Information is more accessible than ever, and more content is being created on a daily basis than existed in the world 100 years ago. In fact, three years ago, IBM predicted that by 2010 the amount of digital information on the Internet would be doubling every 11 hours! I am not sure if we are there yet, but that milestone is likely not that far off.
As recent as the middle of last century it was reasonable to assume that a scientist or doctor was generally knowledgeable about any type of science or medicine; they could stay apprised of new discoveries, theories or applications in all different fields of study through regular reading of scientific or medical journals. Now, due to the sheer volume of information and advances occurring around the world, scientists and doctors are only able to keep up with their area of study or specialization, and it is unreasonable to think they would have a level of depth and greater understanding in all areas outside of their particular field.
<div style="border-top: thin gray solid; border-bottom: thin gray solid; padding: 20px; margin: 20px 2px; width: 46em;"><a href="http://oreilly.com/catalog/9780596157036/"><img style="float: left; border: none;padding-right: 10px;" src="http://cdn.oreilly.com/oreilly/promos/9780596157036thumb.jpg" /></a>Sarah Sorensen is the author of <a href="http://oreilly.com/catalog/9780596157036/">The Sustainable Network: The Accidental Answer for a Troubled Planet</a>.<br /><br />The Sustainable Network demonstrates how we can tackle challenges, ranging from energy conservation to economic and social innovation, using the global network -- of which the public Internet is just one piece. This book demystifies the power of the network, and issues a strong call to action.<br /><br clear="left"></div>
So, how do we navigate this digital information world? How do we try to maintain a real-time understanding of all the things that are important to us? Well, this is where the services and news feeds offered by the Twitters, and Facebooks, and Googles of the world come into play. Through short bursts of information, we are able to stay up to date on our friends and family, local and global communities, activities of interest, etc. Through innovative use of technology and the myriad of applications and services that are delivered by the network, we are constantly finding new and useful ways to search, synthesize and package information, distribute it to interested parties and foster a dialogue that can be global in scope.
But is this enough? As we struggle to stay on top of everything that crosses our paths, are we missing opportunities to get more out of the information? Are we becoming too much of a "right now" society? Are we able to delve into an issue at length or stick with a topic that doesn't have a quick pithy answer?
My fear is that in our quest for quick information, we may be losing a vital tool in books that have helped us for generations formulate new thoughts, prod and poke at existing conventions, think through the universe's toughest questions and open our eyes to the possibilities. The book is one of the few written word formats that enables topics to be explored and expanded upon in hundreds of pages. As the journalist Edward P. Morgan said, "A book is the only place in which you can examine a fragile thought without breaking it, or explore an explosive idea without fear it will go off in your face. It is one of the few havens remaining where a man's mind can get both provocation and privacy."
But, it seems its value in this Digital Age is diminished, as the reading of books has been been on a steady decline for decades. Back in 1998, <a href="http://22.214.171.124/search?q=cache:FEoN1mMBvCcJ:news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/talking_point/newsid_82000/82321.asp+reading+is+dead&cd=6&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us">surveysin the U.K.</a> showed that "more than one in seven adults had not read a book in the last year and more than one in three has never visited their local library." A survey in 2007, found <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-08-21-reading_N.htm">one in four people read no books during a year</a>. Folks like Steve Jobs have even been <a href="http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/15/the-passion-of-steve-jobs/#more-829">quoted</a> as saying "people don't read anymore."
But, as I previously noted, the amount of content that is created and consumed on a daily basis online continues to grow at an astronomical rate. So perhaps it is the format that is dead? Perhaps the book as we know it is too antiquated, explaining why it's not drawing our attention as it once did. There are simply too many types of information competing for our time. (Fortune had an interesting cover article on the Future of Reading that's worth checking out.)
This is one reason why the iPad has excited my attention - it could be a road back to the written word of books. As an author, I am interested in the idea that extra features or updates to <a href="http://techbus.safaribooksonline.com/9780596806699">my book </a> could keep the content current and readers engaged on the topic. It can go beyond the search and bookmarking features (which are very cool by the way) offered for smaller form factors, such as the iPhone, and really start to create a more dynamic and interactive book reading experience.
We have seen news sites incorporate video and other rich media applicaitons into their reporting and <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/23/education/23tufts.html?th&emc=th">students embed video clips </a>into their college application submissions, so it's not a stretch to think that we will soon be seeing commentary from the author or <a href="http://www.safaribooksonline.com/events/2010/SustainableNetwork.html">upcoming webcasts or talks</a> on topics that relate to the book. I can imagine playing games or taking polls or viewing movie clips for the stories we are reading (though in my mind the movie version is often a shadow of what the imagination can conjure.)
I am for anything that will help us reinvent books and inspire a love of reading. Because without books, there is the fear that everyone will know just a little about everything, and have a good understanding about nothing; we will be experts in our lives, but leave thoughts, opinions and worlds outside our immediate needs unexplored.
With new technologies, such as the iPad, I see that the future of books can be relevant and interactive, helping us once again get lost in a good story or cut through all the quick snippets of information to delve into something in a meaningful way. It has to be, because the content of books is what will help us sustain the deep thinking and in-depth analysis that is required to achieve those "aha" moments that revolutionize the way we live and are needed to solve our biggest problems.
