Thursday, 15 August 2013
Apple's on the bounce again. 100 Billion usd gain in 48 days.
Apple is on the bounce again. An extraordinary capital gain (market cap) of 100 billion usd in a month and a half. Shares are just over 500 usd.
An average of 49 Wall Street shops, estimate it should be 525 usd.
In June, their shares were at 2011 levels so this is some ride. And not a good one because that shows both volatility and uncertainty.
They did report good numbers for Q3 (although net profit still declines) and they had a Twitter bounce from an investor, Carl Icahn, showing confidence through seeking accelerated share buy-back programs. Of course Icahn's two tweets also increased his own Apple wealth.
However, if Apple does so and uses its cash pile to buy back stock, the share price will likely extend further - with some suggesting 700 usd, its all-time high.
But with, wait for it, Apple have 145 billion usd in cash and a real strong market brand so Apple is still great and it's still innovating although not to the same extent.
The new Iphone launch in September should further boost matters and the expected launch of a cheaper, limited IPhone will help too. Apple TV could dominate that market too.
IPhone releases have historically pushed up share values - but be careful - everyone knows that. However, things are good at Apple and just got a whole lot better in the last month and a half, with good expectations ahead. But the volatility is a worry....you can gain a 100 billion in a month but the converse applies.
With their levels of cash though, it's a long, long way to fall.
Tuesday, 13 August 2013
Personal Jet-Pack gets experimental licence in N Zealand. Big breakthrough for personal flying.
The great thing about being in tech and digital is that nothing is ridiculous. Email 10 years ago was a fantasy..... never mind downloading music or books to your phone. When I was selling email to corporates, the biggest obstacle was that "no one else has it". 10 years ago.
Invention requires the ridiculous thought.
For many years now I've dreamt that transport, personal transport, was the next frontier. Getting from A to B in a car, with all the traffic and road building needs, seems an old fashioned way to go. Far better, to use the uncluttered sky and far quicker. I have no doubt that my kids will travel this way.
NASA have been developing an all electric, one-man home plane called 'Puffin' which flies with vertical take-off and landing allowing you to "park" in your back garden. Not there yet, but it will be.
But yesterday, New Zealand Air regulators have licensed a personal jet pack developed by 'Martin Aircraft' called the P12. It's an experimental personal permit allowing testing 20 feet above ground on un-inhabited water or land areas but it's a big leap forward. The pilot (you and me) straps themselves into a frame and controls it by way of two joysticks with a rocket propelled parachute in the event of trouble.
Ideal, initially, for first-time responders such as emergency crews, and indeed with clear military applications, it is expected to be available generally to the N Zealand public in 2015. Ambitious perhaps, but it is on the way. And it's expensive....for now.
It's also big and cumbersome - not unlike the first computers - but all of that will develop, producing a better, lighter, more affordable version. The big driver here will be demand and unlimited demand there will undoubtedly be.
There's a real sense that technology is easily well advanced to provide personal flying and regulators will come on board in time. It's the new frontier that will require so many sub-systems (mapping, comms, etc) it's going to create another technology wave.
My kids will fly to work. Ridiculous? There's no doubt about it.
Thursday, 8 August 2013
Bezo's buys The Washington Post. Why?
Jeff Bezo's purchase of The Washington Post (and it seems to be him personally rather than his company Amazon) still flummoxes me.
He paid a big price - 250 million usd in cash, about 17 times the ebitda profit which is a high multiple - it would for example, give The New York Times a valuation of about 4 billion usd (way ahead of its current market cap).
Such a high price that it's hard to see it as being a straightforward financial play. He's not in it to get his money back running The Post as normal. Especially when you consider further falls in circulation and advertising.
So why?
Clearly he's bought a big brand. The Washington Post is considered erstwhile and authoritative but that being said, one wonders what does he see in newspaper publishing that justifies the price? And what does he see that the current Graham family owners couldn't?
It has been suggested that he just wanted to save an American institution - perhaps, because billionaires like to own newspapers and restaurants (vanity purchasing). The Post of course, was famed for the Woodward/Bernstein Watergate reporting and 250m is pocket money for a man worth possibly, 28 billion usd. Add to that, Bezo's comments that he won't be involved "day-to-day" would seem to indicate that vanity is not the driver.
However, he is known too as a soft hearted, decent guy and without any vanity.
Of course there's the potential for an e-paper play with great distribution potential through his Kindle business. A great newspaper delivered in a great new way. Possibly.
But fundamentally this buys him influence. Although clearly as the Amazon founder he had some of that too, but a newspaper owner gets you into the corridors of power. Papers like The Washington Post, make and break politicians. Make and break Presidents.
So I think that he doesn't have a plan just yet.... but he knows that it will bring kudos and influence - good enough for now. Then he can spend time thinking about how to change online publishing with a world class brand. At 250 million, that might be justification in itself.
Bezo's has gone from techy to establishment. With a 28 billion fortune, 250 million might represent a good investment in just that. Political influence.
Thursday, 1 August 2013
UK National Newspapers. 9% pay for online news. Will a billionaire buy them?
Interesting numbers on UK Newspapers from this month's Economist (always well worth a read by the way).
Since 2008, the UK nationals circulation (Britain has 12 nationals) has been in decline and much more when compared to the US, Japan and Europe. They're down by 25%.
