Firstly, there are enough people living in New Hampshire that robbers were able to steal $100,000 worth of stuff from them.

Secondly, Facebook Places finally has its obligatory scary anecdote to frighten anyone not afraid of using it into perhaps not using it. Facebook Places wasn’t precisely named in the local news piece, but the people who got the hell burgled out of them did post their locations on Facebook prior to the burglings. The post was scant on details, but three men were apprehended, and it wasn’t clear whether any of the property stolen was recovered:

Police say they recovered more than $100,000 worth of property, allegedly stolen by three men.

In all there were more than 50 break-ins. Police say the thieves targeted people who posted their locations on their Facebook profiles. They started striking when the users weren’t home.

As we’ve covered before, it’s not a great idea to post your location on Facebook- particularly if you don’t know your friends well, are on vacation or have a lot of cool shit. Also, there have been sites that aggregate that data onto a handy burglary cheat sheet for those who like to burgle, but the most well known one is no longer operational. I suppose you’ll have to weigh your ex seeing that you’re out having fun and maybe staging a casual drive-by versus bragging about your exploits upon your return.

[via]

Facebook Places maybe nets robbers $100K in booty in New Hampshire is a post from: The Inquisitr

Hiding! From sex offenders! (Actually, it’s supposed to tell you where the sex offenders are, but it doesn’t really look that way.)

[SFWeekly via Gawker]

Geolocation syntax fail is a post from: The Inquisitr

I bet that shiny, new “Brooklyn 4 Life” badge doesn’t look as hot when someone steals your fancy iPhone, does it?

As Foursquare and its ilk spreads across the techie crowd like digi-herpes, a key detail has been gleefully overlooked during the lovefest over geolocation services . (Gowalla and Google Buzz count, too.) When everyone knows you’re pounding jello shots at Down the Hatch on E. 4th Street, anyone exposed to that information also knows you’re not chilling at your crib a thirty or so minute subway ride away in Greenpoint. Even if you don’t publicly announce your check-ins, when you become “mayor” of a venue of Foursquare, it auto-updates everyone using Twitter. What could possibly go wrong?

While that insight hasn’t entirely escaped those who embrace location aware services, everyone sat up and paid attention today with word spreading of a (probably inevitable) newer, possibly more sinister application in the same “share and share alike” vein. PleaseRobMe, whose header features a stock-style burglar with a striped shirt, mask and sack of stolen goods, arrived on the scene to aggregate the location of “all those empty homes out there.”

So, are PleaseRobMe’s founders out to get us all raped, robbed or worse? Not according to the site’s founders, who say they just want to “raise awareness” of the security issues inherent in this kind of social networking:

Don’t get us wrong, we love the whole location-aware thing. The information is very interesting and can be used to create some pretty awesome applications. However, the way in which people are stimulated to participate in sharing this information, is less awesome. Services like Foresquare allow you to fulfill some primeval urge to colonize the planet. A part of that is letting everyone know you own that specific spot…

The danger is publicly telling people where you are. This is because it leaves one place you’re definitely not… home. So here we are; on one end we’re leaving lights on when we’re going on a holiday, and on the other we’re telling everybody on the internet we’re not home. It gets even worse if you have “friends” who want to colonize your house. That means they have to enter your address, to tell everyone where they are.

It’s hard to say what the best practice is here- if you’re in agreement with the founders of PleaseRobMe, then you really should eschew all location aware apps and services at all times. If the whole point is people not knowing where you are when you’re there, Foursquare and Gowalla are pretty much out. But then again, your computer is at home so if you’re on Facebook or emailing, then you’re pretty obviously at home or at work, and anyone can come in and rape you with an and iron. And if you’re using your work email, you’re most likely at work so some disgruntled ex-employee can come in and target you in an instance of workplace violence.

Where do we draw the line? Should you forgo all location aware services and, to hell with it, the whole internet? Personally, I like PleaseRobMe’s suggestion the best:

Now you know what to do when people reach for their phone as soon as they enter your home. That’s right, slap them across the face.

PleaseRobMe: Like Foursquare, but for crooks is a post from: The Inquisitr

Video site Crackle has expanded its video line up, with over one hundred movies now available for free on-demand…. if you live in the United States.

Georetardation isn’t a new concept, and Crackle isn’t alone in restricting access to viewers in the United States. The excuse is always the same: international rights mean that sites are unable to offer access in other countries. Hulu, YouTube and other services are bound by supply agreements from content providers, and although we complain, ultimately these restrictions are imposed from above. Crackle though is different, because Crackle is owned by the rights holder/ content owner, Sony Pictures Entertainment.

