Inner Solace

(via @wobster)

A dev had a go at implementing a Shazam-like application in Java for academic purposes and intended to release it as open source.  The code was written over a weekend, by himself, using known algorithms and hashing techniques.

He has now been approached by the patent owners of Shazam’s technology with requests to take down the blog posts he wrote about his side-project, and to never release the code or descriptions of how it works.

As owners of the patents, they are obliged to pursue any potential cases of infringement or they’ll lose their claim to them.  But what this guy has done is use generic descriptions and well known techniques to develop his implementation.

I feel somewhat conflicted about this matter.  I understand why the patent holders need to do this, but how far do they have to go? Is there a point where they can drop it without losing claims to their patents?

It’d be interesting to see what comes of this, but I hope it doesn’t involve this guy getting pillaged for everything he’s worth.

(via @mmalone26, @kailoi)

In the US, if you’ve worked in the sex industry in any capacity, you could be screwed (in more ways than one) for life.

Louisville, Kentucky has just introduced new guidelines for strip clubs where all strip club employees, including performers, will be required to buy yearly licenses.  Just recently, NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg requested that a teacher be let go because she worked as prostitute for four months while at graduate school, presumably because of the implications to her moral fibre and position as a role model.

I’ve heard of people, both men and women, ‘working’ their way through uni/college to pay their tuition/living costs whether as prostitutes, dancers or otherwise[1].  And not just in countries where the government doesn’t subsidise tertiary education as fully as Australia (presumably the UK and US?) .  Certainly you can argue that they could have taken other part time jobs as many others in their position have done. But should it really make a difference to their future job prospects if they’re qualified and generally ‘decent’ people, who don’t make it part of their schtick to promote sex work to their peers or those under their care (or corrupting them in other ways)?

There are definitely other people who have never worked in the sex industry whose moral fibre is questionable and who probably shouldn’t be in the work they are actually in.  Teachers and religious leaders who abuse students, doctors who take advantage of patients. Not to mention some of the patrons who pay the wages of the sex workers.  If they’re found out it causes a scandal and they’re arrested or made a pariah or whatever the justice system sees fit to do to them.  But if we’re talking moral fibre, what about the generally promiscuous who do it for free?  The teachers and other ‘role models’ who jump everything that moves, or who frequent the establishments in question?  They don’t have to be registered.  Are they any better or worse than those who do it to pay the bills?

If you’re going to brand and label the people who work in the industry, it only makes sense that you do it the other way as well.  Why shouldn’t Louisville require patrons to have their IDs scanned upon entry of a strip club facility to be entered into a database as a registered user of services if they require the workers to do it too.

And what an easy way to gather information about the moral fibre of your county or burrough! Think of all the details you can gather of people who attend bucks and hens nights, businessmen and politicians who entertain clients and themselves as part of their dealings.  Underage kids looking for a risqué evening.  To paraphrase Michael Bloomberg “We’re just not going to have these people in society.”

And where do you draw the line?  Do you brand those who supply inventory or other services to these businesses for aiding and abetting the corruption of the community as well?  Drink and food vendors, receptionists, janitorial services, utilities, the local council who approved the use of the venue for adult entertainment purposes, the organisation that allowed them to register as a business, the government for receiving taxes from the business or worker? Okay, that’s getting a little extreme but really, where are you going to draw the line?

[1] There are others who will work in the industry for other reasons such as because they want to, and various other circumstances. But due to the context of the article referring to transients in the industry, that’s what I’ll be referring to.

Internet Blackout Jan 25th to 29th to protest censorship. See http://nocleanfeed.com and http://www.internetblackout.com.au