2012 is the year that the internet became a political force. What took so long? Well, the majority of us have surely been distracted by LOLcats and pr0nz.

Full disclosure: I work on issues at the intersection of technology, copyright and policy. In recent months, I’ve been able to observe firsthand the impact of internet-powered social movements. To wit: the unprecedented outrage around the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and PROTECT-IP (PIPA) stopped either bill from becoming law — something many in Congress assumed was a fait accompli.

Then there’s the immense pressure brought on Susan G. Komen for the Cure after the organization pulled funding to Planned Parenthood. The swift disapproval — again, largely web-driven — was so intense that Komen’s VP is now stepping down.

The “bitroots” blowback is hardly limited to the US. Public demonstrations are currently taking place in the EU over ACTA, an international intellectual property agreement that some think goes too far. Protests have spilled into the streets, with more than 20,000 people participating in Poland alone. But the real engine of dissent is online.

Powerful as this new form of protest is, it’s hardly perfect. Oversimplifications are common, which is to be expected when complex policy matters are condensed into viral action items. Still, there is one clear takeaway: the world’s netizens will no longer lay back while decisions are made that impact their lives, online and otherwise.

From my experience, I can say that the anti-SOPA/PIPA movement was broad and remarkably diffuse. Internet users are now stakeholders, and they have countless ways to share information and amplify their voices. And, although it would be incorrect to call them a monolithic group, they are perfectly capable of representing their own self-interests when push comes to shove.

It’s unfair to characterize the SOPA/PIPA skirmish as one between Hollywood and Silicon Valley (read: Google). While some major tech companies were certainly involved, most of the push happened at the netroots level. I’d say it went down something like this:

1. Tumblr saw the liabilities they’d face under this overly-broad legislation and independently decided to black out their pages in protest. This woke a lot of folks up right quick.
2. The Reddit community started paying attention, and more people became very well-informed on the issue (and got pretty pissed off).
3. Wikipedia joined the loosely-organized “blackout,” and in the process inspired millions more people to call their representatives. (I think Google put a widget next to the search field on their home page, but they didn’t go dark.)
4. Some of us goobers in Washington — completely outnumbered by the well-heeled entertainment industry goons — pointed out that a lot of constituents (including tens of thousands of copyright holders) weren’t comfortable with this legislation as drafted.

The true action came from internet users who found themselves in a position to push back against a fairly draconian set of proposals. The technology itself amplified their message to the extent that a bill that had already passed out of full committee in the US Senate was put on ice, and the House companion never even made it past markup. You can believe me when I tell you that this is a new dynamic in Washington. I’m not sure anyone has fully wrapped their heads around what it means.

So, are these movements merely lighting in a bottle, or the foundations of a new and lasting form of advocacy? Can these spontaneous yet incredibly potent movements be transitioned from something reactive to something proactive? We may have to wait a while to find out. For now, if I was the MPAA or the RIAA, I might consider internalizing the lesson, instead of blithely dismissing the movement as ill-informed, or worse, driven by tech companies.

What do you bet they won’t?

Dear Big Content,

I love your movies. Especially the ones that are all s’plodey and where stuff flies off the screen. And I love your records, the Led Zeppelin catalog in particular. I’ve always been a good customer: I don’t infringe, and I’m loyal to a fault. But I do have a few questions for you.

First, why do you treat me and my friends like punks? We buy your stuff. But you make it really hard to do it in a way that fits with our digital reality. I’m looking at you, movie and TV peeps. You really want me to accept the violation of a decades-old consumer compact whereby we could rent a movie on the same day it was available to purchase? Do you really think that making me wait TWO MONTHS to be able to rent Mars Needs Moms on DVD (I’m not even talking streaming) is going to drive me into Best Buy to plunk down for the petrochemical disc? Do you secretly like piracy? Because that’s exactly what you’re encouraging.