The revelry and rituals of Super Bowl Sunday seem to grow each year. The game takes on a life of its own, bringing unlikely viewers together on the couch to eat, commiserate and cheer for several hours.
It's because the Super Bowl is more than a game; even if you are not a sports fan there's the pregame show, national anthem, halftime show and let's not forget the advertisements that keep people watching.This year, a record number of people - Neilsen Co estimated 106.5 million - tuned in to watch the game from around the world. There are a lot of theories as to why it made viewership history (you can check out the <a href="http://blogs.wsj.com/speakeasy/2010/02/08/why-did-super-bowl-2010-become-the-most-watched-tv-program-ever/">Wall Street Journal's take</a>), but I would like to suggest the expanded reach and interest in the game is due, in part, to the many ways in which it is integrated into our digital lives.
Technology is playing a critical role in sports, both improving the experience and extending the life of any particular event. In football (American), the players, teams and league use a broad array of technology to enhance the game. Fans can connect with their favorite teams through their online communities; they can play digital games as their favorite players and participate in Fantasy Football leagues with people from around the globe. All of which serve to increase the interest and affinity viewers have for the game, creating ties to players, organizations and the league that fuel multibillion dollar apparel and merchandising industries.
In addition, technology can be found throughout football's operations, from the scouting teams to the post-game analysis. Just think of the wealth of information these players and coaches have at their fingertips that can be linked and analyzed a hundred different ways to try to increase competitiveness and gain a mental edge in the game. There are even sensors embedded in the helmets that wirelessly transmit impact data on hits to the head (up to 2000 a year for some players!) to the sidelines to help team doctors monitor the players as they run up and down the field. The list goes on...
Then there is the Super Bowl - the crowning jewel of the season - it dominates all types of conversations for weeks if you count all the before and after game/event analysis, and the reality is that many of those dialogues are taking place online. The rich media experiences that are now an integral part of the event create opportunities for businesses and brands to connect and develop relationships with their target audiences. It's the online chatter and buzz, with friends and fans sharing the information and resources that are most relevant to their groups, that are driving sustainable revenue opportunities and mindshare.
In case you missed anything during the game, you can easily go online and get play-by-play coverage, as well as play-by-play commentary. You can watch and review virtually everything to do with the game, from the amazing catches to the half time show. You can <a href="http://www.forbes.com/2010/02/06/super-bowl-ads-2010-watch-vote-embed.html">vote for your favorite commercials </a>, as fan favorites get a viral marketing life that helps support the business case for spending millions for a 30 second TV spot.
Some advertisers are<a href="http://www.nesn.com/2010/02/is-social-media-to-blame-for-mediocre-super-bowl-ads-.html"> skipping the TV </a>altogether, going straight for interactive social media campaigns. This year, Pepsi, a traditionally stalwart Super Bowl advertiser (spending $142 million on 10 Super Bowl spots over the last 10 years), opted out in favor of using Facebook, Twitter, Ustream and iPhone apps to reach out and try to engage customers with their <a href="http://www.facebook.com/refresheverything?v=app_4949752878">"Refresh Everything"</a> campaign. A strategy that seems to be working for them - Neilsen Co reported that PepsiCo got 21.6 percent of the chatter about Super Bowl advertisers over the last two months - way more than their rival, Coca-Cola, received.
And don't forget the money games around the big game </a>- namely the <a href="http://www.esquire.com/the-side/feature/super-bowl-prop-bets-2010">betting industry </a>that pulls in big bucks by enticing people to bet on virtually anything, and I do mean anything, related to the game. What influence will technology have? Well, soon, if <a href="http://www.cantorgaming.com/">Cantor Gaming </a>has its way, gamblers won't be relegated to sitting at the sports book to place bets, they will be able to do it from anywhere on the casino's premise and will have access to real-time odds. (Actually, if they had their way, you would be able to do it from your mobile phone!)
There is also the money around merchandising for the big game, which has taken on many new dimensions, as retailers scour blogs, chat rooms and Google searches to try to identify where fan loyalties lie and then use the Internet to reach out to those fans to sell them team merchandise and memorabilia (<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/08/business/media/08link.html?th&emc=th">check out an interesting article in the New York Times</a>), filling a gap and extending the reach of typically regional retail coverage.
So, while I watched the game yesterday, I was also watching all the activity around the game and thinking about what the future will bring. CBS didn't get its way and the NFL didn't allow <a href="http://www.pcworld.com/article/163440/cbs_pushes_nfl_to_stream_super_bowl_2010_online.html">thegame to be streamed live in its entirety</a>online, but it is inevitable. And when that happens, it will add yet another dimension to the game. In short, we are just starting to tap into the opportunities presented by the big game and can expect entertainment events, such as the Super Bowl, in the digital age to get bigger and the reach broader year after year.
I have been disconnected, without a working computer for a day and a half! You are probably wondering, "how did that happen?" "how did you survive?" "what did you do?" and honestly, I hardly know. It's been a blur. But one thing is crystal clear - a simple upgrade is ANYTHING but simple!
Based on the recommendation of a couple of friends, who had just gotten new computers and were talking up some of the useability features of the Windows 7 operating system, I sat down at my computer and decided I would do the upgrade from XP. The upgrade packet had been sitting on my desk for the last couple weeks and I decided it was time to commit.
