Rant Time: Google Wallet Verification
So, I know how much everyone love my rants. Well, here’s another one. This falls under personal security and internet security common sense. Today, let’s explore the safety of Google Wallet and it’s so-called verification system.
What is Google Wallet?
Basically, it’s another type of payment system like Paypal or Amazon checkout. Effectively, it’s a way to pay for things or send money on the Internet using Google. That’s about as simple as it gets. Who uses it? I certainly don’t nor will I ever if Google doesn’t change its ways.
Verification of Identity
Like most other payment systems, they want to know who you are. Or, at least, that the person who is wanting to use the payment system owns the card or bank accounts added into their system. However, each one of these payment systems usually does verification in similar ways. For example, Paypal verifies you by requiring you to add a checking account (i.e., routing and account info) and then adding a small amount of money to your checking account. Later, you enter those two tiny amounts of money into their verification panel and you’re all set. That’s pretty much it for Paypal. This is similar to other financial institutions like E-Trade.
Google’s Verification = Stupid
And I thought Paypal’s verification was stupid. Leave it to Google to diverge and make it even more difficult. In the verification form, Google requires you to enter your social security number, your birth date, your home address, your phone number and various other information that could easily lead to identity theft. Then they require that you submit it. Information, I might incidentally add, that is not required for you to use an established credit card or bank account for payment. After all, banks are already required to identify you before opening an account. This is the whole reason why Paypal’s verification system is enough. Paypal merely hangs onto the coattails of the bank that has already previously verified your identity when you opened the account. I digress.
When their entry form doesn’t work, they require you to attach a PDF document of a government issued identification card. Not only is that stupidly manual, who the hell know what Google is going to do with that PDF file once you send it to them? Why would you want to do this anyway? Seriously, you’re not opening a bank account with Google. You’re not getting anything out of it by sending this to Google. And, you’re opening yourself up to huge personal risk by leaving PDF documents of your identification cards floating around on the Internet for hackers to find. Seriously, what is Google thinking here?
For me, that’s a big red flag and a BIG FAT NO to Google. I have no intention of providing any physical paperwork to a private corporation. If you can’t figure out proper method to identify the user electronically, that’s not my problem.
Legal Compliance?
I know that Google claims that this is all in the name of Federal compliance, but I’m quite sure the compliance laws don’t require you to verify a user using any specific implementation techniques. Clearly, Paypal is able to comply with these laws without requiring a PDF version of physical government issued identification. The reality is that Google also does not need a copy of this. That they claim that this is required to fulfill legal obligations is smoke and mirrors.
No, it’s quite clear, Google’s verification system is broken and completely unnecessary. They can certainly comply with all identity verification laws without resorting to asking for a copy of your identification be submitted to them in PDF or any other format.
Merchant Requirements
In fact, while credit card issuers like Visa and Mastercard don’t forbid asking for identification when using a credit card, the merchant must still accept the card for payment as long as it’s properly signed without seeing an ID. Because Google wallet requires actually seeing your identification before using some services with your credit card, this violates card issuer rules regarding the requirement for seeing identification before purchases. On the other hand, unlike a retailer who has the physical card in hand, Google cannot see your card and whether it’s signed. But, the spirit of this rule remains. Using a method of charging a small charge to the card and asking you to check the statement, then supply that dollar amount should be enough to verify that you own that card and that you have access to statements… just like Paypal and E-Trade.
Because a lot of statements have now become e-statements online, the small charge method doesn’t necessarily verify your physical address. Though, if they need to verify your physical address, they can simply send a postcard with a code. Then, have you enter that code into a verification panel once you receive it. In fact, this is really the only method that will verify your physical address is valid.
Google Wallet’s Usefulness?
With all of that said, Google has failed to make any traction towards becoming a defacto wallet. In fact, there are so few merchants that actually use Google Wallet, it’s probably safer not to verify with Google. Being as unused as it is around the Internet and seeing as Paypal is the primary method of paying for things today, it’s too much of a personal risk to submit PDFs of your passport or drivers license to a random corporation. You have no idea where that PDF might end up. Though, it will likely end up on Google drive because Google likely requires its employees to eat Google’s own dogfood (i.e., uses its own services).
And since the risk of using Google drive is as yet unknown with all of the Facebook-like features that Google has added (and continues to add), it wouldn’t surprise me to find Google internal documents accidentally shared through a Google employee’s personal account via Google+. This would obviously be bad for Google, but it wouldn’t surprise me. That’s why you don’t upload PDF files to corporations like Google. In fact, I wouldn’t share PDF files of that type on any network drive unless it’s encrypted and passworded. Better, don’t put it there in the first place.
Companies requiring copy of a personal ID
Personally, I won’t do this type of ‘give me a copy’ verification for any company unless I’m opening a bank account, credit card or need to provide it for some specific financial transaction. Even then, I will only transact that business in person and allow the person long enough time to see the documents to get what they need from it. And no, they are not allowed to photocopy it unless there’s some specific requirement.
I especially won’t do this with companies as big as Google or Microsoft when no transaction is involved. As companies grow larger and larger, employees get more and more careless in document handling. Asking for photocopies of identification cards, social security cards, credit card faces or any other issued card is not cool and I have no intention of ever providing that to a company for any identification purposes unless I’m actually performing a transaction. I won’t do it for ‘just in case’ services that I may never use. Doing so stupidly leaves a financial time bomb out there ready to be exploited.
The most they need is the number off of the face. If a company cannot make do with what’s printed on the face of the card (by being typed in), they get nothing. Just like giving your check routing information to a company such as Paypal is like writing a blank check, giving copies of physical documents to corporations is tantamount to identity theft. I simply don’t trust corporations with access to copies of my physical documents.
Though, were Google to set up a storefront and I could walk in and hand my card to someone to visually inspect and then maybe have them swipe it (although, I’d prefer not), I’d be somewhat okay with that. But, knowing a PDF file is floating around on the internet somewhere with a copy of my physical card, that’s not in any way cool. I will never do that for any corporation sight unseen no matter who they are. Since there’s no way to transact business with Google in person, there’s no way I’ll ever verify my identity for Google Wallet.
Cinavia: Annoying? Yes. What is it?
If you’re into playing back movies on your PS3, you might have run into an annoying problem where your movie plays for about 20 minutes, then the audio suddenly drops out entirely with a warning message on the screen. This is Cinavia. Let’s explore.
What is Cinavia and how does it work?
