This post first appeared in the San Jose Mercury News
by Larry Magid

The IGF takes place at UN HQ in Nairobi

I’m in Nairobi, Kenya, this week to serve as a panelist at the United Nations’ Internet Governance Forum (IGF). I’m not sure what will be accomplished, but it’s an opportunity for “multi-stakeholders” from around the world to talk about important Internet-related issues such as child protection, cybercrime, privacy, censorship, managing critical Internet resources and making sure that the Internet is accessible in developing countries. The conference starts Tuesday and ends Friday.

One major issue at IGF is child protection. In addition to workshops on protecting youths against exploitation and exposure to pornography, there will be some on “digital citizenship,” to explore how we can protect children’s rights online while encouraging responsible behavior and making sure children have a meaningful voice. The issue has come to the forefront lately with increased attention to cyberbullying and sexting. But in addition to adults pressuring children to behave, at least some of us at IGF will be focusing on ways to reinforce the role of children and youths as active participants, which is what “citizenship” (digital or otherwise) is supposed to be about.

There will also be conversations about child pornography. Many countries have laws that prohibit trafficking in sexually explicit images of children but the laws are far from universal or consistent. Because of the Internet, images produced in one country can easily find their way to others, regardless of local laws.

The Internet Governance Forum doesn’t have any power, but it does have influence because it brings together people from around the world who help set the agenda for further discussions and, possibly, regulations. Its origins date back to the 2005 meeting of the World Summit on the Information Society. Unlike most U.N. bodies, IGF consists not just of government representatives, but people from industry and nonprofit organizations.

I’m going as a representative of ConnectSafely.org, a nonprofit Internet safety organization where I serve as co-director along with Anne Collier, who is chairing an IGF panel on digital citizenship. Although it’s mainly an adult-oriented event, London-based Childnet International is bringing young people to participate in the dialogue. There will also be young people from Africa, the Middle East, Asia and Europe.

The fact that IGF has no formal power is actually a good thing because it serves as an alternative to international regulations that — if some had their way — could be draconian. There are governments, including China, Iran and Brazil, that have called for strict laws regarding what is acceptable on the Internet. Here in the United States, we’ve had a history of robust debate about regulations, including several laws to “protect children” against pornography that have been struck down by courts because they would have also limited adults’ rights to access legal content.

If we can’t all agree on what’s acceptable in the United States, there is no way we can reach global consensus. China, for example, famously restricts access to Facebook and other social networking sites and numerous countries prohibit so-called adult pornography that is legal in the United States and many western countries.

Even issues like hacking, don’t necessarily lend themselves to international regulations. I’m pretty sure that most governments would agree that people who break into websites and servers should be prosecuted, but there is no global agreement on what constitutes cybercrime. It gets even hazier when we talk about issues such as copyright enforcement, which engenders vigorous debate even within the borders of many countries.

Having said that, there is a role for greater international cooperation because — unlike physical objects — data can travel between countries in the blink of an eye and typically without detection. That’s mostly a good thing, but not when it comes to child porn, malicious software or schemes to steal money or intellectual property.

John Carr, who serves as an Internet security adviser to the British government, argues that “Individual countries can and should be doing a lot more, particularly when it comes to stopping online child pornography.” Interpol, which coordinates law enforcement actions for numerous countries, does have procedures to intercept “the worst of the worst” images that show sexual exploitation of pre-pubescent children but, said Carr, “Many countries don’t have any laws in place.”

The National Center for Missing &Exploited Children (where I serve as a board member) reports that 19 percent of identified (child pornography) offenders had images of children younger than 3; 39 percent had images of children younger than 6; and 82 percent had images of children younger than 12.

There will be some at IGF who clearly want to emphasize the “G” in its initials by working toward some type of world governance system for the Internet, but many at the event, including representatives from the U.S. delegation, will want to encourage its role as an international forum where people can talk about the issues without the pressure or presumption of having to craft laws to actually control what happens between borders.

Of course there is only one Steve Jobs but as I watched Mark Zucberberg give the keynote address at Facebook’s F8 developer’s conference last week, I couldn’t help but think about the many Jobs keynotes I’ve witnessed through the years.