Little did I know what I was committing to! Like many a blind date, where you hold out hope for Mr. Right, but open the door to a guy wearing too tight pants and smelling slightly of dirty socks, I found myself facing a situation fraught with mind-numbing discourse and disappointment. I had tried to do everything right - I had backed up all my files, I had all the software ready to load, I had all the product keys in hand - I was feeling good, maybe even a little cocky! Then I opened the DVD drive, and just like opening the door for that blind date, it was all downhill from there.
Time stood still - only it didn't and I lost a day and a half of productivity! That's a lot for anyone. The Strategy Group conducted a study a couple years ago where more than 32% of respondents (representing companies with 100 or more employees) stated they had zero tolerance for network downtime. They estimated the average cost incurred when something went wrong with the network was $3 million per day, with 10% of the group estimating it would likely cost them more than $10 million in damages and lost revenue per day. Infonetics Research estimated that large businesses lose an average of 3.6 percent in annual revenue due to network downtime each year.
On my own small scale I could relate - I felt the pain. If Windows 7 buys me an extra 10 minutes a day of productivity, due to it's ease of use, I am going to still need 72 business days to get that time back! So what did I do wrong?
I consider myself a reasonably intelligent person. I am fairly technically conversant - I have even passed a few IT/networking certification courses. I can follow instructions and have basic common sense. (I feel a need to include these last attributes to ease the minds of the support folks who asked me questions like "are you sure it's turned on?" or "are any of the lights blinking?") So, why couldn't I get my computer,applications and network up and running in a reasonable amount of time?
I am not trying to shift blame, but I don't think it is me. And I don't think it's specific to any one particular OS. I think it is the overarching complexity associated with all the software and hardware that we increasingly relying on to run our lives, businesses and governments. Think of all the different vendors that make up our extended technology ecosystem - oh, and don't forget the open source folks. Then think of all the different products each one offers and all the different versions of each of those products that exist out there. One change to one of those things is enough to throw everything else out of whack. It's enough to make your head spin and start some serious finger pointing.
Specifically, I heard, "sorry, it's not the hardware, that's a software issue," "those applications are compatible, but not those versions," "yes, we sold you that package and it did include that application, but we can't do anything (unless you want to pay us $$$), so you will have to talk to the individual application vendor to get a specific solution..."
Each individual application or services is working on being "simple to use," but when you put them all together they don't always play nice. Anyone in IT will tell you that while everything is "interoperable" it doesn't mean its going to work together, at least right away. Which explains, why 70% of IT's time is spent on simply keeping things going; simply keeping up with the changes that occur during regular course of business, along with necessary patches and security upgrades, to make sure everything is working. There has to be an easier way!
Is it a pie in the sky dream to wish that vendors would come together and truly provide solutions with a simple evolution path that makes it easy for anyone, including me, to upgrade my system? Are there simply too many vendors? Or is it that things are changing too quickly? Will it be something else entirely that will bring us simplicity? Should we be focused on using hosted or managed services in the cloud to take much of the complexity out of the hands of end users? What are your thoughts? I would love to know.
I have faith that simplicity is on the horizon because it has to be... It's the only way we will get what we need from our technological resources to sustain innovation, efficiencies and meaningful change on a worldwide scale. It has to be simple for everyone, so everyone can use the resources and take part. The alternatives, like Mr. Wrong, are just not palatable.
As President Obama prepares to deliver his State of the Union speech after a year in office, I thought it would be a good time to look back on the Administration's technology agenda. As I mention in my <a href="http://oreilly.com/catalog/9780596157036/">book</a>, Presidential Candidate Obama was really the first to leverage technology in a meaningful way during his campaign, giving us glimpses into how the political process can be engaged and enabled by a savvy social media and online strategy. So, when the Obama Administration took office, it was natural to assume that it would be bringing the White House into the Digital Age.
After all, Obama was a candidate who got it - he understood that the foundation for improving the prospects of our children and strengthening our long term economic prosperity lay in our access to and use of technology. As he said in a <a href="http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/issues/technology/Fact_Sheet_Innovation_and_Technology.pdf">campaign speech</a>:
"Let us be the generation that reshapes our economy to compete in the digital age. Let's set high standards for our schools and give them the resources they need to succeed. Let's recruit a new army of teachers, and give them better pay and more support in exchange for more accountability. Let's make college more affordable, and let's invest in scientific research, and let's lay down broadband lines through the heart of inner cities and rural towns all across America."
However, we saw glimmers of how difficult a transition into the Digital Age could be. Right off the bat there were discussions around whether a <a href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10148329-38.html?tag=mncol;txt">U.S. President could use a Blackberry </a>to stay in touch. This singular issue was a clear indicator of how far behind the White House actually was in its use of technology (and how vulnerable our mobile devices and digital infrastructure are).
I think the extent of the task was captured in a <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/21/AR2009012104249.html">Washington Post </a> article that described what it was like for the Obama Administration when they took their offices in the White House - can you imagine walking into your office and having to try to connect your landline??? So, considering the starting point, I think the Administration can feel confident they have made significant progress.