Cinavia is an audio watermarking technology created by the company Verance where an audio subcode is embedded within digital audio soundtracks at humanly imperceptible levels, but at a level where a DSP or other included hardware chip can read and decode its presence. Don’t be fooled by the ad with smiling children on the Verance site, this has nothing to do with helping make audio better for the consumer. No, it is solely created for industry media protection.
This Cinavia watermark audio subcode seems to be embedded at a phase and frequency that can be easily isolated and extracted from an audio soundtrack, then processed and determined if it’s valid for the movie title being played back. Likely, it’s also an analog audio-based digital carrier subcode (like a modem tone) that contains data about the title being played.
How is Cinavia used in the film industry?
There are two types of known uses of Cinavia watermarking. The first use is to protect theatrical releases from being pirated. Because the audio watermarking is audible, but imperceptible, it will be picked up by microphones (strictly because of the Hz range where the subcode is embedded). Keep in mind that just because the subcode cannot be heard by human ears, it doesn’t mean it can’t be heard and decoded by a specialty hardware chip. So, if a theatrical release is CAMed (i.e. recorded from the screen), the Cinavia watermarking will also be recorded in the audio. After all, what is a movie without audio?
The second use is to protect Blu-ray copies of films from being pirated. For the same reason as theatrical releases, Blu-ray films are also embedded with a subcode. But, that subcode is different from theatrical films. For this reason, films destined for theatrical releases will never play in a consumer Blu-ray player ever (including players such as the PS3, PS4 or Xbox One). Commercial Blu-ray disks play because the audio track uses AACS with a key likely embedded within the subcode watermark. If the AACS key matches the value from the watermark, the check passes and the audio continues to play.
I have also read there is a third use emerging… to protect DVD releases. But, I have yet to confirm any DVDs currently using this technology. If you have run into any such releases, please leave a comment.
How would I be affected by this?
All consumer Blu-ray players manufactured after 2012-2013 are required to support Cinavia. If the Cinavia subcode is present, the player will blank the audio track if the AACS key is mismatched. This means hardware Blu-ray players from pretty much any manufacturer will be affected by Cinavia protection if the title supports it. CAM copies of theatrical releases will never play because the audio subcode is entirely different for theatrical films and the Blu-ray player will recognize that theatrical subcode and stop audio playback.
Not all movie titles use Cinavia to protect their content. Not all players support the Cinavia protections from all media types. For example, some Blu-ray players can play media from a variety of sources beside BD disks (e.g., USB drives, Network servers, etc). These alternative sources are not always under Cinavia protection even if the specific movie has an embedded subcode.
Since Sony is the biggest proponent and user of this technology, all Sony players, including the PS3 and PS4 along with their standalone Blu-ray players will not play back Cinavia protected material if it doesn’t continue to pass the subcode tests. For example, if you rip a Blu-ray disk protected by Cinavia and then burn it to a BD-rom disk, the movie will stop playing audio at around the 20 minute mark and display a warning. If you attempt to stop and start the movie, it will play audio again for a few seconds and then stop playing with a warning.
How can you remove Cinavia protection?
In short, it’s not as easy as that may sound. Once the Cinavia protection is detected on the media, the hardware activates and continues to look for the information it needs to make sure the content is ‘legitimate’.
With that said, there are ways of getting around this on certain devices. As I explained, some players don’t check for Cinavia for certain types of media (i.e., USB or Network streaming). Sony, however, does check for all media types. The PS3, though, doesn’t seem to check for Cinavia if the playback is through the optical output port (i.e., when playing back through an optical receiver). That would make sense, though, as it would be left up to the receiver to blank the audio based on Cinavia. Since most receivers probably don’t support Cinavia, there should be no issue with playback.
Other technical methods include garbling the audio somewhat or using variable speed on the audio. Neither of these two methods are really acceptable to the ears when watching a movie. We all want our movies to both look and sound correct.
How can I avoid this problem?
You can easily avoid this issue by using a a player that doesn’t support Cinavia protection. For example, Windows Media Player, VLC, etc. Most PC media players do not support Cinavia. Though, if you get a PC from Sony, expect the media player on any Sony product to support Cinavia (yes, even Windows Media Player might as Sony may have loaded a system-wide Cinavia plugin). If you buy a PC from any manufacturer other than Sony, you likely won’t be affected by Cinavia.
This problem almost solely exists on Blu-ray standalone players. So, if you avoid playing movies on such consumer hardware players, you can usually avoid the Cinavia issue entirely. Though, there are some commercial PC media players that do support Cinavia.
A possible real solution?
Another method which I have not seen explored, I have decided to propose here. With a film protected by Cinavia, the Cinavia subcode should exist both within silence as well as noisy portions likely at the same volume. First, extract a length of silence (that contains Cinavia subcode). Now, garble, stretch, warp and generally distort this subcode so that it cannot be recognized by a Cinavia decoder. Then duplicate the garbled ‘silence’ subcode to fill the length of the entire film. Extract the film’s audio soundtrack, mix in the new garbled full length subcode throughout the entire film. Note that remixing 7.1 or 5.1 track is a bit tricky, but it can be done. I would suggest inserting it on the subwoofer track or the center track, though it may be present on all of the tracks by design. After the audio track is remixed and remuxed into a resulting MP4 (or other format), the new garbled subcode should hopefully interfere just enough with the existing already-embedded subcode to prevent the Cinavia protection from getting a lock on the film’s original subcode.
The outcome of the garbled subcode could cause one of two things to happen. 1) The Cinavia detection is rendered useless and the Cinavia hardware ignores the subcode entirely or 2) The Cinavia detection realizes such tampering and shuts down the audio track immediately. While erroring on the side of fail is really a bad move in an industry already fraught with bad press around failed past media protection schemes, I would more likely suspect scenario number 1. But, it’s probably worth a test. No, I have not yet had time to test my theory.
While this doesn’t exactly remove Cinavia, it should hopefully render it useless. But, it won’t recover the lost audio portions being used by the Cinavia subcode.
How would I go about doing this?
I wouldn’t attempt doing the above suggestion manually on films as it takes a fair amount of time demuxing audio, creating the garbled audio subcode, remixing the new track and remuxing it into the video. But an application capable of ripping could easily handle this task during the rip and conversion process if provided with a length of garbled subcode.
