Digital Lifestyle Girl's Place on the Web

The Internets are dangerous

Normally, I find SJ Merc's Good Morning Silicon Valley to be an enjoyable, often useful, information source.  Yesterday, however, GMSV picked up a story from The Washington Post on how sites like Facebook etc are some kind of danger to privacy.  Wow, hot off the press, being an idiot on the Internet may cause you problems!

Newsiness aside, this article goes on to say that you might be inadvertently leaking your online banking password by "giving out" your pet's or kid's name on a Facebook profile.  If your most secure of passwords is your dog's name, for example, and your dog's name is D13gOSYlv, then sure, perhaps you should not post this.  But if your password is your dog's name, and that happens to be the mightily insecure password Diego, then you really have no business online.

Picking on the dog name Diego, which happens to be my dog, (and none of my passwords, favorite pet name password prompts, etc.), his absolutely adorable photos on FB tell about 100 of my friends his name.  In the real world, about 250-500 real people, neighbors, dog park friends, friends, and family know his name.  Another 100 people at the vet clinic know it.  200 people on the disc dog mailing list know it.  The city licensor knows it, the pound knows it, any fool on the street can read his dog tag and know it.  Why on earth do people think the Internet is so much worse?

Why didn't this article talk about being truly smart online?  Use privacy controls on your profiles.  Don't twitter your passwords.  Don't use FB applications that make you look like a dolt, such as "what kind of drunk are you" quizzes, because your friends already know and strangers don't need to.

Why not talk about the POWER of social networking, to connect people in our busy world, to reconnect old friends, to connect people to information, jobs and new friends?

The sad thing is this article flew around silicon valley, with smart people saying they're going to reconsider what they do online now, limiting their profiles and not sharing who they really are.  Thanks, SJ Mercury...

Washington DC, always keeping up with technology

While I have no issues with my congresswoman, Anna Eshoo (she sent me a lovely pot holder, advertising her support for another candidate), I am amused by her new legislation.  Eshoo is seeking to pass a bill to limit the "maximum subjective loudness" of commercials. 

I do agree that commercials can be too loud, however, isn't this a little past prime time?  A lot of people (not all, I know) Tito past (or Myth TV in my case) every and all commercial.  And really, how hard is it to turn down the volume on a commercial with the remote, or have we become that lazy?  Has anyone ever gone deaf, had a heart attack or stroke, or gone into a fit of violence due to the sudden volume change, anyway?

In honor of previous legislation regulating technology that actually requires more technology--think broadcast flags, analog shutoff--Shoo should push dynamic noise control requirements for set-top boxes, and even the TV itself.  Think of the windfall to Wolfson, AMS, and other chip companies, and the great branding opportunity for the electronics manufacturers...of course, encouraging more technology deployment serves Eshoo's local constituents quite well, too.

How to survive a disaster, aka today's economic news

When I read the recent Time cover story on surviving a disaster, I first felt I was reading things I've heard before.  Miracle survivors of airplane crashes, boat sinkings, earthquakes, tornadoes and other disasters are not often "miracles," but are actually individuals with a certain mindset.  According to the article, when faced with dangerous situations, say a predator, the basic primal instinct is to freeze, and in fact, in many situations, people, in fact, freeze, do not head towards the life raft, do not run to the door from the fire, and sadly perish.  Those that survive "against the odds" are those who react and instinctually react to the situation, often motivating others to get going (often, ulimately to their demise, as they often perish after rescuing others).  Apparently, some of us are just hard wired for paniced situations, often showing great reserves of emotional and physical strength.

Other than being a good reminder to think during disaster, I didn't think much about the article.

Until today.

With oil going up more than it ever has in a single day and unemployment rising more than is has in TWENTY TWO years (well before I even worked), we can safely say we are facing an economic disaster.  I first caught myself panicing, afraid for my well being and feeling, albeit briefly, paralyzed by the situation beyond my control.

Then I remembered the article.  An economic disaster is similar to a physical disaster.  Some freeze, others fight.  Those who try are the ones with a chance to succeed, often against what we think are the odds.  To give in now, and say I can't do anything during this time is to give up and let the worst happen to me.  However, to marshall my strengths, my reserves, and perform at my peak, this will give me-and others-a shot at amazing success, despite the odds.  To believe I will make it and go for it--that's what this time requires.  Rolling over and accepting the fate is not an option.

While Time never discussed the concept's applicability to every day life, it's clear it is quite applicable, and quite inspiring, to believe in being a survivor, no matter what lies ahead.

I've always said you have two choices in life: to believe in what is possible, or to be a skeptic.  Never be a skeptic.