There have been some monumental firsts, such as the first U.S. Chief Technology Officer (CTO) - Aneesh Chopra - and the first U.S. Chief Information Officer (CIO) - Vivek Kundra. There was the <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/OpenForQuestions">First Presidential Online Chat </a> and the first foray into greater transparency with a <a href="http://it.usaspending.gov/">U.S. Federal IT dashboard</a>, which started to provide visibility into where the money in the government's budget goes. (Note, this dashboard was launched in just 6 weeks showing that even big government can get things done, particularly when using technology well!) Government agencies started using social media sites, <a href="http://www.govtech.com/gt/579338">such as Twitter</a>, to help people stay up to date on events and emergency situations.
There have been investments designed to extend broadband access to more people and places. <a href="http://www.ibls.com/internet_law_news_portal_view.aspx?s=sa&id=1816">A total of $7.2 billion pledged through the Recovery Act broadband program </a>will enable more people to connect to the resources and information of the network to improve their opportunities and participate in the global economy.
But there have also been some snafus. For instance, we have seen how hard it is to walk the line of security and transparency. Remember the <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/massive-tsa-security-breach-agency-secrets/story?id=9280503">TSA Security Breach </a>that posted all the airport screening procedures, otherwise known as a good "how to" manual for terrorists?
And there have been some downright scares that remind us of the vulnerabilities of our networks. A <a href="http://www.securityfocus.com/news/11554">denial of service attack </a>took down the U.S. government's Department of Homeland Security, Federal Trade Commission, and Treasury Department's web sites; and, of course, there is the <a href="http://www.informationweek.com/news/security/vulnerabilities/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=222400552&cid=nl_IW_daily_2010-01-26_h">recent hacker activity on Google </a>and other prominent companies. These incidents serve as a reminder that the Administration needs to balance preserving individual rights in the digital world, with increasing the overall security of the connections. We have seen U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton speak out against online censorship and can assume the just appointed Cybersecurity Coordinator Howard Schmidt will be leading the Adminstration's stand on cybersecurity.
It's important to remember that some of the activities the Administration has tackled this year are purely housekeeping, laying the fundamental groundwork that will help the government move forward more effectively in the future. For instance, there are the mundane, but very important projects of ensuring <a href="http://www.informationweek.com/news/government/info-management/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=222301693&cid=nl_IW_daily_html">White House e-mails </a>are appropriately catalogued, archived and backed-up. (The goal is to also ensure there is an auditable record of all e-mail activity and measures in place to ensure only authorized individuals can access the database and alerts are raised when someone tries to delete anything.) Or <a href="http://www.informationweek.com/news/government/enterprise-architecture/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=217400505">developing a plan </a>that will help standardize and provide a common information technology infrastructure for government that can reduce costs and ensure greater consistency, visibility and security long term.
But it has been encouraging to see the government innovate and try new things, such as moving into the <a href="http://fcw.com/Articles/2009/12/10/Open-government-cloud-computing.aspx">cloud</a>. If the <a href="http://www.informationweek.com/news/government/cloud-saas/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=222400161&cid=nl_IW_daily_html">lumberingCensus process </a>can benefit from the efficiencies of the Cloud, chances are there are many other applications and benefits.
The use of all these technologies can foster opportunities, innovation, and long-term economic viability; it can pave the way for more effective service delivery and greater transparency to increase the dialogue and strengthen the relationships citizens have with their government. I think the Administration, while it has a long way to go, is definitely on the right track when it comes to technology.
"A man who has committed a mistake and doesn't correct it, is committing another mistake." Confucius, Chinese teacher, philosopher and political theorist, 551-479 BC
Time and time again, China has tested the digital world, trying to stifle its free information flow and control the resources that are open to its people. There are a long list of methods China has employed to clamp down on access. They have used a variety of technological tricks, some of which we know about and many of which we never will, and some good old-fashioned coercion measures (from fines to imprisonment) designed to pressure content owners to keep content in line with what they deem acceptable. For example, in 2008, the year the summer Olympics took place in China, it was discovered that China had been monitoring Skype communications and a handful of bloggers whose commentary was unfavorable to China during the Olympics were detained. (Probably not so coincidentally, they were released and their blog postings removed only a little while later.)
China employs thousands of government workers in these efforts, and, to date, have been fairly successful in achieving the results they desire. It seems when faced with the potential entices of the Chinese market, businesses have found themselves in some precarious positions and made some, in my opinion, dubious calls, in efforts to comply with Chinese requirements.
For instance, when Google opened up shop in China, they agreed to censor some of their search results. Yahoo was questioned by Congress, in 2007, for turning over e-mails that led to the imprisonment of Chinese dissidents. In 2008, <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/19/AR2008051902661.html">Cisco Systems was also questioned by Congress </a> after it was suggested, due to a Cisco sales presentation that surfaced, that they were potentially helping the Chinese government modify their networking equipment to block and censor Internet traffic (it should be noted it was an accusation they Cisco vehemently denied). YouTube has found its service shut down several times; presumably to avoid any glimpses of content that China deemed unacceptable. (Probably not surprising, the last shut down lasted through the anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre, along with the blocking of Twitter.)
