Google launched real-time search today.  It’s the latest update in what people are calling the “Now Web”– a term that was coined, if I’m not mistaken, by Reputation.com (and Twitter) investor Mike Maples.  Real-time search has been something of a darling in the Valley over the past few months.  Check out this piece from Venturebeat from the summer.

Real-time search is a new and exciting presentation of data on the web.  The data isn’t different. It’s just streamed faster a la the Facebook or Twitter update.

The good news is that people might be able to track world news more swiftly.  Every femtosecond seems to count these days.  Of course, rumor will also spread faster.

This will no doubt also spawn a new practice and industry of dominating real-time search. Particularly since Google appears to be putting its search results at the top of its search page, there is strong incentive to bombard the web with the latest and greatest inputs from lots of sources, so that people click on your (read “the very latest–last minute–no, wait, less second–no, even more recent!) content.

How do you maintain a sense of privacy in a world where cars equipped with giant cameras cruise the streets taking candid photos? That’s a question many Canadians must now be asking themselves since Google Street View went live in numerous Canadian cities yesterday afternoon.

Google Street View, which has attracted criticism in the United States and elsewhere throughout the world, challenges our collective notion of privacy. Legally, a person standing on a public street does not have a reasonable expectation privacy. However, does that mean that they also have no say over whether or not their image is displayed to millions of Internet users worldwide?

Canada’s Privacy Commissioner, Jennifer Stoddart, has been in the news frequently lately for her attempts to advance privacy efforts and hold websites more accountable for protecting users’ rights. Perhaps unsurprisingly, Stoddart was quick to warn Google that Street View was in potential conflict with Canada’s privacy laws. Her efforts prompted Google to institute new technology that blurs out faces and license plates. While this technology is not always effective, it is a significant step for Google and a sign that the company is willing to work with local governments on privacy issues.

The work that Jennifer Stoddart and other political leaders like her are doing is admirable, but government intervention alone will not solve our continually evolving privacy problems. Rather, there must be a concerted and combined effort between individuals, government entities, and private businesses. As we continue to celebrate National Cyber Security Awareness Month, we should all think of ways to make the Internet a safer and more useful place.

Today all the world remembers the tragedy of September 11th, 2001. The Reputation.com team extends its thoughts and prayers to the families of those who were lost, and to the American and allied armed forces now operating abroad in harm’s way.  We wish you a safe return.  This native New Yorker remembers the beauty of the Twin Towers and looks forward to the day in which a new structure stands in its place.  Here in America, there is always hope, there is always a better day if we want it enough.

Kudos to CNET  for obtaining a copy of the bill Senators Rockefeller and Snowe are proposing for enhanced cyber security, entitled the Cyber Security Act of 2009. Much of the bill is non-controversial, pushing federal agencies to bulk up their electronic defenses against hacking and similar threats.  One provision of the legislation gives the president broad powers to direct Internet traffic and examine electronic data when he or she declares a “cyber emergency.”

The problem is that the circumstances warranting a cyber emergency remain undefined in the bill. The strongest argument I can think of off-hand for keeping the conditions justifying such an emergency declaration vague is that threats to cyber security evolve rapidly, probably more rapidly than threats to other types of security.  We therefore don’t want to hamstring our government from taking intelligent and swift action in response to the legitimate threats of tomorrow because we have overdefined the problems in the terms of what we understand today. (In fact, in this space and in the media more broadly, we have made the point that highly defined Internet legislation from the mid-1990s, particularly the Communications Decency Act, has yielded perverse and unintended outcomes in the field of Internet libel law, for example.)

However, there is something about the scope of the powers given to the president under the bill as written that makes the current formulation disquieting.  It would be better, I think, to limit the powers of the president in one of a few ways.  First, the bill could limit the president’s power to declare an emergency by saying that such an emergency could last only five or ten days before requiring congressional approval.  Second, the president could be required to seek congressional approval in the first instance: in the past, in times of grave national threat, Congress has acted to nationalize or take control of vital industries and assets.  Third, the bill could offer further and reasonably future-scalable definition as to what constitutes an emergency.  This bill doesn’t offer limitations of this kind.  As a country, we’re smart enough to do better.

Over the last 15 years, the Internet has become the dominant portal for media consumption for today’s generation. As this shift has occurred, intelligent commentators from the world of publishing, journalism, technology, business, and academia have brought forth many interesting and nuanced views on the scope of this change and its effect on modern culture. Recently, I came across two excellent articles that explored some of the most urgent and important issues of the Digital Age.

The first article, “Good Times,” written by Jessa Crispin for The Smart Set from Drexel University, explores the importance of being kind online. 

From the article:

“A common complaint about the Internet, whether it’s being leveled by a journalist who just lost his newspaper job or someone who found herself the target of online rage, is that it’s such a shallow, spiteful place. While it’s a ludicrous statement — the Internet is merely a medium, not anything homogeneous — the complaint is valid in large, and vocal, parts of the online world. It’s odd that in this age of loosened borders and individualism, online you can be drowned out with boos and hisses just by stating an off-center position. Sure, the idyllic promise of the Internet is that it can bring you news from around the world and expose you to people and things you never would have seen otherwise, but in reality many of us use it simply as an echo chamber.”

The second article, “The News About the Internet,” by Michael Massing for the New York Review of Books explores the role the Internet, particularly blogs, play in the dissemination of news. I explored this topic myself in a recent post here at the Reputation.com Blog.

From Massing’s article:

“This image of the Internet as parasite has some foundation. Without the vital news-gathering performed by established institutions, many Web sites would sputter and die. In their sweep and scorn, however, such statements seem as outdated as they are defensive. Over the past few months alone, a remarkable amount of original, exciting, and creative (if also chaotic and maddening) material has appeared on the Internet. The practice of journalism, far from being leeched by the Web, is being reinvented there, with a variety of fascinating experiments in the gathering, presentation, and delivery of news. And unless the editors and executives at our top papers begin to take note, they will hasten their own demise.”