UK newspapers traditionally have depended on the casual reader buying off the cover (so a new Royal baby is a great fillip for them) rather than a daily buying habit or subscriptions. Tabloid headlines consequently, are key here to attract that casual reader in the newsagent.
But it is far easier for a reader not to buy a newspaper in the shop there and then, rather than cancel a subscription which is the prominent way newspapers are sold in the US for example.
The Telegraph (superb publication), FT, Guardian, Independent and Times all are all pushing subscriptions and with some success. From December 2008 to May 2013, subscriptions have gone from 26% to 41% of overall circulation.
The Telegraph for example, are giving away a free Kindle with every subscription and others are bundling digital access with the sub. Clearly too, subs are better revenue long term and give numbers on readers profiles which can be used for targeted Ads.
9% of British readers are paying for online news (paywalls) up from 4% in 2012. Some newspapers are adding content to their digital edition such as The Sun with clips of Premier League soccer games. Creating more worthwhile content that's worth paying for rather than just, an online version of the newspaper.
All of this though, is not compensating for the loss in Advertising revenue. Newspaper Ad revenue estimated by The Economist, will be 2 billion stg, about half of its 2005 level. The Times loses money, despite its successful paywall.
Like Ireland however, Britain has too many newspapers for the number of readers - it is an over saturated market. And free-sheets, such as The Evening Standard, prosper.
So with the circulation declines and albeit the efforts to grow subs, the decline in Ads and the march of online, will mean that things will tighten up through the potential closure of some of those 12 titles. Nevermind competitive threats from other and new media. Although as someone said, newspapers are like soccer clubs....some billionaire will buy them.
Indeed. Like Ireland.
Monday, 29 July 2013
Publicis + Omnicom merge Sunday. One response to the ongoing march of digital?
The merger announced yesterday of the 2nd and 3rd largest Ad Agencies, Publicis and Omnicom, is indicative of the threat of digital.
You'll note the PR Merger photo above of both CEO's had the recognisable Arc de Triomphe as a backdrop.....lest anyone be confused who's in charge here. Publicis are a very proud French Group (I worked with them).
Whilst creating the world's biggest Agency Group (leap-frogging WPP's 17 billion), they will have combined revenues of circa 23 billion usd. That's a long way short of Google's 50 billion usd and importantly, both agencies have been able to show little organic growth in a depressed, changing, Ad Agency landscape.
They are established, mature, traditional Ad businesses who are suffering from losses of revenues to digital Agencies and consequently have been showing only single digit growth. Omnicom grew by 2% in the first half whereas Publicis by 1.3% and after suffering a 6%+ decline in Europe.
Their new combined market cap is 35 billion usd whilst Google? 295 billion.
Traditional Ad spending is slowing globally and even in new markets such as Asia and China, only showing 5-7% growth as Clients move away from the traditional Ad and Ad Agency, model.
From a client viewpoint, the merger does bring more media muscle - bad news for already hard pressed media owners. However, conflict of clients will always be a problem here.
Good creative has nothing to do with size except, a larger Agency will have more creative resources.
The key to this is the merger savings (estimated at 500 million usd) in an attempt at helping profitability......but that's a lot of pain, a lot of job losses.
Mergers like this, whilst improving shareholders income (both shareholder sets will be 50:50) through cost-savings, does not deal with the core issue - the traditional Agency model is wrong.
Agencies give away their ideas in the hope to profit off the creation and implementation of the work itself. And they continually pooh-pooh digital which clients want, rather than jumping on board.
We will see what happens but in order to achieve those "merger efficiencies" as they say, expect changes at a local country level. Which will mean mergers of local Agencies and redundancies.
But fundamentally it's a response globally to one thing - the ongoing "threat" of digital to Ad Agency revenue.
A case of, rather merge, than deal with the big issue.....
(Pretty good insight here too from Business Insider http://www.businessinsider.com/heres-the-big-downside-to-the-publicis-omnicom-merger-2013-7)
Thursday, 25 July 2013
Pay your bills with your face. Keep smiling.
Pay your bills with your face.
Like fingerprints, facial recognition software is even more foolproof and whilst it has been in development for things like security access at Banks, Hospitals and so on, it has never been used for payments.
What happens is that the payment provider holds your encrypted credit card data and your facial features. When you go to pay for something, you simply look into a camera (like at an Airport), it recognises you, clears the payment and you just click 'ok'.
So no need for plastic, no need for cash. Ideal if you're abroad or just stuck somewhere. Furthermore, it has big implications as it develops, for credit card issuers like Visa/Amex. It also has implications for currency exchange businesses and banks.
Developed by a Finnish company, Uniqul, it has been tested in Helsinki according to Mashable. But of course, the key here is the cost and uptake of the camera kit by retailers. You need retailers onside first and foremost and then the confidence of consumers.
But people will like it once they see it works and have used it once. It's a much easier way to pay and the initial intrigue, will drive it on. Furthermore, it should be more secure and overcome credit card theft and ATM phishing frauds. So it's a safer way to pay.
The world just changed.
Tuesday, 23 July 2013
Tired of The Royal Baby? The Guardian has another version of its site for you today.
The Birth of a Royal Baby is big news for one part of UK society but a bit of a yawn for the other. Notably, the birth was greeted by a poor response on Twitter, well behind The Pope for example.
But of course it's "local" news in one way whereas The Pope is more well, "global" really.
