DEBRIS.COMgood for a laugh, or possibly an aneurysm

SF Chronicle: Streisand goes coastal over Web photo effort

One of the 12,700 digital images posted on the Adelman’s Web site depicts a glorious stretch of beach in Malibu — and a lavish bluff-top estate belonging to Streisand.

Arguing that the photograph violated her privacy, Streisand filed a $50 million lawsuit in May demanding that the photo including her house be removed from the site, along with the caption reading “Streisand Estate, Malibu.”

Here’s a funny quote: “I think fighting her is really a public service,” Adelman said. “Someone has to stop her.”

This case provides another example of the risk of demanding that someone “unpublish” information: by drawing attention to it, many more people see the information than would have otherwise. As the Chronicle reports:

According to Adelman, the Malibu photograph in question was downloaded only six times in the three months before the lawsuit was filed. But once the story hit the media, visits to the site surged. An average of 108,000 visitors per day viewed the photograph in June.

Streisand’s attorneys could have, instead of filing a lawsuit, simply requested that Adelman remove the caption “Streisand estate” from the photo. It seems to me that that approach would have greatly reduced the risk that a stalker would find the image. In contrast, by filing a suit the attorneys have virtually guaranteed that every paparazzi in Southern California will be hovering just offshore hoping to catch an image of Barbra through a window.

The privacy question is tough. I understand Streisand’s concerns. And yet, demanding that a comprehensive photo archive of the coastline skip the few hundred yards she owns, just because she owns it, seems ludicrous.

The CaliforniaCoastline.org website contains a page of links to articles about the lawsuit. Every one I read took Adelman’s side. I won’t jump on the Barbra-bashing bandwagon, even though that’s the popular response — just because she’s successful, wealthy, and eccentric does not mean she deserves my scorn.

But I will say I am surprised at the strong-arm tactics her attorneys have employed. I doubt she’ll prevail.

Earlier this year I became a fan of Amazon’s Gold Box. I hit Amazon.com nearly every day, rabidly clicking through the 10 offers. I remember buying at least two items I wouldn’t have bought had they not appeared there: a high-end rice cooker, for example, and a Calphalon griddle (75% off!). I didn’t purchase, but I appreciated, the steady parade of MP3 players and NetGear products and Leatherman tools in my daily offer set.

But last week, my Gold Box became infected with toys. Gone are my sleek, charcoal gray metallic audio components, my hardened steel drill bits, my eternally-warrantied kitchen appliances. In their place: “Pose Me Pets Environment: Bedroom”, which I can’t even parse much less fathom… Fisher Price Screwy Looey… some kind of Home Depot action figure… Seven of my 10 offers are for toys today. Never has any single product category so monopolized my Gold Box.

I think the problem is that I searched for a toy at Amazon’s site recently. Two friends have recently given birth, so I’m following the traditional American response pattern of sending some molded plastic crap with a happy face stamped on the outside. Amazon’s opportunistic profiler instantly branded me as a parent. It’s bad AI, and it has cost them a customer. It’s just too depressing to see my 10 Gold Box offers wasted on day-glow plastic baubles that don’t even plug in.

This idea is not original; I’ve seen it suggested before: Amazon ought to have a widget on their site so that users can indicate “I’m just researching — don’t construe the following action as any statement of my actual interests.” It could be as simple as a “gift mode” button. It would allow me to browse items from a category I find distasteful without being subjected to more of the same for months to come.

I emailed a complaint to Amazon’s customer service group. Here is their response:

We select your personalized offers based on a variety of factors. I’m sorry, but it is currently not possible to request or exclude Gold Box offers in specific product categories.

But even though they don’t offer overt control, I ought to be able to influence the profiler. I’m going to try searching for anti-toys for a few days, in hopes that that will skew my profile back from the realm of “things that get sucked on.” I’m not real sure what constitutes an anti-toy, though… wrestling videos, maybe? The cure could be worse than the disease.

I just discovered a tool on the account page called “Improve Your Recommendations.” Maybe this is the overt control I’ve been hoping for? I’ve tried to check all the aggressive and unfriendly categories, the genres of entertainment media that imply impatience and close-mindedness and callousness, in hopes that Amazon determines I could not possibly be a parent.

Is it worth it to me to have Amazon’s profiler conclude that I’m a mean-spirited, selfish prick? If that’s what it takes to get Playskool out of my Gold Box, yes.

Annoyed by the prospect of a massive new federal surveillance system, two researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology are celebrating the Fourth of July with a new Internet service that will let citizens create dossiers on government officials.

The system will start by offering standard background information on politicians, but then go one bold step further, by asking Internet users to submit their own intelligence reports on government officials — reports that will be published with no effort to verify their accuracy.

Source: Boston Globe, Website turns tables on government officials

Site: Open Government Information Awareness

Seen: at Macintouch

My Amazon Gold Box contained a most unusual Personal Groomer recently.

I’ll admit to owning a number of personal grooming devices, some of which even run on electrical power. But none of them require two hands to operate. Nor do they have motors whose strength can be measured in horsepower.
(The screenshot is unretouched. I suspect my browser pulled the wrong image out of its cache.)

Fast Company features an interesting article about the growth of Google — how a group of perfection-obsessed geeks run the best search service on the web: How Google Grows… and Grows… and Grows

Related: an old posting about the technology behind the google search.