I've been thinking a lot about what makes the work I do and the ideas I have different from my contemporaries. Rather facetiously, I talk about the internet as a new religion embraced by the masses in search of salvation. By resisting internet orthodoxy, I deliberately try to see our society and its relationship with technology in a unique manner.

This begins with refusing to use the same jargon and phrases as others, and playing with words to find more accessible and meaningful ways of explaining trends and phenomena. The internet is full of technical concepts that have exclusive and rigid meanings.

Yet the power and resilience of the internet is derived from its open nature, so it only makes sense that we embrace freedom when we talk and think about related ideas and concepts. I do this by generally distrusting technical authorities, including early adopters, technology executives, and I.T. admins. I respect their knowledge, but always question whether their perspective has the potential to be transfered to people who aren't in a position of technical authority (the vast majority of us).

When it comes to the world of social media, which is both technical and non-technical, elitist and also accessible, I find myself consistently frustrated by the level of "group think." In contrast to other technical areas, social media accommodates anyone and everyone, so jargon isn't an acceptable vocabulary to control the discussion and analysis.

What you commonly find is a spoken and unspoken orthodoxy, rules that dictates how tools should be used and people should act. The problem is that this stifles innovation and doesn't allow for the kind of true experimentation we should be seeing in this sector.

Public relations, marketing and advertising people lament the rash of social media experts who project their own industry orthodoxy onto an emergent discipline. Few understand the dynamic involved when in a long chain of diverse individuals and organizations who have a range of expertise culturally acclimatize their own networks and friends.

The seeds of this kind of internet orthodoxy were sown in Ursula Franklin's definition of technology as being "how we do things around here". The variable comes in how we define where we are, with the internet collapsing space into time and everyone being "here" at some point in time.

Video from a recent appearance of mine on CBC News Morning to discuss the potential regulation of the Internet by the CRTC. Also features behind the scenes footage!

Last year I became fascinated with the rise and fall of the Storm Worm and in its wake a number of new super worms have emerged, the most recent being Conficker and Waledec.

It's not just the rate of infection and the speed by which they're able to spread, but the fact that these worms can be regarded as instant super computers. Out of nowhere they're able to harness the power of millions of computers and create the black market equivalent of the cloud computer providing on demand software as a service.

Worms often have an autonomy and sophistication that most other malware does not, inserting themselves into a system and disabling security software and the operating system's automatic updates.

It used to be that only Microsoft Windows systems were targetted but now too Apple systems are vulnerable, with a worm or two targeting OSX.

While it goes without saying that you should always be sure to run proper updates, and ensure your system is up to date, Microsoft does provide a free utility to identify and remove these worms.

One of the challenges however of these new breed of super worms is that detecting something that is otherwise invisible becomes quite a trick indeed. The advice I offer is to contemplate the use of a visual firewall that allows you to literally see what's going on within your network.

This can be done quite cheaply, using old hardware, and free software. There are a number of linux operating systems designed for just this purpose, including Coyote Linux and Devil Linux, and I add a utility like iptraf which makes it easy to see and control that network. Mind you there are better visualization tools than this, but I like to keep it simple.

While I do run Windows, I also took it upon myself long ago to learn Linux and other operating systems (like *BSD) so that I could make the most out of my computer hardware. When it comes to securing and controlling your home network it helps to have the knowledge and tools to do the job properly.

There are of course "easy" Linux systems like Ubuntu, which can get you started, but really there's no excuse for not giving it a shot. If you can run a Windows computer than you can run a Linux one. Got an old box kicking around the house? Why not give it a try...

I cover a lot of subjects on my weekly CBC Radio column, and I'm always fascinated by which ones garner the greatest listener response. Something that is particularly interesting to me, and apparently a lot of listeners, is the upcoming explosion of wireless devices making use of the spectrum called White Space.

For those who missed it, or want to hear it again, you can download my CBC Radio Toronto appearance on Metro Morning with Andy Barrie.

And these are some of the articles that came out around the time of the announcement.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/11/05/fcc_approves_white_spaces/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7709775.stm
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/06/BUDO13VRLV.DTL
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/05/technology/internet/05spectrum.html
http://www.efluxmedia.com/news_Google_Prepares_Its_Strategy_For_Attackin...

If you're a friend of mine on Facebook I have a video on my profile from Newsworld that was recorded in the spring on the same subject.

Last week my CBC radio column covered the recent introduction of a 3D imaging surveillance system used at the Kelowna BC airport to screen passengers. Using millimetre waves the system is able to penetrate clothing and create a vivid 3D model of the passenger without clothes on. Thus it is a far more thorough system then the existing setup which only scans for metal.

Part of the focus of the column was on the privacy implications of such a system, and at the time CATSA (the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority) was claiming it had the support of the federal privacy commissioner. I mentioned this in my column, but also expressed skepticism that the current steps being taken to protect passenger's privacy was not enough.

Turns out, the privacy commissioner does not support the pilot project, and does indeed have concerns with how passengers privacy might be violated. Here's a quote from the Globe and Mail:

"However, the privacy commissioner's office said yesterday it is concerned about the implications of the new system and it never told CATSA officials that the body-scanning technology meets Canadian privacy standards.