But for those tired of the Royal Baby news, UK publisher The Guardian, has developed today, two versions of its site - one royal baby free and one royal baby full. A Toggle switch in the top right allows readers to move to whichever version they prefer.
Interestingly, they named the button, 'not a royalist?' and you just click through it if you're not for extra sports and entertainment coverage instead. Although The Guardian did this before for the marriage of Prince William, it does open an interesting idea for newspaper publishers to produce and extend different versions of their site.
Perhaps Sports free? or Sports full? Or entertainment free or full? And so on.
Generating perhaps new readers and perhaps new Ad revenue. In some ways www.independent.ie have made steps in this way with both their I Magazines and notably, 'Independent Woman'.
However, The Guardian is offering a totally different edition rather than add-ons. One small step in the individualisation of news?
Friday, 19 July 2013
Heineken. Extensive JFK Airport promotion has one thing in mind. The video.
Heineken have a large sign, like a 48 sheet poster, at JFK Airport, Terminal 9, that asks people who are travelling (passengers who have come through security on their way to the departure gate), to 'Drop everything, push the button'.
When they do, they're faced with a roulette of many destinations where they're sent to. But you have to be ready to commit, drop your existing travel plans and go there and then to wherever Heineken sends you. One guy got sent to Alaska.
Interestingly, most refuse to push the button.
It's creating a stir because of the audacity of it and in some cases, given the needs for Visas, that it has all "been staged". But it's bringing huge PR gains.
The idea however, behind the stunt, is YouTube.
Once you decide to push the button, your trip is filmed all the way for a video series on YouTube, which is where the real audience is. It shows the power of video online so much so, that Heineken would design an elaborate stunt such as this, just to get good watchable video.
Or more importantly, good viral video. Much like Pepsi have done recently, to encourage 'home made' prank video.
The cost of this Heineken promotion is huge and will be extended to other airports. They understand though, that it has huge video potential and consequently, it's worth it.
Online video is huge and getting bigger. But to stand out, you need video that's watchable, shareable and it starts with a stunt like this.
When they do, they're faced with a roulette of many destinations where they're sent to. But you have to be ready to commit, drop your existing travel plans and go there and then to wherever Heineken sends you. One guy got sent to Alaska.
Interestingly, most refuse to push the button.
It's creating a stir because of the audacity of it and in some cases, given the needs for Visas, that it has all "been staged". But it's bringing huge PR gains.
The idea however, behind the stunt, is YouTube.
Once you decide to push the button, your trip is filmed all the way for a video series on YouTube, which is where the real audience is. It shows the power of video online so much so, that Heineken would design an elaborate stunt such as this, just to get good watchable video.
Or more importantly, good viral video. Much like Pepsi have done recently, to encourage 'home made' prank video.
The cost of this Heineken promotion is huge and will be extended to other airports. They understand though, that it has huge video potential and consequently, it's worth it.
Online video is huge and getting bigger. But to stand out, you need video that's watchable, shareable and it starts with a stunt like this.
Wednesday, 17 July 2013
Budweiser is trying to own music. But then, isn't everyone.
Budweiser is trying to own music. But then, isn't everyone.
I know of a number of brands who are trying to get into this space with dedicated music channels for users. The problem is, they won't and don't own music - that's Spotify, ITunes and a myriad of dedicated online streamers.
Budweiser has got into business with Facebook (10m bud fans there) and Vice with what they call their 'Made for Music' campaign trying to connect music fans with Bud. It includes "behind the scenes" video and photos. They're also focussed on helping new bands break into the spotlight - or read that as they're not prepared to pay the costs of streaming established bands.
There's also a Budweiser music festival.
There's nothing wrong with this per se - save the clear problems targeting music fans on Facebook who are under drinking age which has to be/should be a big big issue - except, if you're going to do it, do it right.
You need topline bands and artists that are available on the likes of Ireland's own, Muzu.tv. And music costs through royalties, big time. It's not cheap at the top end.
But there is no other way. Get into bed with a big established music online provider or frankly, don't do it.
It's just in danger of being as naff as it sounds.
Wednesday, 10 July 2013
After Snowden. A secrecy App, spy-proof, now being funded. Great Business thinking.
NSA Whstleblower Edward Snowden says he doesn't want to live anywhere, where his life is recorded.
The spying issue is of course about privacy (and far more) but re-enforces the need for security in transactions online - whether by email, text, phone, social media.
Not just as ordinary citizens but clearly, as businesses. A breach of business security could of course, cost millions nevermind the Government knowing what you're up to.
Consequently, a very smart move by Peter Sunde, a founder of 'Pirate Bay' to start thinking of a "bullet proof" App which would allow total secrecy in conversations. Called heml.is (he's Swedish) it's a messaging platform that no one can spy on (https://heml.is/)
It's being crowd funded at the moment looking to get 100k usd for development. And frankly, it's inspired.
There's a huge market for secrecy now following the Snowden revelations and no more so then for business, who will pay a premium for it.
Every cloud and all that.
Somebody is thinking all the time.
Monday, 8 July 2013
Samsung has it problems. It has sold too many mobile phones.
You would think that of all the smartphone makers, Samsung is the one with the least problems on its mind. And it's not.