And music guys: how come you create the conditions where there are only three companies that can afford to offer your wares? Do you know how much fucking money you’re leaving on the table by clinging to your prehistoric licensing terms? Once upon a time there was this disruptive, infringing technology called radio. Completely freaked song publishers out. They wanted to force every broadcaster to pay an individually negotiated amount for every spin. In hindsight, that seems not only inefficient but imbecilic. Maybe the government needs to step up and prod you goofballs towards more internet-friendly terms. I bet you could even keep your car service! Now, I know that you fought the phonograph. And the CD. And the MP3. But you don’t have much fight left in you. So the time to get your shit together is probably now. And yes, me and my friends will be paying VERY close attention to make sure that the artist splits are fair. Because frankly, I’m not all that convinced that you’re providing much value anymore. Consider this your opportunity to be cut into the future while you still have a chance.

And would you please get a basic grasp of how the internet works? Why are you so keen to demonize an entire class of technology? Let’s take search for example. I can look up a recipe to make hash brownies. Or I can look up a recipe to make regular brownies. Now, we all know that those criminal scumbags offering the former must be dealt with in the severest possible manner. But what you’re proposing is like blowing up the entire library because you don’t like that the card catalog system tells you which shelf has the book on hash brownies. Are you really this boneheaded? I get that you’re jealous about Google making bajillions from search. But is that a reason to compromise a mechanism upon which millions of global internet users rely? I guess it’s true what they say: the entertainment industry isn’t all about the money — it’s about ALL the money.

Also, could you please stop pretending that the SOPA/PIPA debacle was about Silicon Valley vs. Hollywood? (Or, as you prefer to characterize it, homespun creators vs. Google.) Literally millions of internet users — many of them copyright holders — had issues with your overreaching bills. They didn’t jump into a controversial intellectual property debate because they wanted to. They felt compelled to, due to the fact that big-money industry lobbying groups like yours were attempting to speak for them.

So kindly cut it out.

I want to be your friend. But you don’t make it easy. The arrogance, belligerence and outright bullying that you employ is hardly endearing yourselves to an entire new generation of creators and rightsholders. If I wasn’t so goddamn genteel, I’d go ahead and list some of that stuff. But unlike you, I have a modicum of class.

Consider this a friendly bit of advice from someone who cares. The road you’re going down leads to disaster and heartbreak. But it’s not too late to turn around.

Your pal,
Casey

Regular readers will be familiar with Canadian futurist and ethicist George Dvorsky, whose excellent site Sentient Developments explores topics related to science, technology, human performance and the moral imperative to expand rights of personhood to certain non-human animals. We’ve linked to SD dozens of times over the years, and George was even good enough to let us do some guest blogging back before we got too busy to populate our own damn site.

George is also the Chairman of the Board at the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies as well as the program director for the Rights of Non-Human Persons Program.

We’re happy to count George among our personal friends, which makes it that much more fun to tell you about his podcast, which we listened to all the time back in the day. Besides the cool discussions, we were always really impressed with George’s choices in music for the program. (Dude’s got some big ears!) Now the podcast is back in full force, and we encourage you to check it out. The official feed is here; you can get it through iTunes right here.

Another pal, Michael Nordstrom (aka Nerdstrom, aka Mondhexe, aka fifty other things), has taken his obsession with über-legendary kaiju character Garamon to an absurd and fairly fucking awesome new level. Already the proprietor of fan site Garamania, Nerdstrom is now attempting to become Garamon.

We’re not kidding.

Check out the Kickstarter page for The Becoming of Garamike project, through which Nerdstrom is attempting to raise a mere $2,200 to get a couple of pro sculptors and makeup artists to help him, erm, make the transition. Here’s the official description:

Yes, at last… no longer content to merely document and celebrate the world’s favorite clunky, crusty, fish-lipped, oil-belching, high-rise-wrecking meteorite monster… I, Michael Nordstrom (Nerdstrom), Proprietor of Garamania, being of warped mind and highly costume-tolerant body… have decided to becomeGaramon (actually, Garamike).  Working with ultra-talented professional sculptors/make-up artists Michael Ridge and Michael Turner and a whole lot of alginate, foam and silicone, I will be alchemically transformed into a being as outwardly Garamonic as I could ever hope to be. Our design honors the original suit while adding some cutting-edge components (including the face, which will be a form-fitting silicone masterwork of Gara-expressiveness).  Our goal is to complete work on at least the initial phase (head, hands, feet and tail) by the opening night of GARAMANIACAL, the all-Garamon, all-Pygmon art show I am curating for FOE Gallery in Northampton, Massachusetts (the current image for this project is a section of an incredible painting by Jason Edmiston, which will be on display at the show).  On opening weekend, my hope is to be a Gara-transformed barker and ballyhoo-er, stomping the snowy streets of Northampton to connect the public at large to the show, turning them on to works of Garamonstrous art that they didn’t even realize they needed in their lives (but they do… they definitely do).  The funds you contribute will help us meet this goal, as well as further us on the road to completing a full suit in the foreseeable future.

Backers should know that this will not be a short-term transformation.  Once granted the powers of Gara-becoming by Ridge and Turner, I will be able to become my Gara-self at any time, night or day… I plan to fully inhabit this suit, mustering all of my performance experience to truly bring it to life as a Gara-character unto itself.  Just as Jandek was Ready For The House, I am Ready For The Suit. I have a slew of mindbenderly projects in mind for my Gara-persona… YOU, the audience, will:

THRILL! at the sight of Garamike hosting a delightfully art-damaged musical variety show, to be produced for local cable access (also to be broadcast online);

GASP! while watching Garamike deliver gripping, novel musical performance art happenings to delight and inspire legions of like-monstrous folk (again, to be captured on video for cable and online broadcast);

GUFFAW! at frequent photoplay amusements featuring Garamike, to be posted to Garamania… and much, much more!

This may sound strange, but is it really any weirder than, say, Dolly Parton’s face in that thar new singin’ contest movie?

Best to both of our buds in their quest for excellence!

You know how people who hate Nickelback are nonetheless forced to reconcile their distaste with the fact that, were it not for Nirvana, the band could not exist? Well, the same could be said for David Bowie and ABC. I’m a died-in-the-wool Bowie fan, and it both annoys and enthralls me that every aspect of this song — from Martin Fry‘s flamboyant baritone to the relentless electro pulse — is ripped from the Thin White Duke’s hymnal (with a sprinkling of Bryan Ferry and Roxy Music). But the song is more than a sum of its parts: ABC’s exuberance comes through loud and clear in every call-and-response chorus and gated snare thwack.

As you were.

There’s been tremendous buzz around director David Fincher‘s interpretation of the novel Girl With the Dragon Tattoo — the beach book to end all beach books. By now, anyone with a pulse knows that Fincher’s film follows a Swedish movie that received high marks from critics and audiences. Having just seen the American translation, I can say outright that it tops the Swedish version, and also manages to improve on Stieg Larsson‘s original novel in a number of ways.

Larsson didn’t exactly do filmmakers any favors with his clunky and overly-descriptive yarn. In between lengthy inventories of what characters had for lunch (usually any combination of Aquavit, small sandwiches, coffee and something called Billy’s Pan Pizza), the author delivered unflinching observations of murder and degradation, particularly those acts committed against females. His real contribution to literature, however, is the introduction of an indelible character named Lisbeth Salander — a petite and ferocious young woman who has been chewed up and spat out by institutions ostensibly there to protect people like her. The novel strongly suggests that Salander may be a high-functioning autistic, which may make her the first officially Aspergian detective hero (though I’ve long suspected Sherlock Holmes). In Lisbeth, Larsson created a character both irresistible and off-putting, characteristics that would be difficult for any actress to evoke — particularly when said heroine doesn’t do a lot of talking.