[Updated: 2018-01-06]
Apparently, DVDFab seems to have a way to rip and disable Cinavia protections according to their literature. They have released the DVDFab DVD and Blu-ray Cinavia Removal tool. If you’re still having difficulties with Cinavia while watching your movies, it might be worth checking out this tool. Note, I have not personally used this tool, so I can’t vouch for its effectiveness. I am also not being sponsored by DVDFab in this article. I’m only pointing out this tool because I recently found it and because it seems to have a high rating. On the other hand, I do see some complaints that it doesn’t always recognize and remove Cinavia on some movies. So, caveat emptor. Even though it’s not an inexpensive product, it is on sale at the time of this update for whatever that’s worth.
It seems that someone finally may have implemented my idea above. Good on them if they did… it only took around 4 years.
Yahoo: When recycling is not a good idea
After Marissa Mayer’s team recently decimated Flickr with its new gaudy and garish interface and completely alienated professional photographers in the process, her team is now aiming its sights on a new, but unnecessary, problem: recycling of long expired user IDs. Yahoo had been collecting user IDs for years. That is, people sign up and use the account for a while, then let the account lapse without use for longer than 30 days. Yahoo marks the ID as ‘abandoned’ (or similar) and then locks it out forever, until now. Some employee at Yahoo offered up the incredibly bad idea to recycle IDs. Unfortunately, this decision to recycle IDs may actually become the demise of Yahoo. Let’s explore.
Recyclables
I’m guessing that Yahoo has decided to make it look like it’s doing something good by recycling something, anything. That is, Yahoo is now letting people Wishlist long-closed user IDs that had been previously locked. Hurry, though, you only have until Aug 7, 2013 to wishlist that long forgotten ID. The trouble is, these old abandoned IDs are clearly second-hand goods. Let’s understand what exactly that means and why you really don’t want one (unless, of course, it was previously yours).
1) Obviously… Spam
Clearly, you aren’t asking for this old ID so you can jump onto that horrendous new Flickr interface or because you intend to read Yahoo News or OMG. The most obvious reason to want that ‘primo’ ID is for the email address. Unfortunately, you have no idea how that account was formerly used or what baggage might be associated with it! So, unfortunately, you will have no idea what exactly you’re getting into by re-using someone’s old ID. The person might have signed up for it just to divert tons of spam into it. Yes, this happens. That means, you could open the account and find it filled with spam in only 5-10 minutes, literally. Who’s to say someone wasn’t using it for illegal purposes and it was shut down for that purpose?
Yeah yeah.. Yahoo claims they will ‘unsubscribe’ the old ID from newsletters and so forth and these will have been ‘idle’ for at least 12 months (the first batch), but they’ve outlined no way in which they plan to accomplish this unsubscribe piece. Are they really going to hire a bunch of people to sit around clicking unsubscribe links and filling out unsubscribe forms? I think not. It’s all song and dance with no substance. Not to mention unsubscribing legitimate email subscriptions only accounts for about half (or less) of the total email volume that ends up in an inbox. So, don’t expect any miracles from Yahoo. If they can stop email, the best they can stop is about 40-50% at most. All of the rest will still show up merely by you having signed into your ‘new’ account.
A new email header?
Oh yeah, Yahoo is also trying to rush through the IETF RFC process a new header called require-recipient-valid-since that takes a date as an argument. This header basically requires marketers to know the exact acquisition date of every email address in their lists. Assuming email marketers know this date, which is a huge and incorrect assumption for Yahoo to make, when the email marketers send email containing this date, the email will supposedly end up in the correct account (or not) depending on the date. Because of this date header, that could lead real email to go missing or spam to show up. Unfortunately, as I said, this is an incorrect assumption. Most email marketers barely know the source of their leads, let alone when they acquired it. No, this date thing simply won’t work. And even then, this header will only work with email marketers willing to follow the rules. Spammers that don’t care won’t bother.
Worse, Yahoo is planning on handing out these newly freed old accounts in mid-August. Like every email marketing firm will simply drop whatever business plans they currently have to retool their applications to support this rushed and nearly useless header. Is Yahoo really that asleep at the switch?
2) Fraud, Account and/or Identity Theft
If you happened to have owned one of these long abandoned accounts or you otherwise lost your Yahoo account long ago, you’ll want to be very careful here. You can be guaranteed that there are already people scouting for popular long dead accounts to resurrect and phish for accounts, theft and identities. These thieves know that banks and other legacy institutions keep email addresses on file until you explicitly change them. Even then, they can have issues even updating this information in their systems even when you do request the change. So, someone who obtains a long dead account and then browses to Wells Fargo or Bank of America’s web site to request a password reset, they could abscond with your account credentials and your money assuming you still have (or ever had) any old Yahoo accounts hooked up to any financial accounts.
Yahoo claims to have ‘security’ mechanisms planned, but good luck with relying on that. I can’t even see that working. Granted, if banks fill in ‘require-recipient-valid-since’ with the appropriate acquisition date in every email they send, the banks can help prevent this issue (assuming the header works as expected). But, that also assumes the bank has an email address acquisition date to fill in this header. That also assumes that the bank can even roll out this header change in the time allotted before Yahoo starts doling these old IDs out. The clock is ticking and Yahoo hasn’t even gotten the RFC completed.
Fraud and identity theft is a very likely outcome of recycling old Yahoo accounts. If you’re reading this article and you have ever used a now-long-closed Yahoo ID for email, I urge you to go through all of your important accounts and make sure you have deleted all references to your old Yahoo email address immediately! Otherwise, some random person could come to own your old ID and can then cycle through sites requesting password resets just to find what sites your old ID may have used. This is the number one security threat that Yahoo can’t easily get around or easily address. Note, that a hacker who obtains an old ID only needs to get access to one of your accounts that will email your real plaintext password back to them and then they’ll work their way up to your bigger accounts. This is one of the biggest reasons this is an incredibly bad idea from Yahoo.
I’d also suggest that for any accounts you do have (i.e., Facebook, Gmail, etc), make sure to add alternative email addresses other than your Yahoo address for password resets and other security related emails. If you can, remove all your Yahoo addresses outright even if they are live. Use Gmail or Windows Live Mail instead (at least until they decide to go down this stupid ID recycling road).
3) Yahoo Mistakes
Ooops.. we didn’t actually intend to give away your live account. Sorry, ’bout that.
