Is There A Rootkit In The PS3?

ps3_rootkit.png

There is a nasty rumour floating around the interwebs. Seems that Sony might have very well put a rootkit in the latest rev of the PS3 firmware, 3.56. Granted this is nothing more than a rumour, but less we forget the Sony-BMG rootkit of 2005. Remember when they decided to install a rootkit on everyones machine by way of their music CDs.

The rumour first came to light on the website jailbreakscene.com :

Essentially Sony can now remotely execute code on the PS3 as soon as you connect. This can do whatever Sony wants it to do such as verifying system files or searching for homebrew. Sony can change the code and add new detection methods without any firmware updates and as the code executes remotely there is no reliable way to forge the replies.

Whilst it is possible to patch or remove this code from the firmware this will likely mean the end of playing CFW online (as PSN can just check before login that this is active) or at the very least mean it will be even easier for Sony to detect and ban users.

I can agree with Sony wanting to keep the Playstation Network clean and honest. A lot of people took advantage of the homebrew key hack to cheat their way to the top, but the thought of installing a rootkit to take full control of a machine is crazy.

I hope it’s not true, but I wouldn’t put it past Sony to do something this dirty. I hope someone from Sony is reading this, all you had to do was allow Linux to be run on the PS3 and none of this would have happened.

tech.nocr.atIs There A Rootkit In The PS3? originally appeared on tech.nocr.at on 2011/02/01.

© tech.nocr.at 2011 |
Permalink |
3 Comments |
Read more in Hacking And Security |
Add to del.icio.us |
Stumble it |
Digg this

Explore more in: , , , , ,


Bing Piggybacking Off Of Google’s Results

bing-sting-wow-rm-eng-2.jpg

Bing just got caught with it’s hand in Google’s cookie jar. Some Google employees decided to create a honeypot of sorts. They found a search term that returned no matches on both Google and Bing, created a “honeypot” page manually that returned results for the term, and they then had a bunch of people click the top link using IE with with Suggested Sites and the Bing toolbar.

Within two weeks a handful of the 100 or so “honeypot” results started to pop up in Bing. So it seems that Bing has decided to take a few shortcuts on the back of Google’s work. Nice one Microsoft.

tech.nocr.atBing Piggybacking Off Of Google’s Results originally appeared on tech.nocr.at on 2011/02/01.

© tech.nocr.at 2011 |
Permalink |
Comments |
Read more in Tech News |
Add to del.icio.us |
Stumble it |
Digg this

Explore more in: , , ,


Nanocade: Netbook Friendly MAME Cabinet

nanocade.jpg

If you have $349 and a spare netbook or mini-ITX motherboard laying around you too can have your very own mini arcade cabinet.

The Nanocade is a kit being offered by designer Rasmus Sorensen. It enables you to use a spare netbook with a 10-inch display as a small tabletop MAME cabinet. With a sweet MAME frontend like mgalaxy, you could have hours of fun play some of those old arcade classics. The price is a bit steep since the kit sans netbook costs more than the actual netbook, but if you don’t have the patience or time to build your own this might be your only option.

Kits should be ready to ship sometime in March.

[Link to Nanocade]

tech.nocr.atNanocade: Netbook Friendly MAME Cabinet originally appeared on tech.nocr.at on 2011/01/31.

© tech.nocr.at 2011 |
Permalink |
Comments |
Read more in Gadgets |
Add to del.icio.us |
Stumble it |
Digg this

Explore more in: , ,


Scientists Develop Terminator Like Hand

term_hand.jpg

Scientists at the Institute of Robotics and Mechatronics at the German Aerospace Center have developed a robotic hand that resembles the hand of the T-800 robot from the Terminator movies. Scarily, the robotic hand’s strength and durabliity is right out of the Sci-Fi franchise.

The hand has five articulated fingers that are powered by a web of 38 tendons which in turn are each connected to an individual motor in the forearm. The robotic hand can control it’s stiffness and the web of tendons allow the hand to absorb violent shocks. So much so that it survived a 66 G impact from a baseball bat.

As you can see form the video above, the hand seems to be able to take a beating. You heard it here first kids, the dawn of SkyNet is upon us.

tech.nocr.atScientists Develop Terminator Like Hand originally appeared on tech.nocr.at on 2011/01/31.

© tech.nocr.at 2011 |
Permalink |
One Comment |
Read more in Tech News |
Add to del.icio.us |
Stumble it |
Digg this

Explore more in: , , ,


DIY: EgoBox To Monitor Web Hits

ego-box.jpg

As the owner of a website sometimes you just want to sit back and watch your traffic numbers go up, but to do that you have to stare at your computer screen and constantly refresh your browser. If you want to keep yourself productive and still watch your traffic why not build yourself an EgoBox.

Bogdan’s EgoBox is a standalone ethernet enabled box that displays website hits. The build is simple, an ENC28J60 ethernet control chip access a text file that contains the number of hits and displays them on a seven segment display. Some code is added to the header of the tracked website to increment the number stored in the text file. Very simple and effective.

You can see a full write up on the build and the code that’s used to keep track of the hits over at www.electrobob.com

tech.nocr.atDIY: EgoBox To Monitor Web Hits originally appeared on tech.nocr.at on 2011/01/31.

© tech.nocr.at 2011 |
Permalink |
Comments |
Read more in Hacking And Security |
Add to del.icio.us |
Stumble it |
Digg this

Explore more in: , ,


Hocus Focus: Superfocus Glasses Are OphthalMagic for Muggles

If you are a long-time Wired subscriber, this is going to be hard for you to read — literally.