Since March, about 20 billion usd has been wiped off its value and recent warnings that profits will be lower than expected are causing market issues. That warning is, I kid you not, 8.3 billion usd profit in the second quarter and up a staggering +47% on last year. But it's not enough. Shares have declined circa -18% in the last month.
It has a 33% market dominant mobile phone share and smartphones account for about 74% of profit.
The main issue here is market saturation. Mobile phone sales are slowing - well, doesn't everyone have one - and more and more they need bigger advertising/marketing pushes which cost more and more money. So the investor confidence and outlook in the mobile phone sector is declining. Blackberry's problems typify this and HTC profits declined over -80% year on year.
Samsung are now reliant on mobile phones with their household entertainment products under more threat through reductions in consumer spending (recession) and major price competition.
Samsung have been and continue to be a hugely successful, massively profitable company. Their new Galaxy phone recently sold 10m units within a month of launch and yet, their faced with a serious decline.
Purely and simply because they're now in a market which has reached saturation and they can't show that they're able to move it along. Very reminiscent of Microsoft - a great company once that dominated the wrong space.
Interesting. Inspiration and Innovation required. Remember Nokia.
Friday, 5 July 2013
A stunning, magnificent creative idea in an online video for Honda. Beautiful, really.
Really lovely piece of work from Honda. "Let's see what curiosity can do" is an online video rather than a TV commercial per se and shows the heritage of Honda starting with The Honda 50.
It's a lovely piece of work given the massive difficulties this type of transitional video causes. It is tricky in the extreme.
It comes as no surprise to me that it was produced by Wieden + Kennedy London http://wklondon.com/work having produced the original "domino" Honda commercial.
I was going to say that they're a traditional Advertising Agency but of course, they're not. They're a creative Agency which understand that good work is good work no matter where it is.
They also created the incredible Honda "grrr" idea which you can see on the link below.
"Hate something, change something, make something better....." Inspired voice over/singer choice by American writer, Garrison Keillor ('Lake Wobegon Days' etc). http://wklondon.com/work/view/honda_grrr#!prettyPhoto. Inspired copywriting too. Ridiculously good.
Nevermind their work on Nike, Tesco and others.
What makes this great though is its simplicity. Honda have a story to tell about where they've come from and where they're going and this tells that story in a visually interesting and entertaining way.
Magnificent really.
Wednesday, 3 July 2013
Consumers chose 'recommendation by friends' over advertising. Both can work.
Mashable, the once great Techy site, has run another ridiculous story today about 'Do Consumers believe in advertising?'
http://mashable.com/2013/07/03/infographic-advertising-do-you-buy-it/
It's up there with their other stories today about a woman building a prosthetic leg from Lego and the 12 penny pinching cats. It all went wrong when it was bought for 200 million usd by CNN. Anyway...
However the story has a point in one way.
Of course Advertising works. Of course it sells, but one interesting piece from the article is an infographic. What it shows is that people mostly trust "recommendations from people I know" over other forms of advertising.
Of course too, word-of-mouth has always been the most powerful marketing tool.
Advertising's first job is to inform - tell people that the product is available and then try to make them like it. Often referred to usefully as 'I see it, I like it, I buy it'. Without advertising, you simply wouldn't know the product exists. And if you don't know it exists, it can't go on your shopping list.
The olden days, the golden days of advertising were based on 'demonstration' where live commercials interrupted programmes and showed the product.
Consequently, the role of recommendation or word-of-mouth is now more key than ever. And Social Media fits into this part of advertising, perfectly.
Perfectly for example, through Facebook posts encouraging followers to comment/recommend; through Twitter by starting a hashtag and a conversation; through Instagram and Vine Video by showing the product and sharing it; through website video explaining it. And so on.
Skype has a role as does Google hangouts to have brands go online and talk to potential customers.
So it's this Social Media element that fits WITH advertising to encourage recommendation.
Not that we didn't really know that..... but because it's becoming the most important feature (as the Mashable story points out), it's not getting the push it needs. Not getting the budget as traditional agencies continue to rubbish it and not getting the strategy because planners don't understand it.
It should be part of any mainstream activity - if not central to it. Advertise the product but in tandem, encourage recommendation through Social Media activity.
People always think you Ad is "selling to me" - which it is - but if the brand offering stands up, get in deeper with purchasers. Show them how the brand helps and get them to tell their friends not through continuous, mindless, Advertising but through on-the-ground social media activity.
An online fashion show will help to sell the dress; Twitter tips on "how to" will sell the beauty products; Facebook pics and fact sheets will help show off the car; Skype programmes will help answer consumer questions on the new Financial product.....
Traditional and Digital are not mutually exclusive. They are in tandem and more powerful when they are. Ad Agencies still ignore it substantially and live in the dream that it will go away. Stopping digital is like standing on Dollymount Beach and trying to push out the tide.
If advertising and agencies don't become more engaged, they will lose.
It is after all, what the client wants. And more importantly, what the consumer buys. Recommendation. Your job is simply to encourage that.
Friday, 28 June 2013
Blackberry. Big loss means even tougher times as shares tank. This is now about survival.
Blackberry (or Crackberry as it was known), I've been keeping an eye on and blogged about before.
In July 2012 I thought they were in a death spiral then and this might give you background - http://streamabout.blogspot.ie/2012/07/blackberry-death-spiral-possible-end.html.