And then you’re stuck without an account. Yahoo is not publishing what accounts are under consideration specifically. They only say that these ‘dead accounts’ have been idle longer than 12 months in the first batch. Thereafter, any account that has been not accessed for 30 days is up for reissue consideration. There is nothing to say that Yahoo won’t make a mistake and re-issue a live and active account to some random person wbo signed up on the Wishlist. I can easily see this becoming one of the biggest blunders that Yahoo makes in this process. Unless the Yahoo staff is incredibly careful with this process, it would be super easy to accidentally give some random schmo access to an active live Yahoo account by mistake. For this reason alone, I’d consider closing out all of my Yahoo accounts except for one thing. They would recycle my account string name in 12 months (0r 30 days) and I’d be right back here in this situation again worrying about what of my other accounts were tied to this email address.
Basically, I can’t close my Yahoo account because it’s too great of a security risk. If I leave it open, I risk Yahoo accidentally giving it away in this stupid ‘wishlist’ process. It’s really a no-win situation. After Flickr, I have less and less trust in Yahoo and this is now leaving every Yahoo user in the lurch. This basically means you can NEVER EVER close your active Yahoo account if you want to keep your other accounts secure.
4) Missing Email
Even if you do manage to get your hands on one of these ‘prized’ IDs, Yahoo claims to be putting technical measures into place to prevent security issues. That could very well mean that for recycled accounts your mail delivery will be spotty, if it even works. Meaning, Yahoo may so heavily scrutinize emails heading to these recycled IDs that legitimate mail may simply never show up that’s been marked as ‘a security risk’. So, for emails like password resets to accounts, you may find that these emails simply never show up at all. Basically, anything that Yahoo’s email system construes as a security risk could simply just go missing. This is the most likely outcome of this recycling. Note that this problem could end up extending to every Yahoo account which could make Yahoo Mail a very problematic place for any email purposes.
Excess Baggage?
If after reading the above, you are still considering an ‘old used account’, I really can’t understand why. Taking on someone else’s old email and Yahoo baggage isn’t something I’d want to deal with (are they going to be sure to clear off all old comments and Yahoo answers for this old ID?). So, someone pops up from years past not knowing that Yahoo ID has been reissued and then you get some old boyfriend email, or someone who hated the previous owner of that ID. Then what? So, then you’ll be left with a mess to clean up. Why would you want to deal with this excess baggage when you can get a new account that’s never been issued and not have to deal with this problem at all? However, knowing that any account you create at Yahoo would be recycled later, how could you rely on it for any kind of security? You can’t. So, I might suggest Gmail or Windows Live Mail (or any other free email service not recycling IDs) instead of Yahoo.
Alternatives?
Unfortunately, I don’t see any other alternatives with Yahoo at this point. This is an incredibly stupid decision from Yahoo. I have no idea what the folks at Yahoo are even thinking. It’s not like a telephone number. You give that up and no one thinks twice that someone could use that old phone number nefariously. Unfortunately, nearly every site now uses email addresses to know if you ‘own’ your accounts. So, password resets, pin codes, and all manner of secure information traverses through email addresses.
One thing that Yahoo may inadvertently cause from this change is for Banks and other financial institutions to rethink how they validate a user’s identity. Clearly with this change, email addresses can no longer be trusted as secure or even know that it’s owned by only one person. This throws security surrounding email addresses into complete turmoil for any site that uses email addresses as validation.
Based on the previous paragraph, sites may start preventing use of @yahoo.com email addresses for their services. Knowing that you could lose your Yahoo account and then have it turned over to someone else 30 days later could easily lead to site compromises. To simply avoid this situation entirely, sites that rely on security may simply stop letting @yahoo.com email addresses sign up for service. So, one of the biggest benefits of using Yahoo Mail will end. I’d expect a mass exodus to Gmail or Windows Live Mail after the dust settles here. In fact, this decision may kill Yahoo Mail as any kind of a real email service. Does Marissa have any idea what the hell she’s doing? If I were on the Yahoo board, I’d be seriously considering right about now of ousting this one.
If I were in a position at Yahoo to make this decision, I would have killed this idea before I’d ever left the conference room. That Yahoo is even contemplating making this move at this time is completely questionable. Let’s just hope that when someone’s account is compromised and/or has identity theft as a direct result of this bad Yahoo decision, that someone will sue the pants off of Yahoo. That will at least teach other ISPs that this is not, in any way, an acceptable practice.
Risky Business
This decision has disaster written all over it. This is also a huge liability risk for Yahoo. Yes, Yahoo may have written in their Terms and Conditions that they have the right to reissue account names. But, since they hadn’t been doing this from the beginning and they’re now choosing to do this without proper preparations, this is a huge legal risk. It only takes a handful of users who’s accounts get compromised or who’s identities get stolen as a result of Yahoo’s new policy that this will end in courtroom dates. I can’t even fathom what benefit Yahoo derives from reissuing old IDs, but I can definitely see huge legal liabilities and black clouds looming over this now floundering company. In fact, the liabilities so outweigh the potential benefits to Yahoo, I have to completely question the purpose of this decision. Let’s hope Yahoo is all lawyered up as I can see the court dates piling up from this very very bad decision.
Flickr flustr: When design doesn’t meet function
It’s not often I write multiple articles involving the same topic, but in this case I’m making an exception. I think it’s important to explore and understand the reasons why I believe this new Flickr interface change is such a failure. As a visual artist, I look at the new Flickr interface and wonder what the designers were thinking? See the image to the left. It’s clear the designers were not aware of the many ways that users use Flickr. Let’s explore.
Original Flickr Interface
The original Flickr design was compelling (if not dated) for many reasons and was also useful for many different purposes. The reason the original interface held up so well and for so long is because the original designer’s vision still held true even today, dated as it may seem. “Why has it held up?”, you ask. Let’s examine.
The images were spaced just far enough apart that the images, colors and shapes didn’t clash with one another. Image thumbnails were generally of the same size whether portrait or landscape. The page was centered leaving white borders on the sides giving well enough space for the eye to rest. There were limited numbers of photos per page keeping down the clutter. There was just enough information below each image to give the necessary details about the image (like a placard in a Gallery). From a management perspective, there was also just enough information to show how popular an image is and whether or not it has comments.
Basically, this original interface, while somewhat antiquated and dated, was still very functional on many levels. Both amateur and professionals alike could use and reference this interface for their own purposes. Amateurs could use it to store their snaps. Professionals could direct paying clients to their portfolio without image clashing or the interface being too busy. It was well designed from the beginning for many purposes and uses.
With this original interface, Flickr even began offering limited customization of the page layout such as images alone or images with sets on the left or other similar layouts. Yes, it was always limited customization and I had always hoped for more customization features to come.