The timing, the graphics on the screen and even the video at the end looked like Zuckerberg or his handlers paid a lot of attention to Jobs — the master of all tech presenters.  And like a Jobs keynote, it began with Zuckerberg talking about the success of existing products, even before introducing new ones.

No “one more thing”

One big difference between the two presenters is that Jobs always waits till the end to introduce the blockbuster product or feature.  Jobs typically goes through several interesting but not all that earth shaking items and then says “one more thing,” which is typically the headline story.   At F8, Zuckerberg started with Facebook’s new look and later introduced some interesting but far less important apps and partnerships such as the ability to stream and share music via Spotify or allow non-US users to share their Netflix picks on Facebook.  Unlike a Jobs presentation that builds towards a crescendo, Zucberberg’s was like a freight train losing steam as it pulled into the station.

Self-deprecating humor

Unlike Jobs, but like Microsoft’s Steve Ballmer and Bill Gates before him, Zuckerberg started out his keynote with a bit of celebrity charged self-deprecating humor. Similar to numerous Microsoft keynotes, Zuckerberg was preceded on stage by a famous comic. In this case it was Saturday Night Live’s Andy Samberg, playing Zuck the way he does on TV.  To me the humor fell a bit flat, except when Samberg mimicked Jesse Eisenberg’s portrayal of Zuckberg in the movie The Social Network. But at least Zuckerberg showed that he has a sense of humor, unlike Jesse Eisenberg’s caricature of him.

Could Zuck be causing “change fatigue”

There are of course big differences between the companies and the products. For one thing, when Apple introduces a new version of a product – including a new operating system like Lion — it doesn’t require users to adapt to major user interface changes. It may offer up a change like the radically different Launchpad application loader that makes OS X look like an iPad, but it doesn’t force these on users. They’re optional. For those who prefer the old way, Lion can easily look like the operating system that preceded it.

When Facebook makes a change, it more or less forces it on its user base, which often results in the type of backlash we’ve already heard from users who were happier with things just the way they were.

To be fair, Facebook is an engineering-driven company that knows that it has to keep up or ahead of the competition to maintain its position. With Google+ breathing down their back, Zuck and company need to continue to innovate.  But, just as stagnation leads to death, forcing users to adapt to changes can lead to change fatigue.  So far, Facebook has been able to weather the storms created by users unhappy with its many changes, but that may not always be the case.

No Steve Jobs

At the end of the day, Zuckerberg is likely not the next Steve Jobs. Although he shares Jobs passion, it’s not yet clear whether the 27 year-old Facebook founder shares Jobs’ depth or his perception of what people want even before they want it. Even though Apple doesn’t hit a home run every time at bat, its product changes rarely stir-up anger or resentment. And unlike Facebook, which is, so far, a one-product company, Jobs’ Apple has managed to reinvent itself by adding entire categories of products without killiing off old ones. Even the Apple II remained in the product line after the Macintosh came on the scene.

On the other hand, Zuckerberg did create a social network that has so-far attracted more than 750 million users around the globe so he’s obviously doing something right.

Disclosure: Larry Magid serves as co-director of ConnectSafely.org, which receives financial support from Facebook

Nairobi:  At the equivalent of $20 a day, Internet access at the Safari Park Hotel in Nairobi is actually pretty inexpensive as International hotels go.  A few weeks ago I paid $25 a day for access at the Grant Hyatt in Berlin.  Last year I paid $35 to use the Internet from a hotel in Istanbul.

But this time I got smart. Instead of using the hotel’s service, I took a taxi into town and stopped at an Orange Mobile shop to purchase a USB wireless broadband modem for my laptop.  Modems started at $20 but I bought their highest speed version for $35 which came with 500 MB of free data. I then purchased additional data which should come to about $5 to $6 a gigabyte. I’m not sure how much data I’ll use during my 10 days in Kenya, but I’m quite sure my total cost will be under $60 compared to the $200 I’d spend at the hotel.

