<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><?xml-stylesheet title="XSL_formatting" type="text/xsl" href="rss_style.xsl" ?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
<channel>
        <title>ZDNet Blogs</title>
        <link>http://blogs.zdnet.com</link>
        <description>ZDNet Blogs Focus: Attention</description>
<item>
<title>Stanford Information Law Symposium</title>
<link>http://blogs.zdnet.com/Howell/?p=225</link>
<pubDate>Wed, 21 May 2008 10:14:31 -0700</pubDate>
<dc:creator>Denise Howell</dc:creator>
<guid>http://blogs.zdnet.com/Howell/?p=225</guid>
<description><![CDATA[Though it could scarcely be more cumbersomely named &mdash; the Transatlantic Information Law Symposium &mdash; this upcoming (and free) program at Stanford Law School looks excellent, featuring such big thinkers as Mark Lemley and Stefan Bechtold, and such big topics as privacy, free speech, the future of Internet regulation, and one that looks particularly intriguing from the standpoint of social media and attention:  property vs. contract to govern online behavior.  I'd like to go, though the timing's not great for me; if you're going, blog the wealth. (Image by Maveric2003, CC Attribution-2.0) ]]>
</description></item>
<item>
<title>Why McLuhan was right when it comes to attention</title>
<link>http://blogs.zdnet.com/Howell/?p=187</link>
<pubDate>Tue, 25 Sep 2007 10:29:25 -0700</pubDate>
<dc:creator>Denise Howell</dc:creator>
<guid>http://blogs.zdnet.com/Howell/?p=187</guid>
<description><![CDATA[Through his always enriching podcast, I've heard Cory Doctorow give variations on his privacy talk at least five or six times over the last year.  The most current iteration is available at Intel's/Josh Bancroft's BitStories.  In responding to an audience question, Cory explains exactly why, when it comes to attention, the medium is the message:              I think technology does embed ideologies.  So I think that, for example, if you design a technology that takes your users' behavior data, and uploads it to the Internet, and then sequesters it and sells it off and gives it to other people, that technology has a message for its user, and that's that that user is an ambulatory wallet, right?  Shut ... ]]>
</description></item>
<item>
<title>Know my shared items, know me</title>
<link>http://blogs.zdnet.com/Howell/?p=166</link>
<pubDate>Sun, 12 Aug 2007 03:56:47 -0700</pubDate>
<dc:creator>Denise Howell</dc:creator>
<guid>http://blogs.zdnet.com/Howell/?p=166</guid>
<description><![CDATA[Mario Romero's Facebook application, which shares your Google Reader shared items to other Facebook users, demonstrates how well it's possible to know someone based solely on what they browse and share.  I'd love to know how the application's tag clouds are created.  It's a little spooky how well they capture your interests. ]]>
</description></item>
<item>
<title>Social networks:  what goes out, what goes in</title>
<link>http://blogs.zdnet.com/Howell/?p=161</link>
<pubDate>Thu, 02 Aug 2007 04:28:17 -0700</pubDate>
<dc:creator>Denise Howell</dc:creator>
<guid>http://blogs.zdnet.com/Howell/?p=161</guid>
<description><![CDATA["Social Networking 3.0" was on the agenda this afternoon at the AlwaysOn Stanford Summit.  This one was a "must watch" for me, as will be Dan Farber's later today on "The Democratization of Media."  You can follow along with the conference's live Webcast here.    Moderator Charlene Li, senior analyst for Forrester Research, was joined by Travis Katz, senior vice president and general manager of MySpace International; Dustin Moskovitz, co-founder of Facebook; Rich Rosenblatt, CEO of Demand Media and former MySpace executive; Gina Bianchini, CEO of Ning; and Karl Jacob, CEO of Wallop.  Dan blogged the panel on Between the Lines, and, as he says, most of the discussion focused the future of social networks.  I was most ... ]]>
</description></item>
<item>
<title>Section 230 immunity for case-based identity/reputation systems?</title>
<link>http://blogs.zdnet.com/Howell/?p=130</link>
<pubDate>Sun, 10 Jun 2007 12:23:26 -0700</pubDate>
<dc:creator>Denise Howell</dc:creator>
<guid>http://blogs.zdnet.com/Howell/?p=130</guid>
<description><![CDATA[As an example of someone who thinks he owns his reputation data, here's lawyer John Henry Browne, threatening to sue new lawyer rating service Avvo over a rating he says is unjustifiably low.  That link comes via Joe Andrieu on the Project VRM list, who earlier this week had these musings about reputation as case-based identity:  Perhaps considering reputation as case-based identity, we can start to outline the components required for such case-based systems to work:        * transaction data (potentially including opinions of others)      * algorithmic evaluation      * refutation process    These may not be the definitive requirements for a reputation system, but they seem to be present in the working systems I ... ]]>
</description></item>
<item>
<title>If reputation is money in the bank, who owns the PIN?</title>
<link>http://blogs.zdnet.com/Howell/?p=129</link>
<pubDate>Wed, 06 Jun 2007 10:17:59 -0700</pubDate>
<dc:creator>Denise Howell</dc:creator>
<guid>http://blogs.zdnet.com/Howell/?p=129</guid>
<description><![CDATA[As evidenced by the many lawsuits against Google concerning PageRank or other search result (read reputational) slippage, the notion that you own your digital reputation &mdash; even if it is at bottom a collaborative work that begins with your actions, but thereafter depends on the reactions of others &mdash; has legs.  Michael O'Connor Clarke wrote an interesting post along these lines at Uninstalled called Web 3.0 and Personal Reputation Management:     I'm still not quite sure where I'm going with this, but I feel the need for some secure, personal repository that would hold all of my connections and "whuffie" together. I want to keep my whuffie in my wallet - but not in a Microsoft Passport/Hailstorm kind of way. ... ]]>
</description></item>
<item>
<title>&quot;Creating a permanent record of things that we do casually&quot;</title>
<link>http://blogs.zdnet.com/Howell/?p=128</link>
<pubDate>Mon, 04 Jun 2007 08:54:10 -0700</pubDate>
<dc:creator>Denise Howell</dc:creator>
<guid>http://blogs.zdnet.com/Howell/?p=128</guid>
<description><![CDATA[Current.tv has a good "pod" (if not a good branding department; really, can't we call these things something else?) titled They're Watching, featuring the insights of Mark Rasch, former head of Computer Crime for the U.S. Department of Justice.  The subject of the video left at least 56 digital trails in one day.  Rasch observes:      Eventually, all of these databases can be linked to create a profile of everything that somebody does on a given day.    And Marc Rotenberg of the Electronic Privacy Information Center adds:    There may be a justification that says we need to do this post-9/11 because of terrorism, but invariably all these systems are used for other purposes.    (All of which resonates strongly with me given ... ]]>
</description></item>
</channel>
</rss>