The appointment of Alicia Keys as Global Creative Director was, well, a WTF moment - http://streamabout.blogspot.ie/2013/01/a-wtf-moment-blackberry-10-launches-and.html
The smartphone and playbook maker has been struggling for some time.... although poor results have been balanced with an optimism that things well get better.
Well they haven't.
Today the share is tanking -25% on foot of results from the last quarter and optimism has waned - to say the least. Thorsten Heins the CEO isn't exactly Steve Jobs and I'm not sure anyway, that he's inspiring. Poor English under an accent is never good in the old communication stakes and a more polished spokesperson might have been a better idea.
They lost 84m dollars in Q1 and predicted more losses in Q2 expected. They have also scrapped plans to update their Playbook, an indication that they've given up the ghost on that too. And subscriber numbers were not disclosed either (although rumour has it, they're down by 4 million).
Although it has to be said, their Revenue was up +15% and their accumulated cash improved.
Blackberry have put their future on their BB10/Z10 smartphone which was late to the market and these results are the first full quarter where the device has been available.
They shipped (which is different to "sold") 6.8m smartphones in the quarter which compares with Apple's 37million nevermind Samsung's 60 million-ish.
The critical issue here is that these results have disappointed in that they show no sign of a hoped-for turnaround.
Blackberry was once a dominant brand in smartphones and simply it has been overtaken by innovation of the Iphone and Samsung and others. Leadership of the company was focused on cost-cutting rather than building better brands and are now paying a price.
With market chatter today negatively and the corresponding collapse in share price, will make this a really difficult period for them. Really difficult. Early share price rallies have been wiped out and more at issue has been the wipe-out of confidence.
Survival is now the watchword for the once great brand.
Monday, 24 June 2013
The Guardian reveals Britain's GCHQ is the biggest spier of them all. They tap into fibre-optic cables called 'Tempora'. Extraordinary.
The Guardian is really on the spying case and has revealed that Britain's spy agency GCHQ has secretly gained access to cables which carry vast amounts of the world's phone/data traffic. They are literally, physically, tapping into those cables.
It is also sharing that collected data with its friends in America, The NSA.
Codenamed Tempora, they've been drawing down the data from fibre-optic cables for some 18 months and it includes content of emails, all phone call data, facebook postings and data history (of visited websites). The disclosure comes from Edward Snowden.
Last year, the British were handling 600 million data "events" a day - that's a lot of data and probably makes them bigger spiers than any other country. It was done as the cables or pipes landed physically on British shores and with the co-operation clearly of commercial companies. All under the ongoing defence of the needs for 'national security' but one has the wonder if the biggest threat to national security is indeed the Government itself.
For example, one of the secret justifications by GCHQ outside of terrorism is "economic well-being" which covers a multitude. Perhaps currency trading? Market data? And the fact that they'll defend this by saying that they discard much of the data (which they do) it's because the documents reveal, that they simply don't have the resources - yet. Not because they want to discard it.
And it gives them the option to look back over discarded material when they need to.
There's no doubt now that the UK and US Governments have extensive digital spying networks on the privacy of their own citizens. Whilst few would disagree that the goal of preventing terrorism is worthy, few would agree that the use of data for political ends is. And these networks allow for that abuse.
Trust me too, this data is being used improperly and without control. Nixon had to break into the Watergate building, Obama and Cameron, don't. They just have to watch from behind their desks. Be sure, they are.
Wednesday, 19 June 2013
Superman. The Movie. The Ads. 160 Million dollars of them.
Stunning way to finance a new movie like the new 'Superman'. Stunning, in that they've done 160 million usd in promotional deals.
That's not just product placement within the movie but also the use of Superman for TV commercials. Over 100 "promotional partners", they have produced a string of fast food commercials featuring the Man of Steel himself and some, directed by the movie crew.
Which of course, means conflict in the fast food arena but still, 160 million goes a long way to paying for the movie and ensuring its success. Of course too, there's the online spin-offs.
But it's an extraordinarily high amount of money in promotional terms. We'll keep an eye to see how over-extended it is.
Tuesday, 18 June 2013
Miss Utah @ Miss World. Looking forward to the swimsuit section.
The Terrific Miss Utah does the Miss World contest Q&A and dispels any remaining rumours that women in beauty parades are, well, a bit thick. Or that beauty competitions are in any way demeaning.
Think she'll be looking forward to the swimsuit section then.
Tuesday, 11 June 2013
Edward Snowden. The USA Prism spying whisteblower. Here's his interview from Hong Kong before he went on the run.
Edward Snowden, the 29 year old who revealed the US Government's spying secrets called 'Prism' in part, has now gone underground.
(Previous blogs here http://streamabout.blogspot.ie/2013/06/obama-prism-spying-now-extends-to-uk.html and here http://streamabout.blogspot.ie/2013/06/us-government-data-spying-prism-this-is.html)
He originally made his documents available to The Washington Post and The Guardian from a hotel in Hong Kong (The Hotel Mira in Kowloon) because he believed it was a safe place given China's involvement in Hong Kong. He also talked about Iceland as being another safe-haven. However, he's now on the run (OTR as the IRA refer to it!).
There is no warrant for his arrest, but there will be, as The US Government hunt him down and charge him with treason (not unlike the Bradley Manning Wikipedia case). An extradition understanding does exist between Hong Kong and the US but requires Chinese approval.
He is unquestionably, a human rights activist and has done the world a favour.