New Flickr Interface
The new ’tile’ interface (which incidentally looks too much like Windows 8 Metro) removes nearly every pixel of white space and fills the entire page (edge to edge) with images. It unfairly penalizes portrait image thumbnail sizes over much larger thumbnails for landscape aspect images. So, you have huge landscape sized thumbnails immediately beside tiny sized portrait thumbnails. More than that, because it removes all white space from the page and fills the entire screen with images, there is no place for the eye to rest. It becomes one big jumbled mess of a screen that’s hard to view and even harder to concentrate on a single image. While the original interface design kept the images spaced far enough apart to let you focus on a single image, the new interface doesn’t. Instead, it forces your eye to constantly jump around to find something else to view. This makes the page too busy and way too cluttered.
Worse, when your eyes get tired of focusing on the images, they begin to focus on the white borders between the images. Because the white borders are of odd shapes and sizes, it begins to take on the motif of a badly copied Mondrian painting. In other words, the entire interface is one big cluttered busy mess. It’s not pleasant to view for any period of time. So, instead of taking time to visit a Flickr site in a relaxing way, many people will likely get eye fatigue fast and browse away from the entire Flickr site. The new site makes you want to look at something less tiring and less stressful. Art should be about the images, not the layout making you queasy.
Worse, in no way does this new interface say ‘professional’.
Polar Opposite Reactions
I hear a lot of people say they like the interface. My first initial reaction was also positive. But, that only lasted for a few moments until I realized the problems. I initially liked it because it was something new and a change, but I quickly realized that it wasn’t ‘better’. I hear many people saying that it’s the worst thing they’ve ever seen. That it’s horrible. So, why does this interface generate such polar opposite reactions from so many people? It’s because Flickr went from a general purpose interface appealing to a wide array of people to an interface that appeals to only a small subset of those people.
For a casual photographer who takes photos of their dog or baby or kids, it gives a really great at-a-glance image set to know what you have. This especially works well when the images are mostly the same or a series of similar shots. Also, for those people who like coffee table books of images, this is the next best thing to that. You can bring it up at home on your screen and show people your photo album at a glance. It’s much easier to see all your images at once with this interface. For casual use, these are the people I’d expect to like the new interface. It makes seeing the images easy and they’re accessible. In other words, it’s a little like Facebook’s gallery style. But, that doesn’t make it any less cluttered, busy or stressful to view.
For the professional photographer, the exact opposite is true. You do not want your images crammed up on the same page together like this. It’s busy, cramped, the images don’t flow properly, your eye can’t focus and doesn’t allow your clients to focus on each single image easily. It pits too many images against each other vying for attention. This is bad for a professional. Again, it’s just too busy and cluttered. You would never intentionally build a portfolio that looks this way. Why would you ever expect this from a site like Flickr? So, for professionals, this is the absolute worst interface that could have been built to show off professional photographs in a professional way.
The same above for professional photographers also holds true for visual artists. If Flickr were a gallery, it would now be one wall cluttered with hundreds of images. If I were hanging my art in a gallery, I would want them spaced far enough apart that they don’t clash or create the wrong message. I also would be allowed to place my art in the order of my choosing. Yet, at Flickr, the photostream is still limited to the order in which it was uploaded. This is something that should have been fixed long before rolling out this new interface.
The Interface Mistake
Flickr developers have completely lost touch with why the original interface worked for pretty much every use case. It worked because it offered something for every level of photographer, casual through professional including visual artists. It was by no means a perfect interface. After all, it needed a lot of improvements. But, it worked and it worked well. It was also on its way to becoming something better especially with the latest round of customization features added.
Because the Flickr developers just didn’t clearly understand the full amount of use cases, they developed this new interface that entices primarily just one use case, casual users. The people who snap their baby, their dog, their house or whatever else they can find around the house. These are those people who want an at-a-glance style interface that’s big, bold, cluttered and in-your-face. A virtual coffee table book, if you will. Or, in other words, the Facebookers.
Professionals and visual artists don’t want this. They don’t need this. It’s not professional. It’s not the way you want your photos represented to a potential client. It’s reminiscent of video game or a mobile device or Facebook. It’s not representative of a gallery exhibit or of a portfolio. This is where the Flickr developers have lost touch.
Flickr is a Gallery
The designers need to firmly understand that Flickr is a gallery. We are creative people supplying creative images to this gallery. It’s not a video game. It’s not a mobile device. It’s not Facebook. It is an image gallery. We want to showcase our images, not show them off like some kind of video game or toy or social network. Treat the images with respect, not as toys.
Because it is a gallery, customization is in order. The tile interface is fine as one theme among many display themes, but not as the sole theme for Flickr. Flickr needs to take a page from the WordPress book and offer multiple themes and styles. Let us choose how our images are showcased to our visitors. Yes, customization could easily become haphazard and random, but that’s the nature of customization. It has to. I don’t necessarily recommend allowing CSS level editing, but I do recommend that gallery themes become available. The time has long come for this Flickr feature. This feature is what Flickr developers should have been working on. The tiles theme, again, should have been one in among many different themes available to choose.
Don’t lock me into one single theme that doesn’t allow for customization. If I don’t like it, there’s nothing I can do except move my images elsewhere. Offer me choice. Let me choose my theme and my presentation to visitors. Flickr could have chosen this theme as the default theme, but then let us go into a theme selector and choose among 10-20 different gallery themes. Choice is the answer, not busy unprofessional Facebooky tiles.
Separate Management Interface
Because I’m the manager over my images, I don’t necessarily want to see the same interface that my visitors do when managing my images. I want a separate management interface that allows me to see and manage my images at a glance. I want easy, fast access to my comments, sets, collections, view stats and everything surrounding my images. I don’t need to fumble through the visitor experience only to expend extra time attempting to manage my images through a cluttered and busy interface. I want a clean concise management interface that users don’t see. It doesn’t really matter how pretty the management interface is as long as it’s functional for image management. Functionality is the key to image management.
The Fiasco
There were a number of mistakes made here. The developers did not do enough homework to understand why the original interface worked so well for so many use cases before rolling out the new interface. They refused to see just how narrow of a use case is the new interface. It really only appeals to one of many use cases. Additionally, Yahoo offered no preview. In other words, there was no beta test for users to give feedback before rolling it out site wide. Offering a preview window would have saved Flickr a lot of grief and is probably the single biggest mistake Flickr made in this whole update.