For the graying set that thinks these glasses are more Thomas Dolby than Harry Potter, reading anything is more difficult, because of presbyopia, the gradual inability of the eye to focus due to age. Even if you never wore glasses before, all of a sudden — or around age 45 — you are unable to clearly see the text on your computer screen, your iPad, Viagra prescription bottles or your Hoveround’s speedometer.

Until recently, this meant adding reading glasses or switching to bifocals, trifocals or progressive lenses — and if this all sounds foreign to you, it won’t when you get older, whippersnapper. The problem is that reading glasses only have one focal length, bifocals two, and while progressives have many focal lengths, they require you to tilt your head just so to bring things into focus.

But with Superfocus glasses (formerly Trufocals), an adjustable slider lets you set the focal length at will. So you can focus on a computer screen, then look up and adjust the length to a TV across the room or to a cellphone nearer your face. The secret to this adjustable focus is a disk of soft silicone, which can change shape just like your eye’s decrepit lens used to.

A second lens on the front of the glasses can be fitted with a prescription lens if you are doubly cursed with nearsightedness or astigmatism. The membranous lenses seem delicate, but they are protected on the front by the secondary lens, and they are at least as tough as your own squinties, and you’ve protected those pretty well for 40 or more winters.

It may seem cumbersome to have to constantly fidget with your specs, but four-eyes are always pushing up their glasses for a better view or grasping them for cinematic affectation. The central controls conjure up visions of Navin R. Johnson’s Opti-grab from The Jerk, but unlike the Opti-grab’s hordes of cockeyed litigants, Superfocuses lack the risk of cross-eyedness, and they actually have a small but growing group of glowing testimonials online, especially among middle-aged marksmen.

The obvious problem is that while these help you see well, they don’t help you look so good. The glasses come in one style: round as hell. Until everyone is wearing them, you’ll be pegged as an ardent admirer of General Tojo, Lennon, Capote, Dolby or Potter.

On the plus side, the older you get, the less you care. They might even be the single fashionable bit in your threadbare, mismatched, lumpy, geriatric get-up.

The last hurdle is price. The Superfocus glasses start at a steep $680 and go up from there, depending on how many frills like prescription lenses or tint that you want to add. The makers of Superfocus stress that is well within the ballpark of the cost of progressive lenses, when you factor in the cost of a prescription and designer frames. Well, at least you don’t have to worry about designer frames, Gandhi.

WIRED The cure for age related eye-jinx. Adjustable glasses let you adjust your focus to the task at hand, not tilt your head to see clearly. For some, they are fashion-forward.

TIRED Must be a fan of Harry Potter, or at least not mind looking like him. Sticker price may just make you swaller yer cigar. Soft silicone lenses could puncture if molested egregiously.

Photo: Roger Hibbert/Wired.com

Canon’s Premier Prosumer Shooter Gets a Reboot

<< Previous
|
Next >>


canon_g12_01

<< Previous
|
Next >>

If you’re looking for a high performance camera with great image quality, you should get a digital SLR, right?

Well yes, DSLRs are top-drawer picture-takers. But they’re bulky and they weigh a ton. They also aren’t exactly the most discreet cameras out there — put a long zoom lens on a DSLR and try to take it to a pro sporting event or a rock concert and, unless you have a press pass, you’ll be sent packing.

A far less conspicuous and more portable option is the Canon PowerShot G12, a compact, consumer-style 10-megapixel camera with the photo skills of a serious pro model.

Small cameras with advanced features are nothing new. In fact, with the advent of Micro Four Thirds models such as the recently released Olympus EPL-2, and the growing popularity of compacts with pro-style attached lenses such as the Panasonic Lumix LX5 — Wired’s 2010 camera of the year — these pocket rockets are all the rage right now.

Canon’s been making powerful, petite models in its G-series line for over a decade now, with the 3.3-megapixel PowerShot G1 premiering way back in September 2000. With the G12, we only get a handful of technical advances over its predecessor, the (duh) G11, but they’re enough to make a good camera even better.

For starters, let’s talk about what they didn’t change from the previous model and why it’s a good thing: the resolution of the imaging sensor. Nowadays, you can now get entry-level digital cameras with 16-MP sensors, but the G12 is stuck at 10 MP. This is progress? Absolutely.

Cramming too many pixels on an imaging chip the size of a fingernail means smaller pixels that absorb less light. The result is crunchy-looking photos full of ugly image “noise” when you shoot in low light without a flash. Most manufacturers think consumers are unaware of the negative effects of the Megapixel War, but Canon is ignoring the marketing grab and striving for quality instead.

Canon hasn’t messed much with the design of the G12 and that’s also a good thing. The abundance of external controls on the camera mean there’s no need to dig through menus to get creative. If you like changing the sensitivity of the imaging chip for low light shooting, a dial on top of the G12 lets you adjust the ISO setting in precise 1/3-step increments. No, you probably don’t need to go to ISO 250, but it’s cool that it’s possible with this camera. I also liked the control dial on front above the hand grip that lets you quickly change shutter speed and aperture with your forefinger.

One area where I was hoping for an upgrade with the G12 is the LCD screen. It’s still a flip-out, vari-angle display that helps you compose over-the-head or down-low shots, but it’s still only 2.8 inches in size. A bump to 3 inches would have been appreciated. The G12 also keeps its optical viewfinder, but it’s as tiny as a peephole.