Ultimately Sony has the call on where the content can be played. Movie content is sold internationally on a similar basis to television programs, but unlike TV programs, movies don’t face the same competition argument with third parties. That is, movies are primarily provided in main international markets by the same company that owns the rights. In Australia for example, Sony movie content is distributed by Sony Pictures Australia, who handles the theatrical release, DVD sales and rental market.

Some of these movies do find their way on to television eventually (primarily cable TV), but usually years after their initial release. Sony as the master rights holder could offer its own content online in addition to TV rights by delaying the release after “first run” rights are exhausted, if they are in existing contracts. But here’s the catch: the same “first run” rights issues don’t apply exclusively outside the United States, because the same deals are in place within the United States as well. If Sony can show its own content online in the United States and comply with local distribution agreements, they most definitely can outside the United States.

That they’re not offering access outside the United States has nothing to do with rights agreements; it’s georetardation for no other reason than Sony deciding that they’re not interested in non US based viewers. Is it little wonder that BitTorrent usage remains significantly higher in places like the United Kingdom and Australia vs the United States?

Crackle takes georetardation to a new level is a post from: The Inquisitr

Having made a number of blogging related predictions, I move on to the tech scene. While there’s probably a list to come (and its own post) there’s one area I’ve been watching very closely this year, and that’s one of my pet hates, Georetardation.

For those not familiar with the concept (so basically most living in the United States who never suffer it) georetardation is the blocking of content outside a specific geographic area. For example, folks outside of the United State can’t view content on Hulu, well at least not without using a VPN.

The reasons why companies georetard online content is simple: rights are sold outside the United States, and that usually includes online rights. Those agreements don’t allow shows on Hulu (I’d note shows, Hulu continues to georetard content (mostly clips) legally available outside the United States) to be shown in say the United Kingdom or Australia.

The problem with georetardation is that it is driving piracy. Providing content online, free or paid in the United States was meant to be a counter to illegal downloading of content. The figures as to whether this is working or not aren’t clear, but certainly the United States ranks well down lists for downloaded television content now, and the strong numbers coming out of Hulu would suggest that more people are watching content online; perhaps some of those are now doing so instead of downloading content.

My bold prediction for 2009 is that one television network will drop georetardation, maybe not completely, but across large markets, marking the beginning of the end of the system.

It’s a stretch, but only a couple of years ago so was the idea that we’d be able to buy DRM free music.

Why one will drop it

Old media, despite well justified derision as being clueless, is slowly starting to catch on to the idea that the way to combat piracy isn’t to sue everyone, but to instead see rates of piracy as unmet demand. In 2009 they will see that unmet demand as being global, or at least key areas outside the United States. US television networks don’t like their shows being pirated anywhere in the world, and one of them will clue into the fact that it’s time to force the rights holders hands and offer those shows online.

Hulu is already pushing for this, although they’ve been promising international expansion since day one, and yet they really have never done much about it.

My bet is that NBC will be the first to offer their shows online outside the United States, with Fox a close second.

NBC has arguably been the most progressive of the US television networks in offering content online, and clip content outside of the United States. While they’re blocking some content (they’ve started blocking SNL for some reason post election), they do seem to understand that international audiences offer value.

How they’ll do it.

Offering full shows internationally isn’t as easy as decreeing it to be so, and flicking a switch. Television networks have deals with providers in each country, and likely different conditions with each.

NBC will be able to renegotiate deals as they come up for renewal, but likewise they won’t want to risk the money these deals bring in.

So here’s how it will play out.

NBC will negotiate with key rights holders about internet play rights, particularly in those territories where content isn’t being offered online. Example: the UK does have a fair bit of content online (not sure on NBC content specifically) but somewhere like Australia just doesn’t.

The deal will be simple: NBC, through Hulu or directly, offers full shows online. Ads on those shows served to each country will be supplied, if available by the local rights holder. In Australia, that would be the Seven Network, who through joint venture Yahoo7 has a strong local internet presence. As is the case with all Hulu content, that content will be available on local affiliate sites (again, in Australia, Yahoo7). Ad sales may or may not be split depending on the individual agreement, but primacy goes to the local provider so they gain as well.

If local affiliates don’t want to play ball, NBC makes a song and dance about local piracy rates, and finds a clause about IP protection as a threat.

International rights are highly competitive, and the decision of an existing rights holder not wanting to sign on could easily be used by NBC as a bargaining chip in future renewals or open competition for rights.

