First off, congrats to Nick Carr – we’ve talked with him (and disagreed with him!) often on the blog and we’re thrilled that he managed to go toe-to-toe with Stephen Colbert on last night’s show.
And, thanks to the Colbert Report’s online presence, here’s an embedded player with that interview.
Although the book plugged is “The Big Switch,” the majority of the interview talks more about the implications of dwindling attention spans due to the Internet’s “hyper” hyperlinked nature – a topic not covered in “The Big Switch,” but instead in the cover article Carr wrote for the Atlantic Monthly, “Is Google Making Us Stoopid?”
The idea, as we’ve mentioned before, is that Carr believes the end result of the attention getting behavior of the Internet is that it will “scatter our attention and diffuse our concentration.”
“When the Net absorbs a medium, that medium is recreated in the Net's image. It injects the medium's content with hyperlinks, blinking ads, and other digital gewgaws, and it surrounds the content with the content of other media it has absorbed. A new e-mail message, for instance, may announce its arrival as we're glancing over the latest headlines at a newspaper's site. The result is to scatter our attention and diffuse our concentration.”
During the interview, Colbert made a play of ignoring Carr to check his iPhone. Now, that that does happen in real life, but I’d say that’s more an indication of individual rudeness then of culture spinning on a dime over the concept of hypertext.
The same criticisms that Carr makes of the Internet could be made of the newspaper – you’re trying to read one thing but it’s broken up, put next to all these other interesting articles, and ads designed to catch your attention… with all these… analog gewgaws, how is one supposed to be informed?
While we disagree with Carr’s diagnosis that the Internet causes short attention spans, (I’m a pro-blogger at a tech company, raised on Nintendo and MTV – I’m the poster-child for the 21st century digital boy, and still I managed to summon the concentration to read the book Nick Carr wrote…) we do agree that human attention spans are short.
When I worked at a supermarket retailer, back in the early 2000s, as I’ve mentioned (and complained about) we were using a java-based networking app that took one to two seconds to input each number and move to the next field, and processing the entire report took minutes. The network performance was absolutely horrible, and as I pointed out before, we would have mentioned it in the hopes of having the performance improved somehow, except that we all realized that our jobs were essentially superfluous anyway and that we could all be replaced by a very small shell script that could parse the orders as they came in instead of printing them out and having us enter in all of them by hand.
Of course the lot of us at the data entry farm had CNN.com, Slashdot, and All Your Base Are Belong To Us and Hamsterdance open while we waited for the pages to load. (It was a simpler time back then.)
Of course, if we didn’t have outside Internet access, we could very well have distracted ourselves offline with desktop toys or conversation. We did that often anyway – as I said, it just took forever for those fields to come up.
I’ve also heard, second and third-hand, stories of other companies who are shocked to find that employees are going on to do other tasks while they wait for reports to generate, fields to come up, and pages to load – so if you’re honestly worried about dwindling attention spans, it might be better to not curse Google or the Internet, but to go in and actually improve things where you can.
Recently, a posting on Slashdot linked to a story from PC Magazine called “Texas PC Repair Now Requires PI License.” Obviously, this story has gathered tons of attention, and if strictly true, would have a major impact on IT departments across the state, if not the nation.
The law in question is Texas HB 2833, which is an updated collection of amendments to laws regarding private security services. It explains who, exactly, is required to get a private investigator’s license.
The controversial bit of the law in question seems to be this bit. The underlined part is what has been added:
SECTION 4. Section 1702.104, Occupations Code, is amended to read as follows: Sec. 1702.104. INVESTIGATIONS COMPANY.
(a) A person acts as an investigations company for the purposes of this chapter if the person:
(1) engages in the business of obtaining or furnishing, or accepts employment to obtain or furnish, information related to:
(A) crime or wrongs done or threatened against a state or the United States;
(B) the identity, habits, business, occupation, knowledge, efficiency, loyalty, movement, location, affiliations, associations, transactions, acts, reputation, or character of a person;
(C) the location, disposition, or recovery of lost or stolen property; or
(D) the cause or responsibility for a fire, libel, loss, accident, damage, or injury to a person or to property;
(b) For purposes of Subsection (a)(1), obtaining orfurnishing information includes information obtained or furnished through the review and analysis of, and the investigation into the content of, computer-based data not available to the public.
Because the law can be difficult to interpret, the Texas Private Security Bureau issued an opinion statement which clarified their position on this matter. The controversial statements there seem to be:
Computer Repair & Technical Assistance Services October 18, 2007
Computer repair or support services should be aware that if they offer to perform investigative services, such as assisting a customer with solving a computer-related crime, they must be licensed as investigators… [Text of law posted above.]
Please be aware that providing or offering to provide a regulated service without a license is a criminal offense. TEX. OCC. CODE §§1702.101, 1702.388. Employment of an unlicensed individual who is required to be licensed is also a criminal offense. TEX. OCC. CODE §1702.386.
and:
Computer Forensics August 21, 2007
First, the distinction between “computer forensics” and “data acquisition” is significant. We understand the term “computer forensics” to refer to the analysis of computer-based data, particularly hidden, temporary, deleted, protected or encrypted files, for the purpose of discovering information related (generally) to the causes of events or the conduct of persons. We would distinguish such a content-based analysis from the mere scanning, retrieval and reproduction of data associated with electronic discovery or litigation support services.