In addition to being cheaper, the service is also faster based on an conversation I had with person who did purchase hotel service. Speedtest.net measured both download speed at between 2 and 4 Mbps which is quite respectable for a mobile connection in a developing country. Upload speed was between 1 and 2 Mbps, which is also pretty good.

A new survey from the Pew Internet & American Life project found that 31% of Americans polled said they “preferred texts to talking on the phone.”

The survey found that 83% of American adults own cell phones and 73% of those users send and receive text messages. It also found that young adults are far more likely to text than older Americans. “Cell owners between the ages of 18 and 24 exchange an average of 109.5 messages on a normal day—that works out to more than 3,200 texts per month.”

For more on the survey, see CNET’s coverage.

Listen to Larry’s 1-minute CBS News/CNET Tech Talk segment about the Pew survey

Ooma Telo box connects uses Internet for free calling (Illustration credit: Ooma)

Call me old fashioned but when I’m home or at an office, I like making and receiving phone calls from something that resembles a regular desk phone.  One thing I like about desk phones is that they’re tethered to the wall with a cord, so I’m less likely to misplace them. Another thing is that you don’t have to worry about the battery running down.  And, for the most part, the call quality is better on a regular old phone than on a cell phone.

Of course there are all sorts of services that let you make free or cheap calls from PCs, tablets and other mobile devices but as great as services like Sykpe and Gmail voice are, there is still a lot to be said for being able to pick up a regular phone. The trouble with regular phone service is that it costs a lot if you get it from one of those legacy phone companies like AT&T or Verizon.  Not only do you pay a monthly service charge but — unless you have a special plan – you could wind up paying quite a bit for long distance or even when calling nearby communities.

Vonage — at about $25 a month for unlimited U.S. calling and free calls to many European countries — is a better deal than most regular phone company plans, but the cost of the service still adds up.

Ooma has a different pricing strategy. You don’t have to pay monthly fees for the basic service (you do pay some taxes) but you have to buy the equipment starting at about $250 (you can find it for less) and once you own the Ooma router, you are free to use it. Once you own the handset all you pay are taxes which average about $3.50 a month. Long distance calls within the U.S.  are free.  Overseas rates vary by country but start at two cents a minute to call landlines in many countries. Calls to cell phones overseas are higher because — in most countries outside of North America — the caller pays the “air time.”

New wireless adapter

New Ooma Wi-Fi adapter connects to back of Telo unit (Photo credit: Ooma)

To use Ooma, you need a special box (called the Telo) which connects to your home network. Until recently it required that it be plugged directly into your router or cable or DSL-modem but now you can purchase an optional ($49.95) Wi-fi adapter and put the Telo anywhere in the house.

Easy setup and good quality

Setup was reasonably straight forward. You have to temporarily connect the Telo adapter to a PC or Mac to enter in Wi-Fi network details but once that’s done you can put it anywhere within range of your Wi-Fi signal. I put the adapter and the wireless handset in my kitchen (several rooms away from the Wi-Fi router) and the sound quality is excellent. I also plugged in a standard corded phone which also works well.  As with any Internet connected device, sound quality will vary depending on bandwidth and if your Internet or power goes down, so does your phone service. That’s why it’s a good idea to have  your Internet router, cable or DSL modem and Ooma adapter on a battery backup system or “uninterruptable power supply (UPS).

Ooma also offers wireless handsets and a free Bluetooth adapter that allows you to use a Bluetooth headset or use your Ooma handset to answer calls on your cell phone as long as you’re in Bluetooth range.

Premium plan

The company does offer a premium plan for $9.99 a month that includes free number porting, a free second line, three-way calling, multi-ring (so you can have your cell phone, work phone and other phones ring when people call your Ooma number) and — my favorite — Google Voice extensions.  With Google Voice extensions you can integrate your Ooma phone with Google Voice so people see your Google Voice number on their caller-ID when receiving a call from your Ooma phone.

To hear how Ooma sounds, listen to my Podcast with its CEO

Eric Stang, CEO of Ooma (Photo credit: Ooma)

To demonstrate how Ooma sounds, I used my Ooma line to call Ooma CEO Eric Stang who, of course, was also using an Ooma phone.  My voice is recorded directly into a microphone (bypassing the phone system) but his was coming through the Ooma phone line.