Developmentally, the mistakes they made included not offering customization. Users have been clamoring for such features as rearranging the image order of their stream. I agree, I would love to have this feature and have been waiting for it for a very long time. I would like to see other features regarding things like frames and virtual lighting. I’d like to have seen more Ajax features (easy drag and arrange). Users want more customization, not less. Instead, they locked every single user into a single interface experience that not only alienates most professional use cases, it also offers no customization to change things about the interface. In other words, Flickr has take a huge step backwards. The interface may appear more slick, but the lack of customization takes us back to a time well before Yahoo ever bought Flickr.
Then it comes to bugs. Instead of actually correcting existing bugs and misfeatures, they worked on changing the style of the main page leaving all of the existing bugs and misfeatures out there. Seriously, the most important thing is to make the landing page ‘pretty’? What about all of the features that were not complete or the bugs that were not fixed, or the features that were never added?
The final mistake, the treatment of Pro account holders. With the increase to 1TB of space and upload limits well increased, the need to purchase Pro is really no longer necessary. Those who recently purchased a Pro account this year feel cheated out of their money. And, rightly so. Yahoo didn’t live up to their side of the deal with the money given to Flickr for Pro accounts. Instead, Yahoo basically thumbed its collective noses at the Pro account users not only from the monetary perspective, but also from interface perspective. Basically, Yahoo just completely tromped all over the Professional photographers who bought into the interface for that use, but also those who paid into the Pro accounts that gave bigger limits needed to be a Professional user. Yahoo hasn’t even addressed this issue at all.
Yahoo has a lot of work to do to repair Flickr Pro user relationships. Unfortunately, it’s probably too late. Many Professional photographers are already migrating their imagery away from Flickr to alternative services that are, hopefully, more reliable and offer more professional interfaces and support.
Lacking Support
Through this whole ordeal, Flickr support has remained amazingly silent. They asked for comments and have said nothing about it. They did state they were ‘listening’ for whatever that’s worth. But, we all know that listening and doing are two entirely separate things. There should have been a lot more help and support coming from the Flickr staff after such an amazingly huge change. Yet, it appears that the Flickr team has rolled the interface out in a fire-and-forget approach. Basically, with a ‘this is it’ attitude given off by those who have been able to get hold of a support person.
Clearly, if this is the level of support that Yahoo / Flickr is providing to users for this type of service, it’s probably worth moving on to a service where your money will get you real support when you need it. Where the support people actually do care about making a difference and keeping the customer happy.
By the time Flickr realizes the problem and manages to correct it, it will probably be too late. It’s probably already too late.
Mass Shootings vs Entertainment: What’s to blame?
Note, my heart goes out to those who were hurt by Adam Lanza’s violent act at Sandy Hook. This article in no way intends to diminish anyone’s loss that day.
After Adam Lanza killed 27 people at Sandy Hook elementary school in Connecticut, congressional leaders are now aiming their sites on video game violence as a cause. This knee jerk reaction came about because Adam Lanza was a ‘gamer’. What child of his generation hasn’t played at least one video game at some time? I would have been more surprised to learn he had never played video games. Video games are ubiquitous at this point. They are as ubiquitous as TV, the telephone and the Internet. In fact, video games are on telephones. Video games are not in any way a small industry that only a small segment of children play. No.
In fact, most big video game titles like Skyrim, Call of Duty and World of Warcraft today gross far in excess of the proceeds that even the biggest films gross over their cinematic run. Most children today play video games in some way or another every day, whether it be on their iPhone, personal computers, a console (Xbox 360, PS3, Wii, etc), Facebook or on a handheld like the PS Vita, PSP or Nintendo 3DX. Video games are everywhere.
Violent Games versus the Real World
Video game violence has been in games since the early days of video games on computers, like playing Ultima on the Apple II to Nintendo’s Zelda series to Plants vs Zombies to today’s most sophisticated pc and console games like Call Of Duty. Video game violence is what it is and it’s here to stay. But, there is nothing at all that feels real about playing a video game or in participating in video game violence. Yes, video games can become an immersive experience at times, but it is so far removed from reality that anyone who is sane and rational can tell the difference between a game and reality. Note, I did say that anyone who is ‘sane’ can tell the difference.
With Adam Lanza (as with many of the other shooters), there are questions regarding mental state, which brings up a whole separate topic that is unrelated to video games. We’ll explore that in just a bit. However, I have been playing games since the Atari 2600 days. I’ve sold video games and video game units and I’ve owned practically every video game system ever made. Suffice it to say that violence in video games has never once prompted me to pick up a gun in the real world nor carry or point said gun at anyone (nor any other kind of weapon for that matter). Not one video game has conditioned, persuaded, caused or in any other way influenced me to do anything violent. Okay, I have to confess that I have thrown my game controller across the room because the game did something stupid and frustrating.. like crash and lose my game making me start over. And, throwing the controller across the room was not prompted by the content in the game, but because the game itself was badly designed and caused me to start parts of the game over wasting a lot of my time. I’d also never throw the controller at someone. Breaking the controller in half, that’s one thing. Hurting someone using a gun, that’s something totally different. Personally, I don’t even own a gun and that’s also my own choice.
Gun Rampages
Let’s discuss some causative factors involving Adam Lanza’s actions. Note, I cannot speak from personal experience as I did not know the Lanza family personally. However, based on what I’ve read in the media, here are the issues as I see it.
- Adam Lanza may have had Asperger Syndrome or some other form of Autism. This is a form of mental distress. That is, without a certain level of proper management of the condition, an autistic child can either withdraw and/or act out. This is the first problem in a series of problems that led to Adam’s actions.
- Adam was legally an adult at the time.
- Adam’s mother was apparently an active gun owner. She had purchased guns from a local gun shop several years prior to Adam’s actions. One thing, however, I am not certain of is how actively she managed keeping those guns safe. Apparently, however, she didn’t keep them locked up safe enough as Adam was certainly able to gain access to them, load them and carry them to Sandy Hook.
- Nancy Lanza apparently thought that teaching her mentally ill son how to shoot guns was a smart idea.
- Adam’s mother had been having some mental distress of her own, perhaps in just simply managing her son’s condition.
The question remains, were video games involved? Was any type of entertainment media involved? Unlikely. So, what did prompt this? Let’s explore Aspergers just a little.
Asperger Syndrome
Here is an explanation according to Wikipedia:
Asperger syndrome (AS), also known as Asperger’s syndrome or Asperger disorder, is an autism spectrum disorder (ASD) that is characterized by significant difficulties in social interaction, alongside restricted and repetitive patterns of behavior and interests.