In 2009, the Chinese government issued a directive that would have required the installation of filtering software, nicknamed <a href="http://opennet.net/chinas-green-dam-the-implications-government-control-encroaching-home-pc">"Green Dam," </a>on every personal computer (PC) sold in the Chinese market. Almost comically, they proposed this requirement under the auspices of protecting children from harmful Internet content. It was sharply criticized by governments around the world on a variety of fronts, from free speech impingement to potential security compromises to free-trade violations. This is due to the reality that if loaded onto every PC, it would give the Chinese government unprecedented control over an individual's personal computing use. While <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/01/technology/01china.html?_r=3&partner=rss&emc=rss">China backed-off of its deadline</a> (July 1, 2009) for implementation, in the face of pressure from Chinese computer users, computer manufacturers, and governments, it's evident they have not been rethinking their overall objectives - to control their citizen's online access.
But it seems the proverbial straw that broke the camels back occurred last week for Google. Taken from the <a href="http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/2010/01/new-approach-to-china.html">blog </a>of Google SVP, Corporate Development and Chief Legal Officer, David Drummond</a>, they had identified a "highly sophisticated and targeted attack on our corporate infrastructure originating from China that resulted in the theft of intellectual property from Google." After further investigation they found it was part of a wider attack designed to access the Gmail accounts of Chinese human rights activists. (An good disection of the attacks can be found <a href="http://cnettv.cnet.com/china-attack-google-explained/9742-1_53-50082324.html">here</a>)They have since "discovered that the accounts of dozens of US-, China- and Europe-based Gmail users who are advocates of human rights in China appear to have been routinely accessed by third parties," which goes to the heart of a much bigger global debate about freedom of speech."
As of right now, there is no international standard, nor universal agreement on what is acceptable or not in terms of free speech in the digital world; we are all treading in un-chartered waters. There's the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which was drafted in 1948 and provides a basic framework, but little practical guidance in this Digital Information Age. And declarations, such as <a href="http://www.globalnetworkinitiative.org/">The Global Network Initiative (GNI), </a>while noble in intent, have provided very few specifics and virtually no repurcussions for abuses.
But the threat to freedom of speech in the digital world is very real. As I have mentioned in <a href="http://broadcast.oreilly.com/2009/08/censorship-is-a-potential-thre.html">previous blogs</a>, questionable restrictions on the network can lead to potential fettering of its possibilities and major encroachments on individual personal freedoms. It's a very slippery slope.
So, I want to applaud Google for making a stand and drawing a line. They announced, "We have decided we are no longer willing to continue censoring our results on Google.cn, and so over the next few weeks we will be discussing with the Chinese government the basis on which we could operate an unfiltered search engine within the law, if at all. We recognize that this may well mean having to shut down Google.cn, and potentially our offices in China."
While we still have to see what will come of this proclamation, but the fact they have said they are willing to walk away represents a clear departure from trying to conduct business as usual. The Obama administration has since issued a statement of support for Google and reiterated Internet freedom as a priority. So, while we may not see a huge sea change right away, this represents a step in the right direction and has reignited a much needed debate around personal freedoms. It sends a message that it is not okay to simply work within the confines of China's increasingly restrictive rules and hopefully it will improve the willingness of China and other governments to work more with foreign companies and governments on these issues.
Everyone should be able to participate and be heard; the right of free speech is an ideal we need to fight for in the digital world, and it starts with everyone having the right to freely connect to the unfettered information of the network. This latest attack should serve as a wake up call for companies, policy makers and governments around the world to be more bold and work to protect and improve the rights and opportunities of citizens everywhere.
The loss of life and destruction in Haiti is just devastating. I, who love words, find myself speechless when I see the pictures of people wading through the rubble of their lives. It's hard to make sense of any of it. But, I have seen one bright spot - I have found hope in the outpouring of support originating from around the world. People of all races, religions and backgrounds are coming together to help.
And the network, it turns out, is facilitating a lot of it. It has helped quickly spread information, solicit help and provided a lifeline between those in and outside of Haiti. For starters, it's enabling people to donate what they can to organizations that are directly impacting the relief and support activities on the ground in Haiti. The White House suggests donating to the <a href="http://www.redcross.org/?adid=011310_midweeknewsletter_messagetheredcross">Red Cross</a>, which you can do online. You can also easily donate $10 by sending the text message "Haiti" to 90999 and the donation will be automatically added to your cell phone bill. (As of yesterday, more than $1 million had been raised this way by texters using all different wireless companies.)
The network has also been a key witness and participant in the event itself - within minutes, and I mean literally minutes, photos and news of the devastation were posted online; maps of the area and scientific explanations of the fault-lines involved were linked to real-time views from witnesses and first-hand accounts of the quake. Simultaneously, calls for aid went out and philanthropic organizations began mobilizing the response. Again, within minutes, organizations were sending out information to first responders and aid workers to coordinate their efforts.
Facebook and Twitter were serving as main sources of information. They were providing critical links to family and friends around the world, who were/are frantically trying to get information on the safety and well-being of those they know in the area. Note, users primarily connected via satellite because phone and landline connections were down or unpredictable. (The satellite Internet connectivity is similar to what was availalble during Katrina, until hastily erected cell towers were able to provide connectivity to many on the ground.) A <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/tech/webguide/internetlife/2010-01-13-haitisocial_N.htm">USA Today article </a>reported that "there have been more than 1,500 Facebook status updates per minute containing the word "Haiti" since the quake, according to Facebook spokesman Andrew Noyes." Blogs are being used as online <a href="livesayhaiti.blogspot.com">bulletin boards </a>providing information and acting as a resource on those who are missing.