Girls Love Gadgets, Too: Gifts for Your Geeky Sweetie

<< Previous
|
Next >>


Element Ring

Picking the perfect Valentine’s Day gift for the woman in your life can be more fraught with fatal errors than a pirated copy of Windows XP.

Roses are tired. Lingerie is always trickier than it should be. Diamonds come with too much baggage.

Soap is soap. No matter how it’s packaged, and no matter how many times you tell her that these super-special suds came from the rain forests of New Guinea, she knows what it is: It’s soap.

This year, take a hint from us and forgo the bath salts for something a little more thoughtful, a little more nerdy, a little more, well, Wired.

Above:

Periodic Elements Ring

Diamonds may be a girl’s best friend, but precious metal is her boyfriend.

At least, that’s the story according to Joe Johnson and Jeanju Choi-Johnson, the design duo (and real life couple) behind these elegant knuckle-dusters. It might not be the ring she was expecting, but with the atomic weight, number and symbol of the element from which it’s made printed right on the face, at least she’ll know it’s not cubic zirconia.

Each ring is made to order. They come in platinum, 14K gold or sterling silver. —Ramona Emerson

WIRED How many people can say their jewelry won an International Design Award? Extra points for being able to leave a super-nerdy mark on someone if you punch him in the face.

TIRED Bulky shape will be an obstacle to hand-holding. Comes in only three elements, none of them uranium. Pricey: Only the silver is actually affordable.

$295-$6,000, Itsnoname

<< Previous
|
Next >>

All photos: Jonathan Snyder/Wired.com

Search Still Sucks

A decade ago I tried Google for the first time. Like everyone said, it was magic – the result I wanted was right there at the top. For someone who’d been using AltaVista for years before that it was a very pleasant experience. Anyone who was on the Internet before Google came along knows exactly what I’m talking about. Google just felt right. It got the job done.

It’s been a creeping feeling, growing over the years, but it sort of feels like pre-Google again. Search is a really bad overall experience. Travel searches, for example, are a joke, and startups like Gogobot are popping up to try to fix that. When I’m trying to figure out the best hotel for me when I travel I bail on Google entirely and head to Tripadvisor (shudder), and Gogobot.

Same for gadget product reviews. GDGT, Amazon and occasionally Consumer Reports seem to have the best collections of data, so I just go there directly and bypass Google. In fact, I use Google mostly for navigation, not discovery these days. Meaning I know the document I’m trying to find and figure out the best search query to locate it. But pure discovery? It’s a shit show of layer upon layer of SEO madness vying for my click.

Is there actual evidence of Google failing at search? Probably somewhere, but certainly not in the search share numbers. They maintain a healthy, almost monopolistic, lead in search despite huge efforts by Microsoft to compete. But then again, AltaVista had huge search share too, right before they suddenly didn’t any more.

And while I watch search startups like Blekko make serious attempts to fix search by thinking about the problem a little differently, it’s just too early to know if they’ll succeed.

So what is the evidence that search still sucks? Well, you know it’s true, just like me. And the fact that the mighty Google is suddenly taking every opportunity to toot their own search horn shows they know it, too. They tore into Microsoft for stealing data with just a little too much vehemence. In the end it felt like less of a gotcha moment, and more like entrapment.

And then today, with this JC Penney nonsense. For months the company gamed Google to get the top result in dozens of lucrative product searches. Google recently discovered it and shut it down. And then, as best I can tell, fed the story to the NY TImes as a sort of victory lap.

I say it should be an embarrassing moment for Google, not one to celebrate. In fact I did say it, here. Google’s Matt Cutts responded by lightly trashing Bing: “@arrington the newer/most recent spate of links happened in the last 3-4 months; not over a year. JCP still ranking on [dresses] on eg Bing.”

Which is fine. It’s always fun to slap Bing around a little, I guess.

Vanessa Fox, who used to fight spam at Google, weighed in as well, saying “@arrington – spam fighting will always be an ongoing battle at Google. Have to balance being aggressive in algorithms w/ collateral damage.” Earlier today she also reported on the JC Penney story.

When companies start to flail they nearly always do a couple of things. First, they trash the competitors. Then the talk about how hard the problem is and that the solution is a long term one.

Altavista did a lot of that in the late nineties. Right before a competitor came in and fixed the the AltaVista problem permanently.

Yes, search is very hard. But Silicon Valley is really good at doing hard things. The real problem right now is that there’s a perception that Google is untouchable in search. When a venture capitalist sees a pitch from a new search startup all they can think about is the Cuil debacle. And since venture capitalists are just about the most risk averse people in Silicon Valley, the funds just don’t flow.

But all the evidence suggests otherwise. Demand Media is worth $1.6 billion, and their entire business is based on pushing cheap, useless content into Google to get a few stray links. If Google was good at search, Demand Media wouldn’t exist. And Bing wouldn’t be making solid gains in search market share. And JC Penney wouldn’t be able to massively game search results for a few months, during the holiday season, without getting caught until months later.

We need to see a real competitor emerge in search. If only because it will make Google up its game, and make all of us a lot happier.


Google Explains, Apologizes For, CR-48 Spam

Early this morning people who have received a Google CR-48 notebook, and people who’ve requested one, got hit with 100 or more emails from a newly created Google Group.

Google sent out an email this evening apologizing for the emails and explaining what happened. Google was planning on launching the group next week for all users who have been selected to be in the program. But someone discovered it early and posted to it.