Basically, these repetitive patterns keep the mental distress of the person to a minimum, the patterns give the person structure and order and allows the person to function in a mostly normal way. If new things are introduced, the Asperger’s sufferer can act out, withdraw or produce violent acts. Let me say that again, without proper management of Asperger’s, the person can act out violently.
I could see, however, an Asperger’s sufferer turning to video games to relieve the condition. That is, most games are extremely repetitive. The more repetitive, the better for this type of person. So, I could easily see how any repetitive video game could provide comfort and stability for someone with Asperger’s.
Access to Guns and Mental Distress Disorder
If any one thing played role in Adam’s actions, it was easy access to Nancy’s guns. Any mental distress can easily place a person into a state that is surreal or unreal. That is, they can’t easily tell the difference between reality and delusion. Once the line between reality and delusion has been crossed, the person may not have any conscience left to understand any actions that may be acted out. With Asperger’s, something must have changed in Adam’s life that upset his everyday repetitive balance and he acted out. Apparently, first on his mother, Nancy Lanza three days before Sandy Hook. Then, killing her on the day of Sandy Hook and then killing 26 people at Sandy Hook.
Nancy, unfortunately, provided him with access to the necessary weapons to make his own fantasy become a reality. So, off Adam went toting Nancy’s guns to Sandy Hook to commit his violence.
Were Video Games involved?
Let me start by saying that I’ve never played a video game where someone stocks up with guns from their mother’s gun stash, visits a school and opens fire. So, I would have to say that getting this idea from a video game is definitely not possible. Where Adam got the idea is anyone’s guess. Perhaps he watch a documentary on the Columbine massacre? Who knows? But, it’s clear that the main problem did not stem from a video game plot.
Gun ownership and mental distress?
Instead of wasting time pointing the finger towards entertainment media as a ’cause’, we should point the finger towards where it belongs, at the gun safe located in a house with a person of mental distress. Guns and gun ownership comes with a price (and not just a monetary one). It comes with the price that you are responsible with what happens with the guns that you buy and store. If you buy guns and store them in a house with someone that has a history of mental issues, then you are responsible for what happens after. Of course, in Nancy’s case, she’s now dead along with the 26 other people from Sandy Hook.
Gun laws and gun background checks should include checking the background of anyone living in the home (or in proximity) with the person who wishes to buy, own and use the gun. Anyone who is close enough to have access to the gun needs to also be background checked. If any one of those persons has a history of mental illness, the gun purchase should be denied. It’s quite clear that gun access in combination with mental distress is the most likely reason these children rampage schools with guns. If they hadn’t had the access to the guns, they wouldn’t have rampaged the school with said guns as they wouldn’t have been able to buy the guns as children.
It’s fairly clear that gun ownership laws need to change. These laws need to prevent gun ownership by anyone who is the legal parent or guardian over anyone with a history of any mental condition or illness. I also believe that gun ownership should be denied to parents who have children that are not yet legally adults (and especially of children during teen years). It should also be illegal to store guns in a home of children between the ages of 8 and 17 at minimum, but preferably children of any age. Of course, if someone has guns already or they were handed down because of a will or other ‘gift’, then these are situations where guns can become present in the face of someone with mental distress. For anyone purchasing a gun that will live in proximity to anyone of any age, the laws should require mandatory gun safety training for anyone who intends to touch, use or gain access to the weapon. In fact, gun safety and storage training should be required to even get a permit to own a gun. It should also be illegal to teach anyone with mental illness to hold, use, access, touch or otherwise handle a gun (or any other weapon).
Clearly, though, there is no real answer to completely prevent this problem. Allowing any gun ownership can lead to another Sandy Hook. Gun laws can only do so much without outright banning guns, but that cannot be done in the US because of the US Constitution’s second amendment which guarantees the right to ‘keep and bear arms’. So, without repealing the second amendment, there is no real answer to the issue of these mass violence events. Even if violent video games and other entertainment were banned tomorrow, the violence would not stop as gun ownership and mental conditions would simply continue to be influenced by other means (news, TV shows, movies and the like) and people would still act out.
Prevention?
Could Sandy Hook have been prevented? Maybe. Maybe not. If Nancy had recognized the signs early enough (as in 3 days earlier when Adam acted out on her), she might have had him arrested or otherwise detained. However, since Adam was an adult at the time, that issue brings up an even more serious question about mental illness. However, the US does so little to actively manage people with mental illness, especially when they reach adult age, I’m not sure this could have been completely prevented. It’s clear, though, that guns and mental illness do not mix, especially those with Asperger’s, but any person with paranoid delusions could act out violently. We need better means to determine just who is in a state that could lead to such violent acts. Unfortunately, doctors just want to medicate and send people on their way. That doesn’t fix the problem, it just delays it. We need better from the medical community than, “take 2 pills 3 times a day”.
What is it about tablets?
Ok, I’m stumped. I’ve tried to understand this manufacturing trend, but I simply can’t. We have to be heading towards the fourth or maybe fifth generation of tablet PCs, yet each time they bring tablets back to the the market, this technology fails miserably. Perhaps it’s the timing, but I don’t think so. I think the market has spoken time and time again. So, what is it about this technology that make manufacturers try and try again to foist these lead balloons onto us about every 6 years?
Wayback machine
It was in the early 90’s that Grid Computers arguably released the first tablet (or at least, one of the very first tablets). Granted, it used a monochrome plasma screen and I believe that it ran DOS and Windows 3.1 (that I recall), but these things flopped badly for many different reasons. Ultimately, the market spoke and no one wanted them. It’s no wonder why, too. The lack of keyboard combined with the size and weight of the unit, the need for a pen and the lack of a truly viable input method doomed this device to the halls of flopdom. Into obscurity this device went along with Grid Computers (the company).
In the early 2000s, Microsoft+Manufacturers tried again to resurrect this computer format with XP Tablet edition. This time they tried making the devices more like notebooks where the screen could detach from a keyboard and become a tablet. So, when it was attached, it looked and felt like a notebook. When detached, it was a tablet. Again, there was no viable input method without keyboard even though they were touch screen. The handwriting recognition was poor at best and if it had voice input, it failed to work. XP Tablet edition was not enough to make the tablet succeed. Yet again, the tablet rolled into obscurity… mostly. You can still buy tablets, but they aren’t that easy to find and few manufacturers make them. They also ship with hefty price tags.