A quick visit to the Red Cross site (and those of other similar organizations) shows you how they are mobilizing volunteers, centralizing information about how and where to give blood, and helping connect people to pertinent information regarding a specific event or need, etc. Of course, this is nothing new. Relief and aid organizations have been using online sites to <a href="http://www.globalgiving.com">link people </a>to humanitarian needs for years, but the use of social media to mobilize and activate groups is certainly becoming more and more sophisticated and effective.
If you think back just ten years ago, the flow of information and the ability to solicit and receive timely support was much different. And this is the promise and hope of the network - if it can help people band together and get involved, even in small ways, there's the opportunity to ultimately make a big difference or solve big problems. Of course, in Haiti, the personal devastation and loss of life will always be irreparable, but as the other needs in Haiti evolve I am hopefully that we have the connections we need to make a difference and help them rebuild their lives. My thoughts are with them.
Sarah Sorensen is the author of The Sustainable Network: The Accidental Answer for a Troubled Planet. The Sustainable Network demonstrates how we can tackle challenges, ranging from energy conservation to economic and social innovation, using the global network -- of which the public Internet is just one piece. This book demystifies the power of the network, and issues a strong call to action.
I hope everyone had a fantastic holiday. I had a great time, catching up with family and friends and eating way too much. But what I loved most was hanging out with my two girls. They are a constant reminder of the magic and wonder of the season and the value of a good box.
I bet any parent can acknowledge that the wrapping paper and boxes the toys come in are often more exciting and inspire more imagination than the toys themselves. It never fails - the most fun they have Christmas morning is traveling to far off destinations in the box. Hiding in or underneath the box tends to incite more giggles than any doll or toy airplane under the tree! Yet, with all the benefits offered by the box, it tends to be the first thing to go (in the recycling bin, of course).
So that got me thinking, what if we all made a concerted effort to extend the life of that box? There are some that are already on top of it - check out <a href="http://www.aboxlife.com/">"A Box Life" </a>, which is a program launched by Columbia Sportswear. It encourages the reuse of their packaging by helping customers track thier boxes when they use them to send items to another destination. Inspiring folks to see whose box can travel to the most or the farthest location. Pretty cool, huh? And if more companies/consumers took part, it could make a big difference.
Taking care of the earth is more important than ever. Living Green: The Missing Manual is an all-in-one resource packed with practical advice on ways you can help the environment by making relatively easy, earth-friendly changes in your home routine, work habits, and the way you shop and get around town. This book teaches you how a few small changes can have a big impact.<br /><br clear="left"></div><br />
Which got me thinking about all the other things we consume. There are the online services, such as Craigslist and Yahoo!, who have been helping users find other people that want and can use their old stuff for years; eBay has mastered the art of making old stuff as valuable, maybe even more so than new. And you may have heard of <a href="www.terracycle.net">Terracycle</a> and <a href="http://www.afrigadget.com/">Afrigadget </a>, which demonstrate how everything, and I mean everything, with a little ingenuity, can be reused in some form or fashion.
So, my question for us all in 2010 is "Can we be doing more? What kind of imagination can we apply to ensuring that boxes (and resources in general) are not overlooked for their usefulness? What extended life can we give to those things we create and what can we conserve in their creation?"
Technology, while providing a lot of efficiency advantages, is a big offender in terms of lifecycle impacts, <a href="http://blogs.zdnet.com/green/?p=9294&tag=content;col1">which I discuss at greater length in my book</a>. While there are many companies that have done a lot to reduce the environmental impact of their products, such as <a href="http://www.apple.com/macbook/environment.html">Apple</a>, there is still more to be done. How can we all take advantage of the advances of the digital age without having to upgrade every year?
We are going to need to retool not only the design of solutions, but also the business models of companies that rely on short deployment cycles. It also requires a readjustment on our part - as consumers - to look at how to extend the life of the things we purchase. Ultimately, we all need to do our part to reduce the resource consumption that occurs in the development, manufacturing, distribution, use and disposal of each product we purchase. (With the world's population estimated to grow to 9 billion by mid-century, the strain is only going to get worse on all of our resources.)
We, excuse the pun, need to think more outside of the box to identify new, ingenious ways to use the things we have. Businesses need to drive efficiencies, which often translate into cost savings and potential competitive advantage, to create processes and solutions that extend the life and reduce the impact of those things they produce. Children don't see a box, they see possibilities. We need to do the same thing.
You will excuse me now - I have to go pull my girls around the floor in their "fancy" box!
The Information and Communciations Technology (ICT) industry (which refers to the full range of devices and applications that play a role in digital communications, from monitors and cell phones to PCs and storage devices) provides us all opportunities to make changes that can help address climate change issues. The potential is great - <a href="http://www.smart2020.org/">it is estimated that ICT could enable a 15% reduction in "business as usual" emissions by 2020</a>.
Yet that same industry is also responsible for two to three percent of the world's greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. That's not trivial. And, <a href="http://broadcast.oreilly.com/2009/11/the-sustainable-network-by-the.html">as I have pointed out before</a>, it only promises to grow in significance and scope.