"At this very early stage we certainly don't know enough to endorse the project, so the suggestion that we endorsed it is perhaps a bit off," commission spokeswoman Anne-Marie Hayden said. "I think we're going to have to watch it closely and we're going to want to ensure that individuals' privacy rights are protected."

Thanks to Blair Campbell for alerting me to this. Goes to show that even when an organization says it is protecting your privacy you should still question that assertion, and try and think of unforeseen ways in your rights my be violated.

Now is the time for all of us to speak out clearly in defense of our culture and against this legislation:

April seemed to fly by so quickly I was unable to post any of the reviews or thoughts I had over the last month. While I have been posting some items to my private network, I still have several posts I will be publishing on my blog in the days and weeks to come.

On Sundays I tend to spend my late afternoon and early evening going over my rss feeds and news sources in part to look at the week past but mostly to get a gauge on the week ahead.

The big news over the weekend of course is that Microsoft has backed off in their quest to buy Yahoo. The irony for me is that this past Thursday morning I did a series of interviews on CBC Radio in which I speculated that the merger was inevitable. I still believe this to be the case, however it seems the likelihood of my being right is getting lower and lower.

Check out this series of headlines from the New York Times:

• May 1st: Microsoft Outlines Its Yahoo Strategies
• May 2nd: Raising Yahoo Bid, Microsoft Steps up Talks
• May 2nd: Higher Offer by Microsoft Brings Yahoo to Table
• May 3rd: Microsoft Withdraws Bid for Yahoo
• May 4th: Will Microsoft Really Walk?

That's just the New York Times. The blogosphere as a whole is just exploding with posts, and even I am breaking a month long hiatus to post on the subject. Ironically a lot of the talk is on the death of Yahoo, and the degree to which their price will fall in the morning. This suggests to me that Microsoft may be doing all of this to drive the price lower so as to finally acquire Yahoo.

Yet who knows what will happen, and it goes to show that just when something appears to be certain it will quickly transform into something entirely different. Expect the unexpected!

This past week I was overwhelmed with responses from a number of media stories. A couple of Blackberry business articles, a couple of Facebook expert articles, an article about a Hong Kong sex scandal, as well as some TV and radio appearances, first about the bust of a child porn ring, and then about the bust of a Quebec based Hacker cell.

In general my policy is to respond to anyone who takes the time to get in touch with me. Yet I've now had to revise this policy to only reply to people who show respect rather than outright hostility. Something about the audience that reads the National Post that brings all sorts of trolls out from under the bridge.

The CBC audience on the other hand is a pleasure to interact with. Even when they strongly disagree with me I find CBC viewers and listeners to be intelligent and engaging. One particularly pleasant email I received was from a "middle-aged mother" who will remain nameless, but I suspect represents a typical Canadian, from an average family. For the sake of argument, let's call her Louise.

Today I received a review copy of the upcoming episode of Dianne Buckner's Fortune Hunters that airs this weekend on CBC Newsworld. I'm always happy and willing to receive movies, TV shows, books, and other media, and I promise to be both honest and relatively prompt with my review.

While I was not able to watch the first and debut episode of Fortune Hunters that aired last Saturday, I enjoyed watching the second quite a bit. Of course I do have some criticism to share, which I will detail below, however the overall production and content of the show was great, creating an entertaining and informative half hour.

The stated mission of the show is to focus on the hottest trends, with a focus on how to capitalize and make money off of them, hence the title, Fortune Hunters. Each episode has a theme, and this second installment is about the "web".

Yesterday's results in Iowa demonstrate that the Internet is playing a central and strategic role in the 2008 US Presidential Election.

Mike Huckabee, with the help of Chuck Norris, has been able to defeat Mitt Romney who out spent him by a factor of 20! Some estimates put Romney's Iowa expenditures at $10,000 per vote.

Barack Obama, with the help of Obama Girl, has been able to defeat Billary who admittedly had low expectations for Iowa to begin with. It's also worth noting that John Edwards has been able to stay in the race, in no small part due to his sophisticated Internet operation.

Of course I'm not suggesting that literally the videos I cite above are responsible for the victories. Rather the candidates who won did so against the odds and the Internet played an important role in that victory.

Which brings me to the story many journalists are missing this morning, which is Ron Paul. His results in Iowa may seem small compared to the victors, yet 10 and 11 percent is actually quite impressive for the congressman from Texas.

Ron Paul is running the most successful Internet campaign of any candidate because he and his campaign team make no effort to control their online activity. What shocks most journalists and political consultants is the way in which the Ron Paul campaign is autonomous and spontaneous.

The $20 million dollars raised in the last quarter of 2007 will go along way to keeping Congressman Paul in the race. He may not win, but he will affect the process as a whole.

Today, after Iowa, it's clear that there is great sentiment for Change. Huckabee, Obama, Paul, all are candidates that campaign from the outside, call for change, and embody the Internet's President.

Mind you, don't count out Billary and John McCain. The former has money and a machine that can keep them competitive right till the end. McCain has also been using the Internet quite effectively to offest his fundraising problems. He may easily win New Hampshire now that Romney is on the ropes.

For the record, I like aspects of all these candidates. I'm loving this election, and am looking forward to it getting strange, weird, and totally out of control!