A former operative of the US NSA, through various subcontractors (most recently a company called 'Booz Allen') he lived in Hawaii and said he could access your emails, your passwords, your credit cards and phone records. Given that Ireland is a hub for many Internet companies and are supported by servers based in the US, your data is probably in there too.
Here is a transcript of the interview he gave to The Guardian;
Edward Snowden: "My name is Ed Snowden, I'm 29 years old. I worked for Booz Allen Hamilton as an infrastructure analyst for NSA in Hawaii.
Glenn Greenwald: "What are some of the positions that you held previously within the intelligence community?"
Snowden: "I've been a systems engineer, systems administrator, senior adviser for the Central Intelligence Agency, solutions consultant, and a telecommunications informations system officer."
Greenwald: "One of the things people are going to be most interested in, in trying to understand what, who you are and what you are thinking is there came some point in time when you crossed this line of thinking about being a whistleblower to making the choice to actually become a whistleblower. Walk people through that decision making process."
Snowden: "When you're in positions of privileged access like a systems administrator for the sort of intelligence community agencies, you're exposed to a lot more information on a broader scale then the average employee and because of that you see things that may be disturbing but over the course of a normal person's career you'd only see one or two of these instances. When you see everything you see them on a more frequent basis and you recognize that some of these things are actually abuses. And when you talk to people about them in a place like this where this is the normal state of business people tend not to take them very seriously and move on from them."
"But over time that awareness of wrongdoing sort of builds up and you feel compelled to talk about. And the more you talk about the more you're ignored. The more you're told its not a problem until eventually you realize that these things need to be determined by the public and not by somebody who was simply hired by the government."
Greenwald: "Talk a little bit about how the American surveillance state actually functions. Does it target the actions of Americans?"
Snowden: "NSA and intelligence community in general is focused on getting intelligence wherever it can by any means possible. It believes, on the grounds of sort of a self-certification, that they serve the national interest. Originally we saw that focus very narrowly tailored as foreign intelligence gathered overseas."
"Now increasingly we see that it's happening domestically and to do that they, the NSA specifically, targets the communications of everyone. It ingests them by default. It collects them in its system and it filters them and it analyses them and it measures them and it stores them for periods of time simply because that's the easiest, most efficient, and most valuable way to achieve these ends. So while they may be intending to target someone associated with a foreign government or someone they suspect of terrorism, they're collecting you're communications to do so."
"Any analyst at any time can target anyone, any selector, anywhere. Where those communications will be picked up depends on the range of the sensor networks and the authorities that analyst is empowered with. Not all analysts have the ability to target everything. But I sitting at my desk certainly had the authorities to wiretap anyone from you or your accountant to a Federal judge to even the President if I had a personal e-mail."
Greenwald: "One of the extraordinary parts about this episode is usually whistleblowers do what they do anonymously and take steps to remain anonymous for as long as they can, which they hope often is forever. You on the other hand have decided to do the opposite, which is to declare yourself openly as the person behind these disclosures. Why did you choose to do that?"
Snowden: "I think that the public is owed an explanation of the motivations behind the people who make these disclosures that are outside of the democratic model. When you are subverting the power of government that's a fundamentally dangerous thing to democracy and if you do that in secret consistently as the government does when it wants to benefit from a secret action that it took. It'll kind of give its officials a mandate to go, 'Hey tell the press about this thing and that thing so the public is on our side.' But they rarely, if ever, do that when an abuse occurs. That falls to individual citizens but they're typically maligned. It becomes a thing of 'These people are against the country. They're against the government' but I'm not."
"I'm no different from anybody else. I don't have special skills. I'm just another guy who sits there day to day in the office, watches what's happening and goes, 'This is something that's not our place to decide, the public needs to decide whether these programs and policies are right or wrong.' And I'm willing to go on the record to defend the authenticity of them and say, 'I didn't change these, I didn't modify the story. This is the truth; this is what's happening. You should decide whether we need to be doing this.'"
Greenwald: "Have you given thought to what it is that the US government's response to your conduct is in terms of what they might say about you, how they might try to depict you, what they might try to do to you?"
Snowden: "Yeah, I could be rendered by the CIA. I could have people come after me. Or any of the third-party partners. They work closely with a number of other nations. Or they could pay off the Traids. Any of their agents or assets. We've got a CIA station just up the road and the consulate here in Hong Kong and I'm sure they're going to be very busy for the next week. And that's a fear I'll live under for the rest of my life, however long that happens to be."
"You can't come forward against the world's most powerful intelligence agencies and be completely free from risk because they're such powerful adversaries. No one can meaningfully oppose them. If they want to get you, they'll get you in time. But at the same time you have to make a determination about what it is that's important to you. And if living unfreely but comfortably is something you're willing to accept, and I think it many of us are it's the human nature; you can get up everyday, go to work, you can collect your large paycheck for relatively little work against the public interest, and go to sleep at night after watching your shows."
"But if you realize that that's the world you helped create and it's gonna get worse with the next generation and the next generation who extend the capabilities of this sort of architecture of oppression, you realize that you might be willing to accept any risk and it doesn't matter what the outcome is so long as the public gets to make their own decisions about how that's applied."
Greenwald: "Why should people care about surveillance?"