For example, when the service provider is charged with reviewing the client’s computer-based data for evidence of employee malfeasance, and a report is produced that describes the computer-related activities of an employee, it has conducted an investigation and has therefore provided a regulated service. On the other hand, if the company simply collects and processes electronic data (whether in the form of hidden, deleted, encrypted files, or otherwise), and provides it to the client in a form that can then be reviewed and analyzed for content by others (such as by an attorney or an investigator), then no regulated service has been provided.
… Consequently, we would conclude that the provider of computer forensic services must be licensed as an investigator, insofar as the service involves the analysis of the data for the purposes described above.
In order to clarify some of this and figure out what this would mean to both personal computer repair technicians and network engineers, analysts and system administrators, we contacted Texas State Representative Joe Driver, who authored the bill, Matt Miller at the Texas branch of the Institute for Justice, which has launched a suit against the Texas Private Security Bureau, and RonEarl Bowie of the Texas Private Security Bureau. We’ll have podcasts and transcripts available on this site soon.
First, Texas State Representative Joe Driver, Author of Texas HB 2833:
Editor Brian Boyko, at NPD: So, could you tell me a little bit about who you are and what you do in the Texas Legislature?
Rep. Joe Driver: Hi. My name’s Joe Driver, I am state representative from Garland, Sachse, and Rowlett area which is Northeast Dallas County. I’m the current chairman of the Law Enforcement Committee, and this is my eighth term.
NPD: How often are each of those terms, two years, four years?
Driver: Two years.
NPD: So you have 16 years of experience writing legislation. And you authored this bill, I believe it’s [Texas] HB 2833?
Driver: Yes, sir.
NPD: Now that's currently a bill, not a law, correct? Or has it been passed?
Driver: No, it's been passed. The governor signed it.
NPD: Let me just bring up the law right here - and I'm looking at it. It is "an act relating to the licensing and regulation of certain private security services." Could you tell me a little bit more about what this act was designed to do?
Driver: Basically, it was a clean-up situation for the Securities Act. We felt like we had to go in and clean some things up. Some of it was old stuff, some of it was new stuff, but basically we worked pretty hard to try to just get it so that it was easier for people to interpret and - you know, some things hadn't been changed for quite a few years, so we were going through it, trying to just basically do a real thorough clean-up, and it turned into what you'd call an omnibus bill which is basically something that encompasses a lot of different areas.
NPD: How has the law changed for people who practice investigative services?
Driver: Well, there's quite a few changes in there. I really truthfully couldn't go into all of it, I mean, it's a pretty good sized bill. Of course, the one that's - there's some area that's getting some, I don't know, "interest" out there, but I think it's interest that has been generated by a group of folks, and basically in their newsletter, they just opened a new chapter in Texas and decided to file a lawsuit. That's all in one sentence - so it sounds like they decided to file the lawsuit so they could bring some attention to their new chapter.
NPD: It does to me that the law... now, I am not a lawyer...
Driver: Me neither.
NPD: I am not a... um... pretty good reader of bills. So, what I wanted to know... The claim is that people who repair personal computers would need to get a private investigator's license in order to continue repairing computers.
Driver: Yeah, and that's what they're claiming. It's interesting that they're claiming all that, and they filed a lawsuit on the same day that they decided to open their Texas chapter. To me, I just felt it was a way they're getting a lot of free publicity, and a lot of free press, and free TV time and free radio time, because the bill to me, it says what it says. There's three words that describe somebody that repairs computers, and that's if people retrieve or provide information, and there's three words that somebody "reviews, analyzes, or investigates" that material, then, they do need to have some sort of security clearance because they're delving into people's private lives or private property on the computer.
NPD: The one thing that I noticed was that it seems very clearly that this is for personal computer investigators, like someone who does analysis to determine whether a crime has been committed or something has been stolen, or intellectual property has been violated. It doesn't seem to me that this would apply to people trying to just recover information for the person's wishes.
Driver: Right, and you're correct. You used one of the key words in my opinion, which is "analyze." "Review, analyze, and investigate" are the three key words, in my opinion, that drive the need for people to have some kind of license. Because if they're doing some of that, then they don't need to be - it doesn't need to be just anybody able to do that - they need to have somebody that has a security license. But if someone's just retrieving information and providing information for someone who is going to analyze, to use one of the words, then that's just a regular computer repair person. And those guys are great, they're good at what they do, and we never intended for them to get any kind of license other than have the ability to repair.
NPD: So, how do you think this came about - you mentioned that there was a new group - I think I may have a copy here of - are you talking about the Institute for Justice?