Noomi Rapace played Salander in the Swedish film, and did a fine job of it. Still, Rapace’s portrayal made Lisbeth’s behavior seem like a choice, rather than the product of systematic mistreatment, an iron will or neurological wiring. She was also likely a bit too old for the part. Numerous characters in the novel are continuously surprised — often at their own peril — to discover that this antisocial creature who is often mistaken for a young teen is such a dynamo. Rooney Mara, on the other hand, captures every nuance of this hard-to-pin-down character — from autistic inwardness to intellectual curiosity to explosive rage.

It helps that Mara is physically closer to the Salander in the book, painfully thin and angular, with features that nevertheless could be seen as attractive if not for the deliberate attempts to obscure them with body mortification and a yanked-up hoodie. Credit must be given to whoever designed her wardrobe, which improves greatly on the dated techno-nihilist look of the Swedish film. Fincher and Co. must have spent some time observing pissy crustpunks and misanthropic hackers in real life. (Insert OWS joke here.)

What Mara really brings to the role is ice-cold detachment and a palpable lust for information, especially that transmitted through electronic devices. With precision comportment and a credible Swedish accent, Mara embodies Lisbeth Salander on a cellular level. Whether she’s piecing together clues at superhuman speed, enacting rough justice upon an abuser, or engaging in rapacious lovemaking, this Lisbeth is a force to be reckoned with. I’m still somewhat in awe that a relatively unknown actress could pull off such an arresting performance.

Fincher’s filmmaking style is perfect for at least the first tale in Larsson’s trilogy. The mood is chilly and pensive throughout, and mostly manages to avoid the book’s narrative stumbling blocks. I’m not sure what kind of impression will be generated in viewers who haven’t read the novel, but I’m guessing there’s enough intrigue to entertain. Fincher manages to thread the book’s numerous characters and subplots together in a way that Larsson would have done well to take note of, were he alive to see it.

Daniel Craig is also fantastic. His Mikael Blomkvist is a huge improvement over the Swedish actor, and definitely more likable than the character in the book. (It’s pretty clear that Larsson was writing the fantasy version of himself — a heroic whistleblowing reporter who is, despite advancing middle age, irresistible to women of every conceivable variety.) But it’s not Daniel Craig’s movie. It’s Rooney Mara’s, and she positively owns it. It’s also nice to see Robin Wright as Erica Berger, Blomkvist’s partner at Millennium Magazine (and in the sack). She, too, is leaps and bounds above her predecessor.

If you even marginally liked the book, I expect you’ll really dig the movie. If you’re one of those people who rolls their eyes at American “remakes” of foreign films, get over it. Fincher’s Girl With the Dragon Tattoo is simply superior.

In fact, I look forward to seeing it again this weekend.

Check out Lux Eterna Records for more sonic goodness…

I’ve censored the following, in protest of a bill that gives any corporation and the US government the power to censor the internet — legislation that could pass THIS WEEK. To see the uncensored text, and to stop internet censorship, visit: http://americancensorship.org/posts/15233/uncensor

The ████████ is too █████████ to ████ up. █████ I ███████ ████████ in the ███████ of ████████ to ████████ the █████ of █████ ██████████, ████ ████ be ████ to do so in an ███████████ ████ ██████ ████ to ███████ ██████████ ██████ and ███████████ in the ███████████ ████ ████ ████ the ████████ ████ a ██████████ ██████ for ██████████, ██████████ █████████████ and ████████.

████ is so ███████ █████ the ████████ is ████ it has ███████ ████████ and █████ █████████████ to ███████ ███████ ███████████ ██████ to ████████ █████ ██████████ to ███████ ████████ as a █████████ of ████████ the ███████████. The ████████ of ████ new ███████ — █████ ████████ █████████████ can ████████ the █████ of █████ ██████████ on █████ own █████ — ████ be █████████.

My ████████ █████ ████ is ████ it ██████ ████ too far. We ████ to ██████ ████ all ████████ ████ the ███████ to ███████████ in not ████ █████’s ███████████, but ████████’s.