Says the email: “Unfortunately, we had misconfigured this forum to email every post to every member. Thus, the first post started an avalanche of responses…We have since deleted this group.”

The full email is below. The best part, in my opinion, are the step by step directions on how to delete the emails (select all, hit delete, etc.).

From: Chrome Notebook Team
Date: Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 6:21 PM
Subject: Apologies and an update on the Chrome Notebook Pilot User Forum

Earlier this morning, you may have received a large number of emails from [email protected] regarding the Chrome notebook Pilot program user forum. We apologize for this inconvenience, and you will not receive any more messages from this address. Instructions for deleting these messages are at the end of this email.

What happened? We planned to launch our Chrome Notebook Pilot forum next week to all users who had been selected for the Pilot program. Last night, around midnight Pacific time, a user discovered this forum and posted a message. Unfortunately, we had misconfigured this forum to email every post to every member. Thus, the first post started an avalanche of responses. Some messages were unsubscribe requests, others were thoughtful comments or questions, but all of them were emailed to every user. We have since deleted this group.

We’ve created a brand new user forum, which you can sign up for here:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/chrome-notebook-pilot

Rest assured: you will not be added to this forum unless you sign up using the link above.

The goal of the forum is to provide a centralized place for Pilot users to share their Chrome notebook experiences and tips. In addition, with a centralized forum, our team can more effectively respond to your questions and feedback.

If you are receiving this email and have not yet received a Cr-48, you should be hearing from us soon. Again, our apologies for the flood of emails, and we hope you will join us at the new forum.

Chrome Notebook Team

—-
How to delete previous messages:

Gmail
1. In the Gmail search box, type “from:chrome-notebook-pilot-users” and press Enter.
2. Click the checkbox to the left of the Archive button to Select All.
3. At the top of the search results, click the link that says “Select all XX conversations in Search results.”
4. Click the Delete button. You should not receive any more messages from this address.

Other email programs
1. Use the search function in your email program to find messages with the sender [email protected].
2. Select all the messages in the search results.
3. Delete the messages. You should not receive any more messages from this address.


The Guardian’s David Leigh Talks About Julian Assange and Wikileaks

“Freedom of speech is being denied [to] Luke Harding while Wikileaks and Julian are getting in to bed with these dictators; these enemies of freedom of speech…” – David Leigh

I’ve just posted my review of the Guardian’s Wikileaks book, co-authored by Investigations Editor David Leigh and Moscow Correspondent Luke Harding.

The book is full of frankly incredible revelations about the paper’s relationship with Wikileaks and Julian Assange. So incredible, in fact, that I wanted to ask the authors more about them.

On Thursday morning, I spoke to Leigh (who is based in London) via Skype. We talked about Assange, the Wikileaks revalations, whether Assange is a journalist or “just an IT guy”, the difference between the “mainstream media” and wiki journalism, Assange’s new-found friendship with the Russian government and a whole lot more.

The full video is below, followed by a few of my favourite quotes from Leigh…

David Leigh…

…on Julian Assange:

“As an IT guy [Assange] is a genius… as a journalist he’s an amateur… and a reckless amateur.”

…on citizen journalism:

“You put everything out there and the citizen journalists make sense of it… unfortunately none of that happened.”

…on Assange’s claims that the book is a smear:

“I’d like Julian to sit in front of me and say he didn’t say [that he didn’t care if Wikileaks caused informants to be killed]. He did say that.”

…on civilian casualties:

“[Assange] doesn’t have blood on his hands as far as I know… The point of this War Log stuff was to demonstrate how many civilian casualties there have been… because America decided to have two wars.”

…on the digital divide:

“For middle aged mainstream journalists like me, we had a lot to learn from Julian.”

…on Wikileaks vs Mainstream Journalism:

“They like to see us as the enemy. They like to see themselves as having some God-like virtue which enables them to behave in some pretty reckless and unethical ways.”

…on anti-Americanism:

“In fairness to Julian, I don’t think that he’s against America. I think he’s against everyone.”

…on pro-Americanism:

“When you look at those cables you certainly see America as a superpower throwing its weight around, maneuvering, sometimes bullying people. A lot of the time [though] you see it failing to get its own way, trying to do its best in a very difficult and dangerous world, full of people who are much more violent and vicious and alarming than the US State Department who are a lot of quite civilised diplomats.”

…on Assange “palling up” with the Russians:

“I’m quite angry with Julian about this. He’s being reckless and opportunistic. Because America is after him and because Sarah Palin wants him hunted down like Osama Bin Laden and so forth, he’s turning round to the Russians who are quite enjoying the discomfiture of the United States… he’s palling up with them and giving material to very unsuitable people.”

…on hypocrisy:

“[We have this] bizarre spectacle where Luke Harding is chucked out of Russia for quoting Wikileaks’ cables saying it’s a mafia state, so freedom of speech is being denied [to] Luke Harding while Wikileaks and Julian are getting in to bed with these dictators; these enemies of freedom of speech… This shows how shallow and reckless he can be as an amateur journalist.”

Wikileaks – Inside Julian Assange’s War on Secrecy‘ by David Leigh and Luke Harding is available worldwide now (US, UK)


The Guardian’s Wikileaks Book Is This Generation’s “All The President’s Men”

Two weeks ago, I reviewed the New York Times’ book: ‘Open Secrets: WikiLeaks, War and American Diplomacy‘. It’s a remarkable work of journalism, combining the paper’s collected reporting on Wikileaks, with editor Bill Keller’s personal account of working with Assange.