Listen here at CNET News.com

This post first appeared in the San Jose Mercury News

by Larry Magid

Remember the TV show “Friends”? These were people who knew each other well. They lived together, played together and shared happy and sad moments. The regulars in the sitcom “Cheers” were also friends, mostly. Even though the only thing some of them did together was sit around a bar drinking beer, they at least had that in common.

There was a time when a “friend” was someone you really knew and presumably liked. You would get together with friends over coffee, chat on the phone and maybe exchange letters if you became separated by distance. But thanks first to services like Friendster and MySpace and now Facebook, the word “friend” has been redefined.

I can only speak for myself, but I don’t have a lot of real-life friends. I lead a busy life and there are relatively few people with whom I share intimate thoughts or get together with just so we can be together. The friends I have are precious to me and my closest friends are people I’ve known for a long time.

But I have lots of Facebook “friends.” Some of them I really do know and genuinely like. Most of my family and real-life friends are also my Facebook friends along with people I went to high school and college with. There are also former workmates from past jobs and folks I’ve met at conferences and trade shows. I’m not likely to go out of my way to actually hang out in the real world with most of these folks, but I have shaken their hand at least once and have at least something in common with them.

I also have some Facebook friends I’ve never met but still feel some kinship with. For example, I work as a CBS News consultant, which means I’m part of a large network of journalists scattered around the world. I’ve never met many of these colleagues, but I feel connected to them and when I do meet one of them, there are always things to talk about because we share a common bond.

But many of my Facebook “friends” really aren’t friends. Some of them I might have met at some event but have no recollection of who they are. Others might be “friends of friends,” which is actually a category of friending on Facebook that’s predicated on the notion that if you’re a friend of someone’s friend, you have enough in common to perhaps strike up your own friendship. I realize that notion is based partially on real-life experiences, but I’m not so sure mutual friendships have the same meaning online as they do in the “real world.”

And then there are those friend requests from people I know nothing about. As a journalist I’m comfortable with that. I’m flattered when readers and listeners want to reach out and I accept all friend requests because it’s a way to interact with folks and let them know when I’ve written something new. I even appreciate messages in which people tell me they disagree with something I’ve said or written. Hearing from a diverse group of people is a perk of having a public life, but it’s still not the same thing as a friendship.

That’s why I was glad about Facebook’s announcement last week that it’s adding a “subscribe feature” that enables people to follow other people (a la Twitter) without having to friend them. Anyone can add a subscribe button to their “news feed,” so that they can share posts with the public. It’s ideal for bloggers, politicians, community activists, merchants, restaurateurs or anyone else who has something to say to their “public,” whether that turns out to be a handful of people or several million.

By default, you’re already subscribed to your friends’ news feeds. But with this new feature you can get updates from anyone who puts the button on their page. The button is purely optional, and the only posts you’ll see are ones that are designated as Public. To avoid getting too much information, subscribers can control what they see, ranging from all updates to “important updates.” And just because you’re a subscriber doesn’t mean you can’t interact. People who allow subscription have the option to let people leave comments.

To some extent, the subscribe feature puts Facebook on par with both Twitter and Google+. Twitter users can follow people who don’t follow them and Google (GOOG)+ users can put someone in a Circle and see their public posts without having to get permission or “friend” that person.

Maybe, thanks to this new feature, the word “friend” can reclaim its original meaning. We can hear from each other, we can interact, we can even like each other, but we don’t have to fake being friends. You can “subscribe” to my Facebook feed at www.Facebook.com/LarryMagid.

For many years I have said that the best way to protect children on the Internet is to develop the filter that runs in the computer between their ears and, based on a recent survey commissioned by the Family Online Safety Institute (FOSI), a lot of parents apparently agree.

For the most part, parents do have a clue when it comes to helping their kids stay safe online.

FOSI commissioned Hart Research Associates to interview 702 parents of children eight to 17. The study, which has a margin of error of plus/minus 3.7%, found that “Nearly all parents surveyed (96%) say they have had a conversation with their child about what to do and not to do online.”