In the █████ ██████████ we are ███████ ██████ a ██████████ ███████ ███████████ ████████ by the █████ ██████ ███████ ███████ to the █████ ████ of the ████████ ██████. I’m ███████ █████ ████████ of ██████ █████ ███████ due ███████.████ █████ ██████████ the ███████, ████████ ████ █████████ ██████ ████████ and █████ ███████ ██████ █████████ in its ███████. ████ isn’t ████ for ████████.

████████ ████████ are ███████ to ███████ █████████████ — and let’s ████ it, ████ ████ was ████████ by the ███████ █████████████, not the ██████ guy — ████ ████ ████ ███████ how the new ███████████ █████████. ████ ████ not ████ ████ █████ ███████████, and █████████ ████ be █████████ ████ ████████ law.

Then he looked up at his disciples and said: “Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God.” – Luke, 20-21

I have a cousin who is a born-again Christian. I haven’t seen her in years, but she is, of course, on Facebook. Recently, I came across one of her status updates, compelling the OWS protesters to “occupy a job,” and poking fun at the mass arrests. Now, this sentiment doesn’t seem particularly Jesus-like to me, but then again, I am entirely confused by contemporary interpretations of the New Testament.

I’m also fascinated by the shift from the social gospel and its emphasis on community and cooperation to the me-first, “Jesus-as-life-coach” culture of modern evangelicals. And I’m scared shitless by their political influence. (There is some great literature on the subject, including a book I’ve recommended before, The Family, by Jeff Sharlet.)

Even more mind-boggling to me is that another Facebook acquaintance, a self-professed LaVeyan Satanist, made a comment on my wall in defense of my cousin’s initial statement. He used five economical words: “She’s right. Deal with it.” Then he proceeded to unfriend me.

Isn’t it interesting that the contemporary evangelical movement espouses the same moral perspective as a religion whose express purpose is to eliminate Christianity? Both groups owe a tremendous amount to Ayn Rand, and preach individuality above self-sacrifice. That’s fine for Satanists, as their beliefs reflect no internal contradictions. But how does any of this jive with the Gospel of Christ?

Clearly, it doesn’t.

The Jesus of the Bible railed against money-lenders and “redistributed” loaves and fish to the hungry. He tended to the needy and sick. Moreover, he encouraged others to do the same.

Compare that to the sweeping push by those aligned with the evangelical movement to eliminate social programs meant to aid our society’s most needy. These are the same folks who loudly and proudly tout their so-called “Christian values” and claim a moral high ground.

Jesus looked at him and loved him. “One thing you lack,” he said. “Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.” At this the man’s face fell. He went away sad, because he had great wealth. Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, “How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God!” The disciples were amazed at his words. But Jesus said again, “Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God! It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.” – Mark, 10:21-25

Let’s see here… Jesus instructed his disciples to redistribute their personal, material wealth to the poor as a key means to entering the Kingdom of God. It’s right there in the Bible. I hope I don’t need to mention that Jesus freely healed the sick with no regard to “pre-existing conditions” like leprosy.

These teachings were carried on by the disciples after Jesus’ crucifixion. It would be amazing if the Christians of today were to take them to heart instead of celebrating the suppression of speech and liberty.

My brothers, as believers in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ, don’t show favoritism. Suppose a man comes into your meeting wearing a gold ring and fine clothes, and a poor man in shabby clothes also comes in. If you show special attention to the man wearing fine clothes and say, “Here’s a good seat for you,” but say to the poor man, “You stand there” or “Sit on the floor by my feet,” have you not discriminated among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts? Listen, my dear brothers: Has not God chosen those who are poor in the eyes of the world to be rich in faith and to inherit the kingdom he promised those who love him? Are they not the ones who are slandering the noble name of him to whom you belong? – James, 2:1-7

To me, the more frustrating thing than the outright hypocrisy is the unwillingness to engage in even moderate self-reflection. No need to account for your actions, no reason to adjust your personal behavior to be more in line with the articles of your supposed faith. The act of becoming “born-again” simply guarantees your place at the Lord’s table. I can see why this belief system is attractive, as it requires practically zero effort. But it is absolutely not in keeping with Jesus’ actual teachings.