For my money, Keller’s account was the stand-out highlight of the book – a behind the scenes journalism thriller, punctuated by details from the leaked documents themselves.

In fact, as I read through the bulk of the book, I found myself wishing that Keller’s style had continued throughout. Even in edited, compiled form, the revelations from “Cablegate” and the Iraq war logs are a lot to digest and it would have been wonderful to have Keller as narrator to walk the reader through them all. That didn’t affect my review, though: it was too much to expect the Times to publish that kind of comprehensive narrative so quickly.

You can imagine, then, how delighted I was to receive a copy of the Guardian’s new crash-published Wikileaks book and discover that it was all the things I wanted from the Times’ book. And more.

Authored by Investigations Editor David Leigh and Moscow Correspondent Luke Harding, ‘Wikileaks – Inside Julian Assange’s War on Secrecy‘ (US, UK) tells the story of the Guardian’s relationship with Wikileaks and Julian Assange, from the moment Assange invited Leigh to a hotel room to show him an astonishing video of a US military helicopter killing ten Iraqis and two Reuters journalists – right up to the present day, with Wikileaks hailed for sparking revolution in Tunisia.

While the Times’ book was largely straight-faced (even po-faced) in its dealings with Assange, the Guardian’s Leigh and Harding don’t shy away from applying a very British sense of humour and irony when their subject demands it. Take, for example, the comic scene that opens the book: a paranoid Assange disguising himself as an old woman – Toad of Toad Hall style – to escape an imagined CIA tail. As British newspaper writers are wont to say – you couldn’t make it up.

The bulk of the narrative, though, is deadly serious, delivering page after page of incredible revelations. Those who hail Assange as an unalloyed hero might be given pause by his reaction when Leigh tries to persuade him to redact the names of informants in the Iraq war logs.

“‘Well they’re informants,’ he said. ‘So if they get killed, they’ve got it coming to them. They deserve it.”

To quote Keanu Reeves — woah.

Then there’s the sordid little twist of Israel Shamir: the Wikileaks collaborator who, we’re told, was paid €2000 by Assange for “services rendered – journalism” and who subsequently wrote articles attacking the two women who have accused Assange of sexual assault. Shamir is now Wikileaks’ official representative in Russia, where Assange has begun to cozy up with the government in order to get back at the American politicians who have called for his head. That story alone is worth the book’s price of admission.

One of the preemptive criticisms of Leigh and Harding’s work (this one from Assange’s new UK publishing partner, the Telegraph) was that it “outs” Private Bradley Manning as the source of the leaked documents. Obviously, the criticism is ludicrous: Manning himself took care of that when he confessed all to hacker Adrian Lamo. What the book in fact does to Manning is humanises him. Like many on both sides of the Wikileaks debate, I had initially been unsympathetic to the plight of a disgruntled soldier who took it upon himself to leak hundreds of thousands of secret documents. But Leigh and Harding’s account of Manning’s upbringing, career and subsequent breakdown persuaded me that the reality is somewhat more nuanced. Yes, Manning acted recklessly, but it’s clear from the evidence offered that Manning had some pretty legitimate concerns about his superiors’ attitude towards Iraqi civilians.

One episode in particular stands out: Manning was ordered to investigate the case of fifteen Iraqis arrested by local police for distributing “anti-Iraqi literature”. Diligently translating the literature, Manning discovered that the material was little more than a scholarly critique against government corruption. But, on reporting that fact to his superiors, he was told to “shut up” and ordered to “explain how to assist the Iraqi police in finding more detainees.”

As the authors put it:

“[Manning’s statements] make it clear he was not a thief, not venal, not mad, and not a traitor. He believed that, somehow, he was doing a good thing.”

Equally persuasive is the authors’ defense of the leaks themselves, and their contention that the world is a better place for their publication. Furthermore, for all the sound and fury from the American government, it seems pretty clear that – in redacted form at least – none of the documents published has put lives at risk.

When I last wrote about Wikileaks on TechCrunch, a number of commenters demanded to know what business a blog dedicated to technology had writing about Julian Assange. It was a frankly bizarre objection: this is, after all, a story about a disgruntled computer specialist leaking electronic files (some of which concern Google in China) to a hacker who uses encryption and p2p networks to publish documents on the Internet. As tech stories go, it makes the Matrix look like Ben Hur. Hopefully those commenters will be satisfied by the Guardian’s thorough account of the various technologies behind Wikileaks, as explained by technology editor Charles Arthur (disclosure: Arthur was my editor at the Guardian). Arthur’s description of how Assange and his collaborators used TOR (and what TOR is) is the best I’ve read. The contrast between that explanation and Leigh’s self-confessed technophobia are wonderful too, particularly the moment where Leigh has to drive across London in the middle of the night so that Assange can show him how to unzip a file.

It’s that same contrast of cultures – between traditional journalism and bleeding-edge hacker culture – that form the backbone of the book. Despite Assange’s  loathing of “the mainstream media”, he soon learns that “citizen journalism” has its limits. By any metric, Wikileaks’ helicopter video was explosive – and yet when traditional news outlets (including Reuters) stubbornly refused to buy into Assange’s “Collateral Murder” narrative, the story quickly faded from public attention.

Likewise it quickly became clear that, when thousands of documents are dumped online without context or explanation, even the combined efforts of a million amateur bloggers can’t begin to make sense of them. Yet, in the hands of a small team of professional reporters, those same documents quickly become coherent narratives and world-changing headlines. Those who believe citizen media – or leak-dumping, or crowd-sourcing – is going to kill traditional journalism might ask themselves why, despite Assange having threatened to sue most of his previous media partners, he’s still desperately clamoring for new ones – most recently the Telegraph (UK) and Russia Today (described by Leigh as ‘[an] arm of [the] Russian state’).

