Privacy and our data...

It's sad and angering how our data is handled by social media, and other sites, on the Internet. Most of those companies are interested on monetize our data, with no interest on our privacy or what how we want our data to be handled.

There is a real need to be on the lookout in order to protect our data and privacy, if we don't do so companies have enough incentives to use our data in violation of our privacy to make money. What's worse, they will be making money with our data not only without consent while not having to share their earnings with the people who's data belongs to.

The tools to control the privacy levels should be clearly visible, and easy to use, in every site that handles private data. That data should always be owned by the people, and no company has any right to use it without permission by the users.

In many ways, the Internet is a platform that helps people to come together to interact. These makes the Internet a public forum that belongs to everyone equally. Yet, this doesn't mean that the private data of the individuals belongs to all.

Private data belongs to individual, as such the individual has the final say on how that data is used, how it can be used, and by who it can be used.

The case for free and open file formats...

Open and free file formats are something that's sourly missing on our digital lives. Most of the file formats used on the most popular software are neither free nor open, which ties the fate of our file to the fate of whoever owns the format used to format our files.

There is no underestimating the dangers of depending on closed non-free file formats, since using we depend on what the owners of the format gives to us and it's continued existence. If the owner of the format goes down, and no one else picks it up, unless people can change the format of their files to another they will those all the data stored using that format.

Not only that, closed non-free formats are an effective tool to lock people to a particular software, and also to regulate what content users can have. In effect, it's a way to take away control of their files from the users.

Open and free file format are just the opposite, they give the user the real choice of software to use. Users can rest assured that their files will work independently of the software used to open and work their files. It also benefits developers, since they can focus on working on their software knowing that it'll work for the task they intended it for.

Making all file formats open and free, we can create a more level playing feel for content creators to work on. It also gives the users a greater choice at what content they want, and how to consume it.

Unlike many people want us to believe, having free and open file formats will not bring modern society down or lead to general piracy. Modern society will more likely benefit a lot from free and open file formats, since more people will be able to share the content they created with a wider audience. Creators will only have to make one finished work, and then make it available far and wide knowing full well people will have to problem consuming their content.

On the piracy side, it won't lead to an increase of it. It won't eliminate it either, yet it'll facilitate people to legally get the content they want a with more ease. The incentives to do piracy will be a lot fewer, which it affect will help to reduce piracy.

Free and open file formats are beneficial for everyone. To developers, it means that they only have to worry to make their software work. To users, it means regaining control over the files they have on their computers.

Social networking...

It's a shame that many companies don't really know how to use the power of social networking sites, specially small to medium sized ones. People seem to have a better understanding on how these sites can help them to influence companies, at times with great success.

Social networking sites are a great place not for companies not just giving information to their costumers, but to actually strike a relationship with them that generates loyalty to the company. In many ways, companies need to understand that social networking is about making a connection with the people that use, or buy, what they offer.

Plain all information can be found in others ways a lot easier, social networking sites give users the chance to know more about the company they like in ways that other media can't. In many ways is about giving people a way to contact companies in a more personal way, making it a more emotional for the user.

Unlike other ways that users interact with a company, like a website or fryers, social networking sites give users a way to interact in a direct way. In many ways, it helps to create a relationship which is deeper than the usual with the customer.

In many ways, social networking sites can increase the trust of people in a company because it can give them a sense that they are doing business with something more tangible, that cares for what they think and do. Also it helps to build a community of people around the company, helping both the company and the people that do business with it to grow together around their common interests.

Not having, or knowing how to manage, their presence at the social networking sites can be any company undoing.

Compatibility should be standard...

I find it rather irksome, not to say almost unethical, for tech companies to corral users to their platforms. To make matters worse, in some cases they seem to make their devices as incompatible to others as they can just to make it close to impossible for their users to leave the ecosystem the company created for them.

As users, we are better served by having products built around a single, and open, standard. This way we can have the freedom to move to another companies products if we choose to do so, while not having to worry if what we have will work on those other products. We have the right to use whatever products we want, and companies have no right to lock us to their devices.