And anyone who tells you otherwise is deluded or disingenuous.

Look, I have some sympathies with the OWS movement. I certainly think that my cousin’s statement is ignorant, and that there are hundreds of reasons why people in an economic depression (when one in 16 are below the poverty line, that’s what it is) may want to publicly demonstrate their dissatisfaction with wealth inequality in the United States. But this isn’t about my political views. It’s about the tendency of the modern evangelical movement to mask their disgust for their brothers and sisters behind a veneer of faith.

I don’t care if you happen to be related to me. I’m calling bullshit.

I live in Washington, DC and work in tech policy (as it relates to creative content). This means I have the dubious privilege of seeing how the sausage is made when it comes to the laws that shape our digital future. Increasingly, I’m witnessing a convergence of some pretty hairy issues that previously had limited public impact. And, for better or worse, policymakers — domestic and international — have started to pay attention.

There are three core concerns that will have an outsized effect on how we all experience technology. The first one encompasses the other two, which are of nearly equal importance. Bookmark this page, and we can talk about it in 10 years (provided we’re all still here).

1. Internet freedom
2. Intellectual Property Enforcement
3. Data Privacy/Security

Before I explain how these issues are converging, let’s look at what each means individually.

Internet Freedom
This is the mother of all tech-policy debates, and the one with the most potential to impact every facet of your online experience. The internet is essentially a packet-switching information exchange network that uses a simple protocol to allow all these interconnected machines to “talk” to each other. Its process is, by and large, neutral with regard to content. This is what has allowed it to become the most powerful engine for democratic speech in the history of humanity. That speech may very well be 90 percent LOLcats, but it also includes political speech and practically every other flavor of expression. In the United States, this means that our First Amendment rights are automatically ported over to this digital conduit. That may not be the case with other countries, which is why you see a lot of high-falutin’ talk from the State Department about the importance of maintaining global networks where free expression can flourish.

Unfortunately, recent American trends giving corporate speech unparalleled weight means that your own online speech could depend on how deep your pockets are. This is the crux of the so-called “net neutrality” debate, in which the Internet Service Providers (ISPs) want to charge a premium for the faster delivery of content, sites and services. Without clear rules of the road, speech that does not benefit the ISP’s bottom lines — or those of their corporate partners — may be delayed, or worse still, blocked. There has been progress in achieving at least some protections here. But these rules — promulgated by the Federal Communications Commission — are currently in danger of being stripped away by Congress.

Another thing to keep in mind is that the FCC established separate rules for the “wired” web vs. internet accessed on mobile devices. This distinction, to me, is arbitrary and pointless. There is ONE internet, regardless of how you connect to it. Having a tiered internet for wireless may end up impacting those whose speech has historically been at the greatest disadvantage, as underprivileged and minority communities are more likely to access the internet via mobile devices.

It will be very interesting to see how the American virtue of free expression plays out on our domestic networks, especially as we promote open technology platforms as a means of democratic participation overseas.

2. Intellectual Property Enforcement
Wikipedia defines Intellectual Property (IP) as “a term referring to a number of distinct types of creations of the mind for which a set of exclusive rights are recognized… common types of intellectual property rights include copyrights, trademarks, patents, industrial design rights and trade secrets in some jurisdictions.”

IP is big business. REALLY big business here in America. Which is why there are so many large stakeholders pushing for stronger intellectual property laws on the internet. I have no problem with this in theory, as I am a copyright holder myself, and believe that I should have exclusive rights over how my expression is capitalized upon in the marketplace – that is, for a limited term, which was the balance struck by Congress when it devised our laws governing this part of IP. There are different rules for trademarks and patents, on which I am no expert. So I’ll stick with what I know.

Increasingly, copyright law is coming to loggerheads with the consumptive behaviors of internet users. This is something I’ve written about and spoken on extensively in my professional life. In the interest of space, and without picking sides, I can say this: rightsholders are currently pushing hard on Congress to pass laws that, to my reading, look like blunt instruments when it comes to protecting IP online. And by this I mean legislation currently proposed could, at worst, restrict legitimate speech and compromise the underlying security of the internet. For further details, I point you to my DC colleagues, Public Knowledge. (Full disclosure: my wife works for them.)