Indeed, while ‘Wikileaks: Inside Julian Assange’s War On Secrecy’ is many things – a thriller, a story of international diplomacy, a tale of greed and ambition and double-crosses; a comedy, a tragedy – above all it’s a manifesto for the future of professional journalism.

Like lots of kids who ended up as professional writers or reporters, I grew up reading and re-reading Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein’s All The President’s Men. The tools – and media – might have changed dramatically since Watergate but, as Leigh and Harding show, the thrill and skill of great reporting is just the same. As such, if Wikileaks is this generation’s Watergate, then ‘Wikileaks: Inside Julian Assange’s War on Secrecy‘ might well prove to be its All The President’s Men; educating a whole new generation of would-be reporters on the power and importance of the professional press.

Watch My Interview With David Leigh

“They [Assange and Wikileaks] like to see us as the enemy. They like to see themselves as having some God-like virtue which enables them to behave in some pretty reckless and unethical ways”.

On Thursday morning, I spoke to the Guardian’s David Leigh via Skype. I asked him about his relationship with Julian Assange and Wikileaks, whether he stands by some of the more incredible revelations in the book – and how it feels for a liberal Guardian journalist to be described as “the man”. You can watch the whole conversation here.


Lissn Strips Down To Its Skivvies: Three Anonymous People Chat While Others Listen

When Lissn launched on stage at TechCrunch50 in September 2009, we described it as sort of a “broader Twitter meets a simpler Google Wave“. Well, like the latter, the idea behind Lissn never really caught on. By March of last year, the service decided to pivot a bit to be based more around individuals rather than specific conversations. But that didn’t really work either. So now, with version 3, they’ve decided to strip away basically everything.

Founder Myke Armstrong says that they started removing features after hearing author Eric Ries talk about creating a “minimum viable product”. He determined that Lissn, at its core, was simply about conversations, not the people having them or the topics they’re about. So here we have the new Lissn, which is sort of like a Chatroulette for conversations now.

If that sounds familiar, it’s a bit like what Omegle offers. And Armstrong isn’t shying away from that comparison. But he thinks it’s slightly more than that — he thinks it’s more like Twitter meets Omegle now. Essentially, Lissn now allows for three people to chat while any number of people can listen. The key is that all three people are anonymous except for two things: their location is shown (at the state level) and the site that they came from is shown (Twitter.com, for example). Eventually, the plan is to add other features as well.

Armstrong calls three the “magic number” for these type of conversations based on what he observed through Lissn up until now.

So will Lissn work this time around? The once red-hot Chatroulette angle cooled off almost as quickly. But some might say that was at least in part due to the exposed male genitalia aspect. At the very least, random anonymous conversations should lead to some really awkward ones. And it couldn’t be easier to start with Lissn now, as you don’t have to sign up at all. You just go there and start chatting.

Information provided by CrunchBase


Why Starting Justin.tv Was A Really Bad Idea, But I’m Glad We Did It Anyway

Editor’s note: The following guest post was written by Justin Kan, founder of Justin.tv.

Right now I’m neck deep in product launch mode, putting the finishing touches on our new mobile video application—Socialcam. Of course, I’ve been here before . . .

Years ago when we launched the Justin.tv show we had no idea what we were doing. This much was obvious to anyone who watched. Outsiders attribute far more strategic thought to the venture than we gave it. Some think that we planned all along to start a live platform, and that the Justin.tv show itself was a way of promoting that platform. While this ended up happening, none of it had crossed our minds at the time.

Emmett Shear and I had been working on Kiko, the first Javascript web calendaring application in the Microsoft Outlook style. We prototyped the application in our final year at Yale, went on to raise money from Y Combinator, then continued working on it for over a year.

Then Google Calendar was released—boom—absorbing most of our nascent user base and capturing most of the early adopter mindshare. But to be perfectly honest, Kiko would have failed regardless. We were too easily distracted and hadn’t really thought through the strategic implications of owning a standalone calendaring property (hint: no one wants a calendar without email). A short time later we were burned out and spending most of our time playing Xbox with the Reddit guys in Davis Square—hardly a startup success story.

Emmett and I started thinking about possible ways to get out of the calendar business. At the same time, I was startup fatigued. We had spent over a year paying ourselves nothing. The seed and angel investment market conditions were the polar opposite of what they are today. It had been a struggle to even raise a paltry $70,000, and we had failed to build a product with real traction. I was starting to think about moving back to Seattle to try something new, maybe in a different industry.

Still, we learned a ton and it was fun to be part of the early Y Combinator startup community (then largely in Boston). We became friends with Matt Brezina and Adam Smith (of Xobni), Trip Adler, Tikhon Bernstam and Jared Friedman (of Scribd), and many others. It’s amazing to see how many of those friendships persist today, and even more amazing how well many of those companies are doing.

Coming back from one particular YC dinner, Emmett and I were discussing strategic ideas for Kiko, and I remember telling Emmett an idea that popped into my head: what if you could hear an audio feed on the web of our discussion? Wouldn’t that be interesting to other like-minded entrepreneurial types? We kept going, and eventually the idea morphed into a video feed. Then it became a live video feed. Then it became a continuous live video feed that followed someone around 24/7. Then it had chat, and a community built around watching this live show, which was now a new form of entertainment. I was hooked.