Snowden: "Because even if you're not doing anything wrong you're being watched and recorded. And the storage capability of these systems increases every year consistently by orders of magnitude to where it's getting to the point where you don't have to have done anything wrong. You simply have to eventually fall under suspicion from somebody even by a wrong call. And then they can use this system to go back in time and scrutinize every decision you've ever made, every friend you've ever discussed something with. And attack you on that basis to sort to derive suspicion from an innocent life and paint anyone in the context of a wrongdoer."
Greenwald: "We are currently sitting in a room in Hong Kong, which is where we are because you travelled here. Talk a little bit about why it is that you came here and specifically there are going to be people…people speculate that what you really intend to do is to defect to the country that many see as the number one rival of the Untied States, which is China. And that what you are really doing is essentially seeking to aid an enemy of the United States with which you intend to seek asylum. Can you talk a little about that?"
Snowden: "Sure. So there's a couple assertions in those arguments that are sort of embedded in the questioning of the choice of Hong Kong. The first is that China is an enemy of the United States. It's not. I mean there are conflicts between the United States government and the Chinese PRC government but the peoples inherently we don't care. We trade with each other freely, we're not at war, we're not in armed conflict, and we're not trying to be. We're the largest trading partners out there for each other."
"Additionally, Hong Kong has a strong tradition of free speech. People think 'Oh China, Great Firewall.' Mainland China does have significant restrictions on free speech but the people of Hong Kong have a long tradition of protesting in the streets, of making there views known. The internet is not filtered here more so then any other western government and I believe that the Hong Kong government is actually independent in relation to a lot of other leading western governments."
Greenwald: "If your motive had been to harm the United States and help its enemies or if your motive had been personal material gain were there things you could have done with these documents to advance those goals that you didn't end up doing?"
Snowden: "Oh absolutely. Anyone in the positions of access with the technical capabilities that I had could suck out secrets, pass them on the open market to Russia; they always have an open door as we do. I had access to the full rosters of everyone working at the NSA, the entire intelligence community, and undercover assets all over the world. The locations of every station, we have what their missions are and so forth."
"If I had just wanted to harm the US? You could shut down the surveillance system in an afternoon. But that's not my intention. I think for anyone making that argument they need to think, if they were in my position and you live a privileged life, you're living in Hawaii, in paradise, and making a ton of money, 'What would it take you to leave everything behind?'"
"The greatest fear that I have regarding the outcome for America of these disclosures is that nothing will change. People will see in the media all of these disclosures. They'll know the lengths that the government is going to grant themselves powers unilaterally to create greater control over American society and global society. But they won't be willing to take the risks necessary to stand up and fight to change things to force their representatives to actually take a stand in their interests."
"And the months ahead, the years ahead it's only going to get worse until eventually there will be a time where policies will change because the only thing that restricts the activities of the surveillance state are policy. Even our agreements with other sovereign governments, we consider that to be a stipulation of policy rather then a stipulation of law. And because of that a new leader will be elected, they'll find the switch, say that 'Because of the crisis, because of the dangers we face in the world, some new and unpredicted threat, we need more authority, we need more power.' And there will be nothing the people can do at that point to oppose it. And it will be turnkey tyranny."
Monday, 10 June 2013
Obama 'Prism' Spying now extends to UK Government.
It would seem that the US Government citizen spying programme called 'Prism', has been used by the British Government as a 'back door' to getting intelligence bypassing British law.
William Hague, the UK Foreign Secretary and former leader of The Conservative Party, will today make a Statement to The House of Commons. A forthright man (we've interviewed him in Streamabout) and generally decent, fair-minded man, gave a dodgy performance on The Andrew Marr show yesterday. Uncharacteristically dodgy, in so far that he was unusually trying to dodge questions, which is not his style.
Indeed, he could easily have asked Theresa May to deal with The House of Commons today but has chosen not to - probably in order to kill the controversy at birth - which he won't be able to.
GCHQ, the UK's listening post has been gathering information through co-operation with The US National Security Agency since 2010 and The Guardian says they've generated at least 197 reports from Prism last year alone. They're circumventing UK legislation. Their work, in their own words, should be carried out "in accordance with a strict legal and policy framework" and it looks like it's not.
Meanwhile Obama, in accepting that Prism exists and goes on, said that his Government "had struck the right balance" in collecting this data in the fight against terrorism. There's nobody doubting that terrorism data needs to be collected however, under a Court order in order to protect the rights of citizens.
It's ironic too given Obama's criticisms of the Bush administration doing something similar (although to a far lesser extent) and on the same day when he is meeting China's President to discuss their spying and their anti-democratic controls.
Ironic too that Obama has called his administration, "the most transparent administration in history". 3 months ago, Senator Ron Wyden a member of The Senate Intelligence Committee no less, asked James Clapper, Director of National Intelligence, "Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions of Americans?". "No sir" came Clappers reply which we now know to be a lie.
Last night the same James Clapper said the Prism programme was "important and valuable". So if your Director of National Intelligence is prepared to lie to an Intelligence Committee Senator, what does that tell you?
Prism collects data on US citizen phone calls (time, length, location on every phone call made in America) and there still remains the controversy about access to internet servers.
Facebook released a statement under Zuckerberg's name, to say "we do not provide any Government with direct access to Facebook servers". Indeed. The key word there is direct access.
But what seems to transpire, according to informed sources, is that they do provide the information through a "drop box" scenario. So the Facebook language revolves around "direct access" when it does seem they do supply it, but just in a different way.