Origami
Then, later in the mid 2000’s came Microsoft with Origami. At this time, Origami was supposed to be a compact OS, like Windows CE (although CE would have worked just fine for this, don’t know why Origami really came about). A few tablets came out using Origami, but most computers that loaded this version of Windows used it in the microPC format. Since the Origami version of Windows was a full version (unlike CE), it was a lot more powerful than computers of that size really needed and the price tag showed that. Sony and a few other manufacturers made these microPCs, but they sold at expensive prices (like $1999 or more) for a computer the size of a PDA. Again, no viable input method could suffice on the microPC tablets and so these died yet another death… although, the microPC hung around a bit longer than the tablet. You might even still be able to buy one in 2010, if you look hard enough.
Netbook
Then came the Netbook. The $199-299 priced scaled down notebook using the Atom processor. This format took off dramatically and has been a resounding success. The reason, price. Who wouldn’t want a full fledged portable computer for $199-299? You can barely buy an iPod or even a cell phone… let alone a desktop PC for that price. The Netbook price point is the perfect price point for a low end notebook computer. But, what does a Netbook have to do with a tablet? It doesn’t, but it is here to illustrate why tablets will continue to fail.
Tablet resurrection
Once again, we are in the middle of yet another possible tablet resurrection attempt. Rumor has it that Apple will release a tablet. HP is now also pushing yet another tablet loaded with Windows. Yet, from past failures, we already know this format is dead on arrival. What can Apple possibly bring to the tablet format that Microsoft and PCs haven’t? Nothing. That’s the problem. The only possible selling point for a tablet has to be in price alone. Tablets have to get down to the $199-299 price tag to have any hope of gaining any popularity. Yet, Apple is not known to make budget computers, so we know that that price point is out. Assuming Apple does release a tablet, it will likely price it somewhere between $899 and $1599. Likely, they will offer 3 different versions with the lowest version starting at $899. Worse, at the lowest price point it will be hobbled lacking most bells and whistles.
Even if Apple loads up the tablet with all of the bells and whistles (i.e., Bluetooth, 3G, GSM, OLED Display, iTunes app capable, handwriting recognition, voice recognition, WiFi, wireless USB, a sleek case design, etc etc) the only thing those bells and whistles will do is raise the cost to produce the unit. The basic problems with a tablet are portability (too big), lack of a viable input device, weight and fragility (not to mention, battery life). Adding on a hefty price tag ensures that people won’t buy it. Of course, the Apple fan boys will buy anything branded with a half bitten Apple logo. But, for the general masses, no. This device cannot hope to succeed on Apple fan boy income alone.
Compelling Reasons
Apple has to provide some kind of paradigm shifting technology that makes such a failure of a device like the tablet become successful (or whatever Apple cleverly names its tablet device). If the tablet is over 7 inches in size, it will be too large to be portable. Utilizing OLED technology ensures the cost is extremely high. Putting a thin case on it like the MacBook Air ensures that it’s overly fragile. We’ve yet to find out the battery life expectancy. So far, this is not yet a winning combination.
So, what kind of technology would make such a paradigm shift? The only such technology I can think of would have to be a new input device technology. A way to get commands into the notebook and a way to drive the interface easily. Clearly, a multi-touch screen will help. The iPod is good in that regard (except that you can’t use it with gloves). But, if you want to write email, how do you do that on a tablet? Do you hand peck the letters on that silly on-screen thing that Apple calls a keyboard? No. That’s not enough. Apple needs a fully phonetic speech input technology that’s 100% flawless without any training. That means, you speak the email in and it converts it perfectly to text. Also, you speak in any conversational command and the computer figures out what you mean flawlessly. This is the only technology that makes any sense on a tablet. Of course, it will need to support multiple languages (a tall order) and it needs to be flawless and perfect (an extremely tall order). It will also need to work in a noisy room (not likely).
Can Apple make such a shift? I don’t know. The hardware technology is there to support such a system. The issue, is the software ready? Well, let’s hope Apple thinks so. Otherwise, if Apple does release its rumored tablet without such a paradigm shift, it could be the worst stumble that Apple has made since the Lisa.
State of Emergency: California Aqueduct vs Drought
So, Arnold Schwarzenegger has now declared a state of emergency for California with regards to the ‘3 year drought’. So, apparently, California’s (specifically Northern California) water supplies are severely low. The rain we’ve had recently has helped, yes. Apparently, the amount of rainfall hasn’t been substantial enough to raise the resevoirs by any substantial amount. So, counties and other municipalities want to enact water rationing. Ok, so that’s the problem.
Plug up the drain already!
On the other hand, California decided to be neighborly and build the California Aqueduct to pump water from Northern California to Southern California. Ok, so does this make any sense? Northern California is in a state of emergency and under water rationing. All the while, the California Aqueduct continues to pump Northern California’s water supply down to Los Angeles. My question is.. why? If we need the water up here, cut the LA basin off. They didn’t have the water before the aqueduct was built, they can live without it until Northern California’s water supplies have recovered.
Why do we continue to pump at all under drought conditions?
Under a drought situation, why does Northern California continue to pump water down to Southern California from Northern California reserves (even with restrictive limits)? This setup makes no sense. Yes, perhaps the water supplies are just as low in LA. Yes, perhaps LA has no other water supplies to tap for LA use easily. Oh well. Northern California has its own drought to deal with and under these situations, the drain to LA needs to be plugged until further notice.
On the other hand, San Diego is apparently fed water from the Rocky Mountain runoff (which in 2008/2009 winter has been especially heavy). So, why doesn’t LA set up their own pumping system and pump water up from San Diego instead of taking it away from Northern California? Duh, San Diego is a heck of a lot closer to LA than Sacramento! Worse, who knows just how much water evaporates before it makes its hundreds of miles trek from Sacramento to LA? This Aqueduct is not efficient at all.
Los Angeles, find another supply. Sacramento, stop the water siphoning!
LA needs to find another water source.. like, for example, getting it from San Diego’s Colorado River run off. This situation is such that Northern California does not need to be pumping and redistributing its stored water to other parts of the state. This water needs to stay in Northern California where it originated. Who cares how much the Aqueduct cost or how many people it took to build it? Under drought conditions, the water siphoning to LA needs to stop and that water needs to feed Northern California resevoirs.
If the Aqueduct stopped flowing, Northern California could replenish its own resevoirs and get rid of this ridiculous drought that appears to be mostly manmade.
Random Thoughts - Randocity! 
22 comments