I couldn’t stop talking about the idea. I mentioned it at YC dinners and to other friends. I even came up with a perfect name for it: Justin.tv. On one trip to DC, I told my Dad and my college friend Michael Seibel what I was thinking. Eventually, in-between drinking sessions, we thought of a brilliant idea for divesting ourselves of Kiko, which is a story for another day. After that, Emmett and I were coming up with other startup ideas (I guess we got excited about staying in the industry after all). One particular favorite was the idea of a web app that would ingest your blog’s RSS feed and then allow you to layout and print physical magazines from it. Excitedly, we drove one afternoon to Paul Graham’s house to pitch it.

We explained the idea to Paul and Robert Morris, who just happened to be at the house visiting. I vaguely recall there also being a “this will kill academic publishing” angle, although I can’t figure out how that sensibly fits in now. Paul didn’t particularly like the idea: he didn’t think people would use it. “Well,” he said, “what else do you have?”

I said the only thing I could think of: “Justin.tv.”

Because it was something I was clearly passionate about, and because creating a new form of entertainment was clearly a big market (if you could invent one!), Paul was actually into it. Robert’s addition to the conversation was “I’ll fund that just to see you make a fool of yourself.” Emmett and I walked out of there with a check for $50,000.

Six months later, we’d recruited two other cofounders (Kyle Vogt, our hardware hacker, who we convinced to drop out of MIT on a temporary leave of absence, and Michael Seibel, my college friend from DC, who became our “producer”). We built a site with a video player and chat and two prototype cameras that captured, encoded and streamed live video over cell data networks, negotiated with a CDN to carry our live video traffic, and raised an additional couple hundred thousand dollars. Our plan? Launch the show and see what happens.

Now, let me just tell you why this was a bad idea:

  • We didn’t have a plan. We loosely figured if the show became popular we could sell sponsorships or advertising, but we didn’t have a plan to scale the number of shows, nor did we understand what our marginal costs on streaming, customer acquisition, or actually selling ads were.
  • We didn’t understand the industry. We didn’t know what kinds of content advertisers would pay for. We didn’t have good insight into what kind of content people wanted to watch, either.
  • We relied on proprietary hardware that we were going to mass-produce ourselves. Smart angels told us to drop the hardware and figure out how to do it with commodity equipment, but we wouldn’t listen because we thought hardware would be easy (or at least, doable). Ironically, months after we were told this we switched to using a laptop.
  • We were trying to build a “hits” based business without any experience making hits. We knew a lot about websites, but little about content creation. Smart VCs (who took our calls because Paul referred us) told us as much: nobody really likes investing in hits based businesses, because it requires the continual generation of new hits to be successful (instead of, say, building a platform like eBay or Google whose success is built on masses of regular users).

How did we get as far as we did?

  • We were passionate. We honestly believed we could create a new form of reality entertainment. Put to the side that we had no experience with creating video (or any kind of content), by God, we were going to make this work.
  • Early stage investing is often about the people, not the idea. Paul has said as much about what he looks for. As two-time YC founders he knew that we worked well together and even if we were working on something totally inane we were going to stick it out with the company and iterate until we found a business model.
  • We sold the shit out of it. Everyone we knew was excited for Justin.tv. Why? Because our excitement was infectious. That’s how we got Kyle to drop out of school. That’s how we got Michael to quit his job and move across the country.

Ultimately, the show failed. But all told, I’m thankful every day that things went the way they did. Why?

  • We built a strong team. The four of us started, and the four of us all still have leadership roles in the company. Along the way we recruited the smartest engineers and best product designers we could find.
  • We were willing to learn, and to pivot. After quickly realizing the initial show wasn’t a sustainable model, we decided to go the platform route, and built the world’s largest live video platform (both on the web and in our mobile apps, which have millions of downloads).
  • It got us started. Some people wait until the stars are aligned before they jump in. Maybe that’s the right move, but plenty of businesses get started with something that seems implausible, stupid, or not-a-real-business but turn into something of value (think Groupon). If we hadn’t started then, would we have later?

Today, I’m more excited about Justin.tv than I’ve been at any time since we launched the initial platform. Why? We’re taking everything we’ve gathered and learned over the past four and half years building the largest live video platform on the Web (17 million monthly unique visitors in Dec according to comScore’s MediaMetrix), and applying it to tackle a new generation of problems in mobile video. Our world class web and mobile engineering team, all of our product development knowledge, our substantial, scaled video infrastructure, and everything we’ve learned about building engineering teams has all been put to work on a new app that we think is going to change everything.

Our new app is called Socialcam, but that’s another story.

Photo by Terry Chay


Gillmor Gang 2.12.11 (TCTV)

Watching the government fall in Egypt felt a lot like the Berlin Wall coming down. Brian Williams interrupted the Today Show with a special report that left no doubt what had happened before Williams said a word. You could say they wanted a revolution, but this time was different.

The difference was real time, as embodied by Twitter and Facebook and the rubric social media. The way it was handled, as part of the story Williams intoned as he announced Mubarek’s resignation, came close to rolling up the Twitter trigger as a central element of the event. Yet as with the birth of Twitter, the rush of FriendFeed to real time, and the occupation of computing by the iPad, we almost don’t see the completeness with which social mobile has only just begun to flex its muscles.

