#JeffJarvis craps out another book - of crap

Mr. Google fluffer and new media fluffer is now saying don't worry about privacy online in his latest book, reviewed by CNN.

Well, Jeff Jarvis is about as insightful, and right, on new media, as Jay Rosen, which is to say bupkis. And, his head is buried so far up Google I've rhetorically asked before if Larry Paige and/or Sergey Brin actually pay him.

Jarvis then apparently excuses the privacy fears of our brave new online world, the book notes, by way of a bad analogy:

At best, Public Parts is a reminder that when any new technology is introduced -- be it the growing social capabilities of the Internet or the movable type of the printing press -- the immediate reaction is often fear. Jarvis points out that the earliest books were riddled with errors. These printed mistakes could suddenly spread widely and therefore they were considered to be more dangerous to society.

Jarvis' claim that errors are OK because "early books were riddled with errors"? What bullshit. Errors improved. People came to expect better.

Let's try this at the Challenger hearings.

Well, Dr. Feynmann, it's OK for O-rings today to be brittle in cold weather because early ones were.

Now, that said, Jarvis is actually apparently analogizing from errors in early books to worries about any new technology. And, it's a crappy analogy. For one thing, errors had little to do with the "fear" of the new technology. Second, books didn't affect privacy circa 1500.

Those of us concerned about privacy expect it to get better in the future. We don't expect excuse-making instead, or claims we should flaunt ourselves online.

And that's key to the "meat" of the book, per CNN. If you're in a "secure" place financially and socially, like Jarvis, you can be more of an online "exhibitionist" than otherwise.

If you're a person worried about what your employer might see you writing on Facebook or Google+, or blogging, you'd like more privacy. If you're a person worried about telecommunications laws and the government forcing such private entities to turn over information, you'd definitely like more privacy. (Maybe TSA, reading about Jarvis, will give his cancer-treatment-treated prostate an extra fondling next time he flies.)

Anyway, I read one Jarvis book; that's enough to last me three or four lifetimes.

Charter Communications selling your info …

And not paying you for it, either

Out in Los Angeles, Charter is giving media survey company A.C. Nielsen data from 330,000 subscribers' digital set-top boxes , for Nielsen to then sell to private advertisers for demographic research.

To protect the privacy of its customers, no identifying information will be included in the data, said Jim Heneghan, senior vice president for ad sales for Charter.... The information will show when a digital set-top box is turned on, the specific channel the box is tuned to and whether a show is being recorded. It will reveal when channels are switched and when the television is turned off. …

Despite Charter's assurances that data about individual customers would be guarded, some privacy advocates expressed concern about the growing industry of selling details about consumer behavior.

"Where does it stop? The company could promise anonymity today and then change their privacy policies tomorrow," said Beth Givens, director of the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse in San Diego.

Exactly. It likely won’t stop. You think Charter would have some big press release when it did start releasing more private information.

Here’s what Nielsen is going to do”

Beginning in about two months, Nielsen will start selling the Charter data to its clients, primarily the television networks, cable channels and advertisers. Nielsen and Charter declined Wednesday to discuss financial details.

That’s the other part of the ripoff. Charter is going to make huge bucks on this, but do you think your cable bill in L.A. is going to be reduced? Not a chance.

Thank doorknobs I still use rabbit ears.