As more and more of our activities are translated to the digitial world, we need to ask the question "Is the sustainable network unsustainable?" How do you balance 3+% of the world's emissions coming from a single industry with the potential to lessen environmental impacts of virtually every other industry? How do you slow down negative impacts, while accelerating the positive connections that improve our personal, business, and civic lives?
The key is ensuring exponential growth in ICT doesn't result in exponential growth in its impacts. The answer will need to come from the industry, itself. They will need to reduce the "in use" energy consumption of their devices and their lifecycle environmental impacts. These lifecycle impacts include the energy consumed in the device's development, production and distribution, as well as all the materials used to make and safely transport (packaging) the device, and the waste created at the end-of-its life.
There are a whole host of "knobs" a vendor can turn to improve the efficiency of their devices and the overall network. For example, equipment vendors can work to ensure the energy consumption of each and every device in the network is proportional to use. When it is in a hibernation or idle mode, it should not be pulling much power; as use increases, so should the energy consumed. This is an issue that has been addressed by many consumer devices (cell phones), but not the always-on networking devices - which tend to have only a 10% variance in consumption when there are a couple packets or a couple hundred thousand packets flowing through them.
The problem is that there are a lot of inefficiencies currently in the network. Just look at your home network (modem, router, access point, TV, etc.). Your DSL modem is most likely on all the time. If it is connected to a desktop, it will ping it periodically and keep the Physical Interface Cards (PICs) and other aspects of the computer alive, all of which means that energy is being consumed, regardless of whether or not it is being used - often at 60-70% of its peak power consumption. If the idle consumption could be dropped by just 20-30% that would represent a significant ongoing power savings for the home network, multiplied by the millions and potentially billions of households that could be affected.
Another issue, is the affect of heat on the equipment's reliability. To those responsible for their data center's operations, it will come as no surprise that air conditioning/chillers are the among the biggest consumers of energy in the data center. The energy draw of many devices, such as routers, switches, servers, etc. is actually the combination of its own consumption and the energy required to cool the device to keep it at a temperature that enables it to run optimally. Devices need to minimize their heat generation and/or be able to work "hotter," to require less cooling and less energy consumption.
In concert with the number of ways that vendors are working to improve the efficiency of their equipment, we, as consumers, need to start to ask the questions that will help us understand the impacts of this infrastructure. Then we should vote with our wallets when we pick our Internet provider or new smartphone, using environmental criteria in our buying decisions. (There are some firms, such as Synergy Research, <a href="http://www.abiresearch.com/research/1004203">ABI </a> and IDC that have started tracking the "sustainability" of equipment vendors and network providers. There are also some basic criteria that can be used to evaluate and compare the environmental impacts of consumer products, such as <a href="http://www.epeat.net/">EPEAT</a>.)
We should also ask ourselves how often we need to refresh our devices - is it absolutely necessary to get the latest and greatest phone or can we survive a year or two with an older model (reducing waste and churn). When we are done with our devices, we should make sure to recycle them, so that materials can be reclaimed and waste diverted. (<a href="http://www.globaltestmarket.com/survey/sframe.phtml?PHPSESSID=vipqejdcnq7shoca2oa7juj4j6&change=1&COLS=*,70%&frame_loc=http://www.sustainablelifemedia.com&inverted=0">SustainableLife Media </a>uncovered startling business statistics relating to proper recycling of e-waste - approximately two-thirds of respondents reported their companies have a formal IT asset disposal plan, yet about 15% admit that their company puts e-waste into the dumpster!)
ICT can be relied on as a tool to tackle climate change and promises solutions that can scale like nothing we have seen before. However, we all must do our part and push the boundaries to recieve the maximum benefit and leverage from the network and ensure it's sustainable.
I have a lot to be thankful for during this holiday season. Just watching the evening news for five minutes gives me the perspective that my worst days or problems pale in comparison to the struggles and pain of so many people in this world. Yet in that same news, I am also reminded that there is hope. Alongside the stories of atrocities, there are stories of triumph; stories of people, businesses and countries changing course and making a difference.
Being a glass half-full person, I find myseslf feeling optimistic about the possibilities. Why? Because I know we have the capacity and tools to make more and more of these positive changes. We have the newtork. And the network can help everyone and everything it connects maximize their potential.
It is bringing people together in ways never before possible, reinvigorating businesses, connecting people to their civic responsibilities, enhancing our general understanding of the world we live in, and creating opportunity and change on a global scale. It is able to create connections and develop communities that span all ages, races, beliefs and experiences.
These communities can be engaged in meaningful ways to make a real difference in this world. Using the connective tissue of the network we can do amazing things, from <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A5GryIDl0qY">cleaning up a country</a>, to <a href="http://www.kiva.org">supporting the economic prospects </a> of fledgling entrepreneurs, to tackling <a href="http://www.webmd.com/">health</a>, <a href="http://www.worldcommunitygrid.org/research/rice/overview.do">hunger</a> and <a href="http://laptop.org/en/">educational</a> issues, to generally <a href="http://www.globalteer.org/projects/">inspiring people </a>to <a href="http://www.oprah.com/entity/angelnetwork">take an interest and make a difference</a>.
