Emma Persky - Traveller with a Tale

For those of you cut off from the outside world, Spooks Code 9 is the brainchild of BBC 3 Controller, Julian Bellamy, a so called spin-off series of the BBC 1’s BAFTA award-winning series Spooks. Set in the quasi-post-apocalyptic future in which London and the South East have been destroyed by an unsubstantiated terorrist group (presumably al-Quaida) during the 2012 Olympics, MI5 is forced to hire the most incapable, dim witted and immature spooks since Austin Powers. This is justified as the disaffiliation to the ‘private sector’ of the vast majority of 5’s former employees has left the service bereft of capable individuals. What’s not adequately justified is why they were incapable of hiring anyone with any relevant experience.

I’m not saying that recent graduates shouldn’t be spies, but that the production lacks any sense of realism, which was one of the crucial factors in the early series of the original series. Furthermore it is Code 9’s (I refuse to denigrate Spooks’ reputation by associated their names), flaccid attempt at mimicry that is it’s greatest downfall, right down to the early execution of an officer. Unfortunately for Code 9, Spooks really set the bar high, what with boiling an officer’s entire head in hot chip pan oil, possibly one of the grizzliest scenes the BBC has ever conceived, and an execution carried out by a 15 year old sniper simply doesn’t hack it these days.

The BBC also seem to believe that decent spy drama necessitates the use of deadly force by intelligence officers, from torture through to carrying guns in the street. They are supposed to be spies, under the radar, blending in. Leave the gun wielding to the police or any other organisation whose officers are publicly known, and if you must, please find a more creative way to torture people.

My advice to the production crew is to abandon any links with Spooks, build up your own identity, rather than living in the shadow of your much better cousin, and you might have a chance at succeeding. Don’t be afraid to take risks, and I mean real risks, not the use of a racist slur.

Finally get your digital act figured out. I have no interest in viewing extended background information on the web, in some sort of 21st century copy of the gamebooks of my childhood, nor in taking part in some sick prediction of the outcome of nuclear holocaust Real interactivity is needed to keep modern day audiences interested. Simply showing me different videos based on a few link choices no longer makes the grade. I want real responses, I want to interact with real people, I want to feel like I’m part of the show, and not merely and observer.

For those of you who don’t follow my twitter stream (and you really should), I held an impromptu barbeque the other night (pics), which was a massive success and will, at some point, be followed up. I provided all manner of goodies, included burgers and hot dogs (which tasted fantastic, if I might say so myself). Now, those of you who know me will know that I’m not a big fan of cooking, and as such don’t frequently buy food, especially of quantity. This being a barbeque, things were different, and off I went to the local superstore to buy said produce.

I picked up some burgers. Packs of 6. Then some hot dogs. Packs of 8. Easy peasy I thought, I can do this, so off I trundle to find the buns and rolls, and that’s where it all goes wrong.

The buns and rolls are located about as far away as you can get from the burgers and hot dogs, but never mind, I found them with the help of a few friendly staff members. First the burger buns. Packs of 8. Then the hot dog rolls. Packs of 6.

I was close to going steve martin right there and then. I had always assumed that the film was making a joke, and that in the real world products were packaged in sensible amounts. Apparently not. I could, of course, have chosen to buy a combination of the lowest common multiple of both burger / buns and hot dogs / rolls, but it’s not like I had invited the entire internet to my home to feast! And furthermore this would have precipitated a journey back through the store’s maze of isles to find more meat, probably to find it had run out.

It’s crazy, it really is. If anything it’s wasteful. If they priced the buns and rolls the same as they are now, but gave me less so that they came in sensible quantities I don’t think I would care, at least I wouldn’t be wasting. Who eats a burger bun with out a burger? Not me

Yesterday was the Big Geek Day Out to Alton Towers, and was, of course, a day full of drama and adventure. I was one of seven people to be accidentally culled from twitter (although now restored, thankfully), disastrous on a day when communication between people whose mobile number you don’t necessarily know is essential. 

This started me thinking about how much we rely on services like Twitter, and how they control access to our data and communications channels. Even though my culling was only accidental, and was restored within 24 hours, whose to say that it won’t be longer next time, or that restoration might not be complete and data might actually be lost, or that it will be accidental. Information stored in my DMs might exist nowhere else and disappear forever. I have information in DMs that exists nowhere else. I would struggle to find even 50% of the people I follow. Many of my followers wouldn’t know how to find me if I was no longer at twitter.com/emmapersky. 

This problem is not restricted to twitter. Any service which we use of communication or information management is liable to the same problem. Facebook links me to hundreds of people I know, but people whose contact information is only stored there. Friends who I see once a year are do not become detached, they are just a few clicks away.

Is it foolish of me to store all of this information like this? Yes, but do I have a choice? Not really. Facebook’s restrictive information policies do not let me export the email addresses of my contacts (although I could, and probably should, go through them manually). Twitter, on the other hand, allows me to export my friends lists (through the api), but I don’t receive any contact information useful outside of twitter. 

Both Twitter and Facebook have sections in their Terms and Conditions which allow them to terminate user accounts. Yes, when you signup to one of these services you agree that they can delete you from their service, without reason. Twitter’s Terms of Service provides for this in it’s Terms of Service with a simple line

Deep within the Facebook Terms of Use (which is longer than some novels I have read) I found this

serious stuff. Twitter and Facebook can actually remove anyone from their portion of the internet at any time without reason.

Why is this? Because the contract between us is basically one way. They give us service for free, and thus they are not obligated to do anything more. This notion does not only apply to Twitter and Facebook, but almost any service you use for free on the internet.

In contrast, many real world services have contracts between provider and consumer that are full of conditions explicit on the provider. They must conform to a number of conditions such as informing consumers of changes in the conditions, providing a minimum level of service, etc.

The fundemental difference between these types of services is money. When you pay for a service, the contract between your and the provider is just as stringent on them (otherwise you probably shouldn’t hand over your cash).

I would be certainly strongly consider a small payment to use twitter if it meant that I was entitled to a contract with obligated them to a higher level of service, including not deleting because they felt like it. Is this a viable alternative business model for free service websites outside of the traditional (well, recently traditional) model of displaying advertising to users to generate revenue. Can free services move away from distracting adverts? Can websites really charge for their use? If you ask me, yes then can.