3 million broadband connections (compared to 382 million connections in 2008). Would we have had this kind of growth if broadband access was regulated? And what similarities can we see that merit regulating broadband under the same regulatory scheme as a telecommunications service?
As one observer commented during the end of the recent FCC-Comcast appeals court hearing, “see you in a couple years.” This issue won’t be decided tomorrow. But in the meantime, the FCC has attempted to reach out and encourage comment on broadband access issues. So in that spirit, I am cross-posting this entry on the FCC’s Open Internet website. If you feel strongly (either way) on this issue, I’d encourage you to do the same.
New Tucker Carlson political site aims to “explain” government
Tucker Carlson of Fox and bowtie fame launched what might become the conservatives answer to Huff Post today- the Daily Caller. Carlson insists that that the goal of the site is “not to get Republicans elected” but rather to “explain” what’s going on in government. The venture is being funded – to the tune of $3 million dollars – by a Wyoming financier named Foster Freiss. The site debuted with the fascinating story of yet another White House dinner crasher, but by midday that story had been replaced by something that will probably be debated ad nauseum by political pundits and journalists for most of today – the announcement that former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin is joining Fox News.
The Future’s So Bright, I Need 3D Glasses
While Aneesh Chopra, Julius Genachowski and other Obama administration officials took the spotlight in Last Vegas last week, the real star at this year’s Consumer Electronics Show was 3D.
- On Monday, we learned that James Cameron’s 3D Epic Avatar reached the $1 billion mark faster than any other movie in history – 17 days.
- On Tuesday, the Discovery Channel, IMAX and Sony announced that they were creating a domestic cable channel focused exclusively on 3D content.
- And on Wednesday, ESPN delighted soccer fans all over the world by announcing that in June, it would start broadcasting in 3D, just in the time for the World Cup. Arriva!
Indeed, 3D was the star in last week’s other big CES story – the rebirth of the television set, now slimmer, internet-connected and of course, 3D-enabled (reviews and some cool photos on this anandtech blog post). The phenom got several people waxing poetic and peering into crystal balls – including Marc Cuban who was so inspired, he quoted Timothy Leary.
3D just might be one of the best gifts that content providers receive in 2010. Viewing a 3D movie is a unique experience that cannot be replicated by a 2D version posted on hulu or YouTube. Assuming a good library of content and the right price, this technology has the potential to lure and keep viewers behind a content wall. And manufacturers are excited too. After all, if they can’t get you to purchase a $9000 TV , there’s always those nerdy glasses.