Controls have their place

But that’s not to say parental controls tools don’t have their place. Just over half the parents (53%) said that they do use some type of tool to control or monitor their child’s online behavior using products ranging from filtering programs on their PC that limit what sites a child can visit to services that monitor children’s activities online or on mobile devices.

Even though 47% of parents don’t use these tools, 87% of them are aware that such tools are available for personal computers, but parents are less likely to use and be aware of parental control tools on other devices that kids use to go online. For example, while 75% of parents feel very or somewhat comfortable about monitoring their kids’ online use, awareness of parental controls drops to 37% for game consoles (44% among parents whose kids use consoles to access the Internet). Just over a third (35%) of parents say they are “aware of parental controls offered by wireless companies” and only 39% of parents whose child uses a smartphone to access the Internet “say they know of parental control technologies,” according to the study. Just over half (51%) of parents said that their child uses something other than a computer to access the Internet.

Parents set rules

It’s good news that 93% of parents say they have set rules or limits on their children’s online with nearly eight out of 10 (79%) saying that they only allow kids to use a computer in a common area of the house rather than a bedroom. Of course, in an era when many kids are using laptops or even tablets and phones to go online, I’m not sure if parents can easily enforce that rule, but at least they’re thinking about it.

Three quarters of the parents (75%) have rules for how much time or the time of day their kids can be online but as kids get older, parents become more relaxed about these rules. Whether that is a good or bad thing depends on the child. Many teens have pretty well developed internal “filters between their ears,” but there are some who actually take more risks than younger children. While monitoring teen behavior is always trickier than monitoring behavior of young children, it’s sometimes even more necessary, though often an occasional conversation is all that’s needed.

Family ‘Online Safety Contract‘

Ten percent of the parents said they have signed a “family online safety contract” that outlines rules and expectations. Several years ago I created separate online safety pledges for kids and parents.

(Source: Family Online Safety Institute)

The fact that nearly half parents sampled don’t use parental control tools isn’t necessarily a bad thing. When asked why, the most common reason was that they’re not necessary, “either because of rules and limits already in place (60%), and/or because they trust their child to be safe (30%).”

I completely understand where these parents were coming from. Even though I was one of the first people on the planet to test out parental controls in the nineties when my kids were young (and testified as to their efficacy in a federal court trial), my wife and I elected not to use them at our house because we preferred more old fashioned “tools” like frequent conversations with our kids and placing computers in public areas of the house.

Filters and monitoring tools can be a valuable resource and I urge parents to at least think about including them in their vast arsenal of parenting tools, but I also urge parents to never rely on them as the only safeguard. The best way to protect your kids online is to talk with them about their Internet use and anything else on their minds. Have dinner together as a family, ask your kids what’s going on in their lives and be as non-judgmental as appropriate so your kids trust you and confide in you. Studies have shown that – despite outward appearances – children and even teenagers heavily rely on their parents for advice and guidance.

Besides, with any luck your kid will someday grow up and move somewhere where there are no filters, no monitoring programs and no parents over their shoulder. Let’s just hope that, by then, that filter between their ears is well developed.

For more on internet safety visit Larry’s SafeKids.com blog andConnectSafely.org

by Larry Magid

I’m glad that media outlets and public officials are shining a light on cyberbullying and bullying in general. It’s important to pay attention to this serious problem, but we need to keep it in perspective. As bad as it is, cyberbullying is not an epidemic and it’s not killing our children.

Yes, it’s probably one of the more widespread youth risks on the Internet and yes there are some well publicized horrific cases of cyberbullying victims who have committed suicide, but let’s look at this in context.