When it comes to competing standards, users must have a bigger say on on which one they prefer. Once the standard becomes the reference point, it should be open and free for all to use. Standards shouldn't be used as a tool to keep competition out, and users locked in whatever walled garden the company chooses to make for us.

Technology is here to serve people, and making technologies that lock people in isn't conductive to that principle. All technology should be open, so that we can all make the most use of it for our particular needs or those of the community we live in.

Open standards is about making technology available to as wide an audience as possible, so it can benefit the majority of individuals.

Closing them give the upper hand to the few that control, so they get to say how the technologies built around that standard get to work and who gets it in what form.

At the end, people is the core on which all technology revolves.

The Internet must remain neutral...

The Internet must remain neutral, no government or central organism should have control over all of or any part of it. At most, bodies should be set up to add and maintain standards that run the Internet, not what to regulate the Internet itself.

With the Internet becoming an integral part of our daily lives, there is a real need to keep it neutral so we all can make use of it as we need to. Just as city streets, and other public infrastructure, where only basic standards are placed to make use of them, so that everyone that needs to can make use of them freely with no discrimination other that not engaging on illegal activities.

The only part that needs some kind of regulation on the Internet, are the standards on which it runs. Those standards should be open for all, built and maintained on a transparent way so that any one interested in studying them, or making a contribution, can do so without any impediment.

Most importantly, those standards should be freely available for all to use while not being under the control of any particular entity, whether it is private or public. Granting any level of control over a standard to any entity, private or public, we run the risk of having any part of the Internet that uses that standard, being hijacked because of any interests that entity by have on doing so. Worse, if it goes down, whatever the reason may be, there will be a need to replace that standard because no one outside that entity know the details of how it works.

Whether the governments, or private companies, want or not, the Internet has become a place where they shouldn't say any power at all. It belongs to everyone, and to no one in particular.

No control from companies over our devices...

It's sad to see that the current state of the technology field tends to be pro business, not pro users. The users are losing ground, giving up their freedom to use their devices as best they seem.

In many cases, companies still own the devices we buy. Companies have a lot of say on how we can use our devices, and what we can run on them, in many cases having the right to punish users that don't use their devices as envisioned by the company who made it.

Even though illegal behavior must be punished, taking users rights over their devices can't be approved or done in name of cracking on such behavior. User should be able to modify their own devices as they want, and to share how to make such modifications, freely while they are not engaging in any illegal activity.

The problem is that, in several cases, innocent people are being punished because of behavior that isn't illegal. They only engaged on activities that weren't approved by the big businesses, yet users got treated as if they were actually hardcore criminals.

Businesses need to be stopped from doing so, and users protected from such aggressions to their freedoms and right to make use of their property as they see fit. That a certain company doesn't like people that bought their product modifying it for lawful purposes, should not be allowed to stop people from doing so.

All technology should be at the service of the people, and the companies who produce those technologies should have no say how users use such technologies once they are granted ownership.

The correct software for the job...

It's interesting to see how many people don't really understand that the results given back by any software, are only as good as the data entered into it to compute. In many cases the problem is not the software itself, but how people chooses the data to work with.

No matter how good the software is, if the right data sets aren't selected to begin with the results are just not going to be the ones expected. It's important to understand what data sets are meaningful to your problem, in order to make sure that those are the ones that are picked up. If not, all the hard work will be for nothing.

The problem that's being targeted needs to be correctly stated, so that the right parameters to be measured and the right data is collected to be studied. Armed with that information, the software can be better selected to the problems needed to be solved.

I've seen a lot of times, how a great piece of software selected to be used in a way it wasn't intended for. Needless to say, the results weren't the ones the users wanted and the software was blamed.

No software is a silver bullet that can solved every problem, that's why the user first needs to understand what needed from the software. Once that is clear, the software can be selected. Doing it the other way around is just asking for trouble that can be avoided from the beginning by selecting the correct software for the job.

In many ways, it's a matter of thinking before doing. Not doing so, only adds to the problem instead of solving it.