A reported NSA slide show also shows that Microsoft were the first to comply in 2007 and Apple complied last year. It also noted the compliance of Google and Yahoo. We hear too of compliance by Skype, YouTube, PalTalk and AOL.
Twitter does not feature and has come out clearly and strongly of its refusal to take part.
This story is only starting. The difficulty Obama has, is the deceit and furthermore, the manner in which a scheme like Prism has been set up to get around the law. There's never been any problem getting data, just the safeguard is that you do it with a court order.
The British government are starting to get into trouble too for using Prism secretly and again, bypassing law.
But perhaps more pointedly is the use of the data. Whilst the cries of anti-terrorism might have some bearing now, if that data was used politically, it will cause problems. In others words, to identify leaks to media or activities of politicians who are not pro-Obama. It's just the same as breaking into a Watergate building.
It will also cause huge problems to the Internet companies who provide data on you and me, globally and yet feigned privacy.
This is the sort of story that brings down Governments. And rightly so. The whole thing is rotten.
Friday, 7 June 2013
US Government Data Spying 'Prism'. This is worse than Watergate.
There is something very unnerving about the discovery this week of 'Prism', the US Government's ongoing secret collection of big data.
It's particularly surprising from an administration under Obama. And worrying.
The National Security Agency has been collecting personal data on US citizens notably from Verizon (a big telco) getting personal call details. Furthermore, reports also exist that data has been got from Internet platforms Google, Facebook, Apple, Dropbox, AOL, Yahoo and Microsoft. This was reported by The Washington Post.
Although this morning, those companies are denying it quietly, but formal statements are awaited. Never a good sign when you see delays in formal statements because it usually means they need time to craft the language. For example, they may say they're not "participating" in Prism but perhaps comply when asked etc.
And sources in the know, say they are involved. We will see.
And it could spell danger when in the past, these companies have gone to lengths in formal statements about their systems/structures/processes when dealing with Government information requests case-by-case. They've always tried to convey a sense of the enormous lengths they go to in order to protect their customers privacy. If they're involved in Prism, it flies in the face of those statements and could cause SEC problems.
Apple sources today, have said "they've never heard of Prism".
The real issue here through the collection of data, is its use. No doubt the Government will put up arguments about defence needs and home security. They need the data to combat terrorism.
However, in that data will be phone/internet records for example, on Republican politicians and journalists. So if a journalist got a tip-off call on some White House issue, Obama's advisers will now know when and from whom, to whom.
There's never ever been an issue on giving data by ISPs on Terrorism, Crime, Sex offences - never.... and I know because I started one - but only on foot of a Court Order. Go to court, give your reasons and a judge will give you access. No problem.
But the hoovering up ('scuse the pun) of data on everyone is serious, appalling and outrageous in a democracy. It smacks of Nixon and if it's true (which it is in substance) then Obama is going to have real problems a la Watergate. Breaking into offices to get data is one thing, Prism is worse.
However, learn one thing - the US Government is spying on its own citizens.
Tuesday, 4 June 2013
Google bans porn on their glasses. Who'd have thought....
Google Glasses move onwards and upwards prompting this great sketch on Saturday Night Live. Actually, what it shows is the potential limitations of Goggle Glasses and how tricky they might be.
It comes too after Google announced that it was banning porn from the glasses (actually, something I'd never thought of) through banning Apps. So they can control it to a degree but one wonders how they'll limit porn search? With some difficulty I would think.
An App was launched recently which allowed Glass wearers to watch explicit video and pictures and getting 10,000 visitors a day (!). Interesting concept....and it's still up + running.
So when somebody winks at you with Google Glasses, perhaps it's not at you.
Yet again, the porn industry is the first over the line for new technology.
Whilst Apple's Tim Cook says that glasses are not the way forward but that wearable technology was more on the wrist, one wonders if their watch will have wrist action?
And there's no doubt, porn or not, we will all have Google Glasses soon. Trust me.
Tuesday, 28 May 2013
Ad Agencies report online video advertising better than TV. Words are being eaten in this sea change.
There is a sea change in the way that Advertising is changing.
Most Ad Agencies are struggling in their mindset to cope with the switch to digital and trying to recover the reputational damage caused to themselves, by themselves, in early attempts to rubbish it.
It is ironic for me to watch Ad Agencies now claiming to embrace digital, having had years embroiled in debating it with them. Like leopards, they now know where the money is and are desperate to be seen as evangelists, with consequential dire attempts to negate their previous claims of it being, a waste of money. It will be hard to erase their histories on Google though.
Thanks to Mashable today however, they now report that "Advertising executives" admit that the tide of advertising has changed and that online video ads are taking the lead http://mashable.com/2013/05/28/online-videos-tv-advertising/
75% of them said that online video ads are more effective than TV Ads - a drum that Streamabout has been banging for some time. Only 17% said they were "less effective".
The report produced by the reliable 'emarketeer' showed that online video was even more effective than display ads (print ads) and better for direct response. Which it is.
Video views grew by 23% this year - far greater than the declining audience on TV and it will continue to bury traditional TV broadcasters despite their claims. They know it.
Spend on online video is estimated to grow at 40%, outstripping all other media. Except of course, media that embraces online video like newspaper publishers.
It's a sea change alright.
It is, wakey wakey time too.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)