Bullying has always been a problem among adolescents and, sadly, so has suicide. In the few known cases of suicide after cyberbullying, there are likely other contributing factors. That’s not to diminish the tragedy or suggest that the cyberbullying didn’t play a role but–as with all online youth risk, we need to look at what else was going on in the child’s life. Even when a suicide or other tragic event does occur, cyberbullying is often accompanied by a pattern of offline bullying and sometimes there are other issues including depression, problems at home, and self-esteem issues

Read the rest at SafeKids.com

The Callet -- a $19.99 phone case that dubs as a wallet

When a PR guy pitched me on the Callet, a $19.99 smartphone case that can also store your drivers license and credit cards, my first reaction was to pass on it. It struck me as a solution in search of a problem.  I actually prefer having my wallet separate from my phone so if I’m missing my phone, at least I might have a chance of finding my wallet.

But that got me thinking about an actual benefit to the product.  If my wallet and phone were one in the same, I could find my wallet by calling it from another phone.  Of course, I’d still have to remember to charge the phone so I could hear it ring or buzz, but at least there’d be a chance of finding it.

As my wife Patti can testify, I spend far too much time hunting around for my phone, wallet and keys which can be anywhere in the house and I know I’m not the only one who sometimes finds his phone by calling it. Sometimes I luck out and the keys and wallet happen to be nearby, but with this product I could count on finding my wallet.

I realize that’s not the purpose of the device. It’s being marketed for people who just want one thing to carry around with them when they go out at night but I’m not convinced that having a somewhat thicker phone case is an advantage to carrying a separate phone and wallet.

Won’t zap your credit cards

A couple of readers have asked whether there is a risk of having your credit cards, transit card or hotel “key” so close to your phone. It’s generally not a good idea to have cards with a magnetic stripe near a phone. I asked the company and was told, “The Answer is no, the Silicon material that separates the battery from the first card stops this from happening. We have never received one complaint in the plus 50K pieces we have sold.”

On the other hand, having your credit card so handy is dangerous in other ways because you’re tempted to actually use it.

New ribbon for Windows 8 Explorer (Credit: Microsoft)

Microsoft is busy working on Windows 8, the next version of its operating system and, from what I’ve seen, I think that most people are going to like it.  But one feature that’s a bit controversial is a new ribbon on Windows Explorer – the program used to manage files.

The ribbon is a band of icons near the top of the screen that can be used to issue commands like those used to copy, delete, move or rename files. Reasons for the ribbon, according to Steven Sinofsky, president of Microsoft’s Windows division, include that it “provides the ability to put the most important commands in very prominent, front and center locations” and “makes it easy to find commands predictably and reliably.”

Microsoft’s decision, according to CNET News, “has triggered some complaints,” but Sinofsky said in a follow up blog post that “We chose the ribbon mechanism, and to those that find that a flawed choice, there isn’t much we can do other than disagree.”

I haven’t had a chance to put Windows 8 through rigorous tests so it’s premature for me to comment on whether or not I’m going to like this change but I can say that I’m less than enthusiastic about Microsoft’s decision to use a ribbon on Microsoft Word, Excel and other office applications as a replacement to its traditional menus.

Call me old-fashioned but I like the old menu interface that’s used on most Windows and Macintosh programs. It’s consistent across programs and it’s pretty easy to find whatever command you wish to implement by exploring various options under menu items like File, Edit, Tools, etc.

Having to issue a command by hunting around various ribbons or icons often takes me longer than selecting a menu items but the worst part is that there are commands that I simply can’t find without having to resort to the help system or – worse – having to go online to try to find out how to get something done.

Maybe I’m old-fashioned because I’ve been using these menu interfaces since the mid-eighties when Apple launched the Mac and Microsoft rolled out early versions of Windows.  But I think it’s more than just familiarity that causes me to prefer menus. It’s consistency.

Ironically, Apple – which has revolutionized the interface on the iPad and iPhone – does is more of a stickler for applications using menus than in Microsoft. There are lots of Windows programs that have no menus – just icons or ribbons, but virtually every Mac program I’ve used does have a menu system.

Ironically, it’s experienced users like me who are most likely to have a problem with this change.  Novice users will adapt to whatever they learn on. But the reality is that there are very few novice computer users these days – most people in the western world now have some experience with PCs and Macs.

I have nothing against adding new ways of doing things but it seems to me that Microsoft ought to allow the user the choice of doing things in a familiar way even as it adds choices and new interfaces.