Driver: Yeah, yeah, that's them. Well, and I think - to me - that - I mean I've got something, I don't know if it’s a press release or just some information about them, but they actually said in here that they tell about how they're the "nation's leading litigators." They have a little cute name for them, and I thought I could think of that, but I'm not coming up with it. But, they basically said, "we fight for the rights of those violated by the government." And they're opening their new Texas chapter today (whenever this was written) by filing a lawsuit against the Texas Private Security Board. So they're kind of kicking off their opening - well, what better to draw attention to someone's opening then to get a lot of free press - they don't have to go out and advertise because - and I'm not criticizing you guys [the media] because, I'm just saying, that - to me, that's what they intended and that's part of what they did.
So. Lawyers can interpret, like you and I know, and we're not both, either one of us, luckily, they can interpret the same word three different ways if you get three different lawyers. And, I think that's what they decided to do here, and - to me, if someone reviews, analyzes, or investigates, they need a license. If they're just retrieving, providing or preparing information, that's what computer companies do, and as long as they want to do that, they're fine.
NPD: There is another possibility though - there is, - you wouldn't call them computer repairmen. There are people who work in enterprise networks, and we even have a term for it, "Network Forensics."
Driver: Like forensic scientists and all that stuff?
NPD: Not so much forensics...
Driver: That's the investigative part.
NPD: Not so much forensic scientists like a criminal forensic scientist. But for example, if a network is running slowly, not running at peak performance, there are tools that people can use to determine which computer may be slowing it down. Is it a virus - and that's all investigative work, but not investigative work related to criminal activity. It's just - so basically I'm wondering if maybe the law could have been written - not thinking about this possibility, and that maybe there might be some sort of loophole that needs to be amended. Does this just not apply to companies trying to improve their network performance?
Driver: Truthfully, you may be just a little bit out of my realm of comprehension on that, because, maybe that's something we need to look at tweaking, along those lines, to clarify that situation. We talked to lots of folks when we were writing this. Maybe we didn't talk to enough folks. But, as far as those types of things - maybe just a little bit far out of my comprehension on that. But the whole deal - like, if you have an IT person, (just cause that's all the terms I know,) IT person that somebody says, "Hey, we want you to delve into this person's computer, and find out what's going on." Well, if they delve into that person's computer, and - this is all I know about computers - and hands the information over to somebody else, then they don't need any kind of license because they're just doing their retrieving job. So, if the area you're talking about is different from that, you're probably out of what I understand and maybe something we have to look at.
But - anytime we do anything this massive, a lot of times there are areas of tweaking. But I just thought the coincidence of this particular group filing this lawsuit and bragging about filing the lawsuit on the day they opened their new chapter was just - coincidental and - because the intent of the bill was, as I've been saying, was, if you retrieve and provide information, you don't need a license.
Because I'm sure not trying to put anyone out of business. I'm a small business person, I would never do that!
NPD: What business do you run?
Driver: I'm in insurance sales.
NPD: What I'm wondering is if there is - like a specific exemption in the law that - most of these forensic investigators for network performance tend be of one of two types - the first time is that they're in-house, and that the company hires these people to do this job on the computers that the company owns. And if there's a specific exemption for investigative work on material that you own yourself. And the second, sometimes the people are hired by the company as a separate company - not direct employees, but outsourced. Is this something that might be protected under the law even if it falls under the "investigative" arm?
Driver: If it falls under the investigative arm, probably not, but I - I don't know about what you're describing to really comment more than that. I mean, I wish I did. But in this particular case, I don't. It's just a little deeper into the computer world than I know about.
NPD: You don't foresee legis-- any activity... what's the word I'm looking for...
Driver: A future bill, maybe, corrective measures, tweaking, something along those lines?
NPD: I was actually thinking of enforcement against-- you don't see this possibly being enforced against..
Driver: I don't. I don't. I really don't. I don't see - and then again, and it may be something that we may need to look at. And we may have somebody else look at it. Every time we have something like this come up we have people that want to tweak it just a little bit or change it just a little bit. And I'm not hardcore set against it. If it causing somebody problems then we ought to change it. I don't foresee it doing that but, I don't know. I mean, I really don't think it is. But if we find out that it does, that's what we're there for, to make sure it's written correctly and if it's not, we're going to change something a bit to make it right. Cause we're not after anybody, that's for sure, except the people that are doing investigative service for a living and yet, they don't want to bother with having - giving any kind of background or being qualified or licensed in any way.
NPD: That's pretty much all the questions I had.
Driver: Well, I wish I could have given you better answers. I think I kind of danced around one that - just because I don't have enough knowledge.
NPD: Don't worry about it - I'm not saying that - we're getting into some technical stuff. This isn't even a technical bill.
Driver: Not in intent, anyway.
NPD: History's full of bills that had to be amended after the fact because of something.
Driver: Well if you find out more information about it and found we really need to do something about it, call me back, and we'll get back in session, maybe we can use you for a little information, as far as how to do it right.
We've finally got Joel Trammell's opening address from NetQoS Symposium '08 online and digitized. For those who couldn't make it to the live presentation, I hope you enjoy!
by Brian Boyko