Delayed Programming

Where the fall of georetardation gets hard is with local time delays in programming. For example, the ABC in Australia is playing the Dr Who Christmas Special January 25…and they claim they’re fast tracking it. Networks worldwide don’t work on the same schedules as the United States, and often sit on programs for months, sometimes years before playing them, and this is going to be a big issue in dropping georetardation.

A compromise could be a premium model, where shows not shown on television locally are available for purchase or rent, on iTunes or elsewhere, before shown locally. Revenue could be split with a majority going to a local affiliate. The advantage there is that everyone wins: people who want to watch shows don’t have to pirate them, and local affiliates can make money by meeting demand for shows already shown in the United States, but aren’t scheduled closely there after.

The alternative could be an ad supported model, although it’s a harder sell. I’d think that we might see a hybrid model that differs from territory to territory.

Domino effect

Like the removal of DRM on music, it only takes one big player to drop georetardation for the rest to eventually follow. The reality, sad reality perhaps is that countries such as Australia are years behind the United States when it comes to legal access to content. In a tight economic environment, US television networks will want to do everything they can to get every last cent from their content (mind you, they always have to some extent) and forcing affiliate hands on internet streaming is a logic step in the progression of online content provision.

If it doesn’t happen in 2009 (I think it might), it will happen in the next 5 years; it has to happen. The world has become a global marketplace, not one artificially defined by borders. Television content shown in the United States is available within an hour of it being shown on BitTorrent networks, and someone in Australia or the United States can watch that content within hours of it being shown in the States. This isn’t some evil conspiracy of pirated content; this is fans wanting to keep up with the latest shows, and these viewer present an opportunity, not a threat. Old media may be in trouble, but television networks aren’t dumb either, well at least not all of the time.

2009 Will Mark the Beginning of the End for Georetardation is a post from: The Inquisitr

But there’s a new trend starting to emerge that might not be as restrictive as georetardation, but it’s annoying none the less: georedirecting.

Georedirecting is the act of forcibly redirecting a site visitor to a local version of a web page. It’s not a new idea, but it’s rapidly spreading in 2008.

The worst offender is Google. I wrote on my personal blog at the beginning of November about my disgust with YouTube redirects. Mostly it’s not a big issue; if I try to visit a YouTube page here in Australia, they insert “au” where the www usually goes, and 99 times out of 100 I see the same video. Where it becomes an issue is when I try to view non-video content, like the YouTube blog. Every time I try to visit the official YouTube blog, I get redirected to the Australian one, which is entirely different to the US one, so I don’t get to see the blog post. Better still: there’s ZERO way I can switch back to the American one. It’s sort of georetardation by stealth, with a bizarre outcome.

Google also georedirects visits to Google.com, and presumably for anyone outside of the United States, not just Australia. All very well and good, except that the “web” option (you get a choice of Web or Australia) on Google Australia doesn’t deliver the same results as general web search on Google.com itself, it favors local sites where as Google (US) doesn’t. Unlike YouTube, you do at least get the option of switching to Google.com from Google.com.au (after you’ve been redirected there), but why the hell can’t I just type in Google.com and just hit Google.com when I want Google.com, not Google.com.au

Yahoo is a newer entrant to the georedirecting field. I don’t hit Yahoo that often, so this may have been in place for some time, but when I type in Yahoo.com I’m now redirected to Yahoo Australia. Now I do occasionally visit Yahoo Australia, mostly because they have good TV listings for the few times per week I might watch broadcast television, but at other times I want Yahoo.com because they have better news that I’ll occasionally view. My relationship with Yahoo.com also goes back a long time; it was perhaps one of the first sites I ever visited in 1995, and I can still remember getting on Yahoo.com in 96 and marvelling at their amazing directory of interesting webpages. Apparently that’s no longer possible, at least directly. Like Google, you are given an option to visit the US version on the page, but you’re no longer allowed to visit it directly.

There are other examples I won’t bore you with, but the practice is growing. One last one is Gawker Media’s deal with Allure Media in Australia for the Australian versions of some of the Gawker Media titles. For example, Lifehacker.com is redirected to Lifehacker.com.au, and while I have time for both sites, if I type Lifehacker.com into a browser, I want to visit Lifehacker.com. If I put the .au on the end, it’s because I want the local version.

Here’s my bleg to tech companies. I understand and respect your desire to promote local portals, but treating your customers as if they were retarded and forcing them to see what they don’t want to see will eventually come back to bite you when a new generation of competitors emerge who understand the need to treat their customers (ie: us) with respect. Please stop georedirecting. By all means add a geotargeted link to the global product and promote it via ads if you like, but appreciate our business without forcing us to view what we don’t want to view.

Memo to online companies: Please Stop Georedirecting is a post from: The Inquisitr