On the Gillmor Gang, I recalled that moment when Gabe Rivera suggested I log into Twitter. Then came the year where I posted nothing, followed by the gaming of Track, the FailWhale, and a lot of noise about how social media and the enterprise didn’t have a thing in common. Of course, they were wrong, and Marc Benioff proved us right. Chatter.com was announced at the Super Bowl, and now millions are slowly moving down the runway toward takeoff.

Chatter rolled out @mentions and Likes this Sunday, and we heard the same old noises about applying social signals to business processes. Fellow Gangster John Taschek and I have been experimenting with @mentions for some time now on Twitter. Together with direct messages, the two signals have provided a key tool for communicating what we want publicly, and what we want to keep private. Email can kiss its lack of the @sign goodbye. And along with it, the malignant hierarchical constraints that choke serendipity and calcify progress.

Email creates the fame monster of who’s in charge, who’s starting the conversation, who’s managing the flow. In a stream architecture, relevance and authority are earned by the subtle observation of cloud dynamics. Not just what you say but what you don’t. Not just when you contribute but when you ratify by laying out. Not just what you earn with each comment, but what you put away for a rainy day through an accumulation of signal, rhythm, silence, humor.

Email is a fire drill. Here’s what we’re talking about, when we’re expecting it, why you’re going to do it. The answers are turned into commitments, performance criteria, weights and balances in calculating your value to the enterprise. But the tools of such arbitrage are to:, cc:, and blindcc:. This message is for you, and fyi for them. And secretly fyi but just listen, don’t jump in. The bcc: carries with it an implicit agreement that the very fact of the bcc: is not to be shared.

Tweets, @mentions, and DMs can handle most of those email patterns, but add an additional layer of signal to the conversation. A tweet or retweet tells not only what you should learn but who are the presumed listeners. A retweet is essentially an @mention without the overt cc: signal, providing velocity to a stream of ideas, alerts, or items. @mentions add the element of shared experience, the water cooler opportunity, not just for the current item but for future and even past examination. The direct message feels like an email to: with its tunnel from you to them, but it also carries an affinity with its realtime insertion into the push notification stream.

Because it shares that alert visibility with @mentions, it unifies the citations that frequent both types into a stream of notifications rich with context and timeliness. But it makes no demands on you to continue the form of the originating message. Often I will respect the privacy of a direct message in thinking about who to pass it along to, but stripped of the commentary to the core citation the message can be shared in open or additional direct channels. Thinking across the public/private axis produces a layer of abstraction about the metadata surrounding the citation and the cloud to which the citation itself can be pushed.

Gabe Rivera was reticent to discuss his mix of signals and how they are orchestrated to produce Techmeme, but in general his recent experiments with adding social signals not just as indicators of authority but also as content themselves speak to this same abstraction of the elements of the broader conversation. By whitelisting authoritative nodes, he is adding cloud dynamics to the area between blog posts and micromessages in a way similar to what @mentions and dms do to the area between public and private domains. It’s a blend of institutional memory and actionable discovery that proves both valuable and highly authoritative when switched on.

With these tools, we can now reinvent work, politics, the notion of expertise, and what constitutes leadership skills. In my own work, the velocity of @mentions and streaming video feeds back on itself to accelerate the progress we can make, which then provides fodder for the streams we produce externally as well as internally. It’s much like a self-fulfilling prophecy, where the act of imagining leads to the economy of citation and the velocity of humor to reach the target and the beginning of the cycle simultaneously.

The message of Will.i.am’s Chatter.com films at halftime was one of transformation, of imagining the world as we intuit it could be, of discovering rather than preaching. If we’re wondering what Chatter.com is supposed to be, that’s because we intuit what that is going to be. As I reminded Gabe, I had no idea what Twitter was good for, but what it could become? I had a feeling, that’s for sure. I’ve still got that feeling. @mention me and do two things: tell me what you think, and give a clue to what you’ll think next.

It sounds simplistic, like Scoble publishing his phone number on his blog. But @mentions require just enough work to over time filter the stream to those most invested in the dynamics of the particular cloud. The signals derived from association, of the cumulative nature of @mentions, the dynamics of the conversation, the two-way assent of direct messages. When I want to bring Kevin Marks into the conversation on the Gang, I bait him with some aspersions about the emptiness of the open model, and boom, he’s there. It’s an @kevinmarks informed by the cumulative stream, and those who seek to game it or inflict insult will eventually tire of the sport.

Remember when we got the Twitter religion, when Friendfeed went real time in a big way, when Jobs sat on the couch with the iPad. In the age of too much of nothing, as Bob Dylan wrote, our brains are choking on the stuff in the middle. Short term, we got it covered pretty much: gotta take out the recycling, check Techmeme, oh look, Mubarek quit after all, answer email, rinse, repeat. Long term, somehow we have plenty of room for all those years ago, for the big thoughts, the petty grudges, the songs that carried our dreams along. But middle term, we’re screwed. The kids will say it’s age, old man, but I see it everywhere: the hunt for the right word, the blank look about something that happened last week or the grunt of frustration at remembering too late what I forgot to do. It’s the memory that slips quietly from short to not long enough ago.

Soon we’ll master the multitasking of push notification, harness the now, corral the middle into a shared memory where we get reinforcement about the value of savoring our success with change. You could see it in the eyes of the Egyptians, in the chorus of their yearning. They just used this moment of social media to stand as a group and through the force of their cloud bring about change. They know better than us how difficult the road ahead is, but they know that turning away is worse. ‘Don’t you know that you can count me out… in.’

@gaberivera @scobleizer @kevinmarks @jtaschek @stevegillmor