"Activate" - it's a term I first associated with the network when I heard it during a panel at the <a href="http://www.californiawomen.org/">Women's Conference </a> on "Changing the world through the Web," but I think it captures the potential of the network. When leveraged to its best advantage the network can be used to connect people and resources to issues or problems that can be collectively tackled and hopefully solved.
The worry is that in this connected world, it is increasingly easy to retreat to the virtual world and not connect back to the physical one. There is a danger that we could rely too heavily on the network for our social interactions. When this happens, it is easy to be interested in everything but invested in nothing and the network's ability to create real change is diminished. People, places and causes must be personal if it is to lead to real world action; so the power lies in the network's ability to enhance life in the physical world, not replace it.
The network can help us reduce consumtion and improve efficiencies, strengthen our relationships with friends and family, increase our personal and professional development and opportunities, and help our fellow man whether they live next door or on the next continent. When it does these things, the possibilities are limitless and for that I am thankful.
Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, YouTube, MySpace - these are all great social media services that enable people to stay connected. They create a space on the network that give people an opportunity to explore, share and discuss virtually anything.
As I discuss in my book, social media can be used to communicate, listen, research, entertain and create a community. And when activated, these communities can band together to make great changes - generating awareness, raising money, creating pressure and rallying support around critical issues, disasters and injustices.
Social media tools and services are only increasing in importance to us as we integrate them into almost every aspect of our work, personal and civic lives. But, as more and more people adopt these tools to help them reach out and stay connected, the question becomes are they being used in a way that truly enhances all of our relationships? Are they sustainable?
My own opinion is that it's too early for us to declare victory. There are too many questions that still need to be answered before we can leverage all these social media services and applications to their full advantage.
For starters, we need to better understand the implications associated with playing out more and more of our lives online. What does it do to our relationships? <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/tech/webguide/internetlife/2009-09-04-facebook-etiquette_N.htm">What type of information should and shouldn't be shared, how frequently and with whom</a>? Where are the boundaries between our work and personal lives - to what extent should someone's job be impacted by their actions/posts/opinions on their personal social networking sites? (<a href="http://careeradvice.suite101.com/article.cfm/social_networking_and_your_professional_future">We have seen people hired through social networking connections and fired for their posts</a>.)
But while these sociological and etiquette issues are important to understand and fine tune, in my mind, the main caveats to social media revolve around security and privacy concerns. Most people use these tools without really understanding exactly what they are doing, revealing information that can be used in ways they never intended, which can be quite damaging.
It's one reason the U.S. government has banned solidiers from using Web 2.0 tools. Despite all the good they can enable, they are afraid that a soldier's security could be compromised because they know enemy's are watching and using social media tools to try to get an edge. The military issued a report warning "<a href="http://www.speakmediablog.com/2009/08/us-marine-corps-bans-soldiers-from.html">that terrorists could use Twitter via their cell phones to send and receive messages and to locate fellow cell members through links to Google Maps</a>."
It's another reason why security experts are predicting that social media services will increasingly be a <a href="http://www.informationweek.com/whitepaper/download/showPDF.jhtml?id=110300006&site_id=300001&profileCreated=">target for hackers</a> - all the personal information contained within these sites represents a huge bullseye, so to speak, for identity theives and fraudsters. We have already seen attack activity <a href="http://voices.washingtonpost.com/securityfix/2009/11/spike_in_social_media_malware.html">go up</a> - beyond the recent Denial of Service attack on <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,537653,00.html">Twitter, there has been a host of <a href="http://blog.twitter.com/2009/01/gone-phishing.html">phishing</a> scams trying to get users to reveal personal information (usernames, passwords, account or credit card numbers)? And once attackers have access to your computer (through malware you may have unwittingly loaded onto your computer when you clicked on a link or opened an attachment) and have your information, they can do anything with it. They already are - just check out the <a href="http://www.fdic.gov/news/news/SpecialAlert/2009/sa09147.html">Federal Deposit Insurance Corporations Special Alert </a>on the increase they have seen in fraudulent electronic funds transfers over the past year.
But attackers aren't the only ones interested in the wealth of personal information being revealed through these sites. Marketers are enticed by the rich databases they can build to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of their consumer targeting. Is it <a href="http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=114163862">beneficial or an invasion of privacy </a>when these marketing companies pull together all of the personal information they can find from a variety of sources to try to determine what you want and how to get you to buy it from them? Would it be a service or an intrusion if a local restaurant advertisement were to pop onto your screen after you "Tweeted" you wanted to go grab a bite to eat?
Its for these reasons that regulatory agencies are struggling with creating guidelines that adequately balance an individual's privacy with a company or industry's ability to improve the relevancy of their dialogue and offerings. But we can't wait too long because that too has consequences. For example, the FDA has yet to come up with social media guidelines for drugmakers, which has left a gaping hole in the information available online relating to potential medical treatments. (There's a great BusinessWeek article "<a href="http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/09_48/b4157064827269.htm">Why Drugmakers Don't Twitter</a>" that goes into the nebulous social media state of drugmakers - who are not sure whether they have a right or responsibility to correct erroneous information online or reach out to their patients in mediums that they are most likely using - YouTube, Twitter, etc.)
All of these issues - security, privacy, regulatory - are holding back social media tools from truly sustaining positive relationships and change. We need to address them quickly so we can appropriately and responsibly use these tools to their full advantage. When we do - great things can happen.