3. Data Privacy/Security
Which brings me to my final issue, data privacy/security. Again, I can’t claim to be an expert here, but on the other hand, not many can. Here, we have everything from domestic defense to corporate espionage to individual rights and even First Amendment concerns. Some may have heard Eric Schmidt of Google‘s statement on total data transparency being the key to informational security. I’m sure the NSA would agree, so long as they are the ones with “total” access to the data. I bring this up because at no other point in history has informational privacy been of such import — perceived and actual. I can remember people on the street where I grew up being hesitant about having their name listed in the phone book. Now, everything we do and say online leaves a digital trace. Before you get yourself in some Philip K. Dick psychological tailspin, keep in mind that there’s a big difference between personally-identifying data and non-personally-identifying data. The former can be used to target, track and harass individuals; the latter is basically why Amazon knows what books you might be interested in reading next. Still, there is a lot of grey area with regard to how this information is collected, shared and exploited. And, at the moment, US privacy law is a patchwork of state-by-state regulations and jurisprudence. That might not be the case forever, as Congress has shown interest in establishing a federal privacy standard. Obviously, that could cut both ways.

Data security is the other side of the coin. Here, we reach the queasy intersection of defense, espionage — corporate and state — and hackerdom. Much of what occurs in the world of data security happens privately, or though private-public contracts between government and IT wizards. Obviously, any breach of US information security comes with pretty severe (domestic) penalties, but that doesn’t mean that hackers here and abroad aren’t trying to break into our informational infrastructure every second of every day. A serious breach is practically guaranteed, as is the subsequent crackdown. I believe this is what is referred to as the “Internet 9/11.”

The US isn’t just playing defense here. I’ve followed closely reports of how the administration very seriously considered a cyberattack on Libya’s air defense network in the lead-up to the NATO engagement. We ultimately decided against it, likely for a combination of reasons: one, we may not have wanted to be the first country to open the Pandora’s Box of cyberwar; two, we didn’t have enough time to pinpoint and exploit weaknesses in the Libyan network before airstrikes were scheduled to commence; and three, there were lingering legal questions about whether cyberattacks are considered “hostilities” subject to Congressional oversight within the War Powers Act. I guarantee these questions will soon be answered one way or another. And this will undoubtedly impact the evolution of global information networks.

All three of these issues intersect in myriad ways. The economics of digital entertainment is related to open networks vs. walled gardens, and also bumps up against data privacy/security on both the consumer and corporate end of the spectrum. Participatory democracy depends on open tech platforms and access to robust data pipelines and mobile spectrum. Overly-broad IP enforcement has the potential to limit exactly that openness while sending the signal to other nations that censorship is OK. Digital networks can also be exploited by despots (and even less-nefarious governments) to monitor the speech and movement of a populace. And around and around we go.

Taken together, as they are destined to be, these three issues represent the last tech-policy debate. How we respond will shape human interaction for decades, if not centuries to come.

As far as hoary, oft-repeated sayings go, it’s hard to beat “rock is dead.” The origin of the phrase is shrouded in mystery — like the etymology of “heavy metal” — but it’s not hard to picture Lester Bangs coining it while reviewing the latest Lou Reed long-player in his underwear, specks of Robitussin drying on his mustachioed upper lip.

In reality, people have been claiming “rock is dead” since the genre wriggled its way into the repressed loins of America’s bobbysockers. Every so often, a new pack of scruffy young kids with guitars are labeled as its saviors, but it never lasts. ROCK IS DEAD. Long live paper and scissors!

But what if we had empirical evidence that rock really was dead? Or at least in a state of such dissolution that its resurgence was a probabilistic impossibility? To know for sure, we’d need data.

Now we’ve got some.

This article in The Hollywood Reporter indicates that rock is a spent force in the marketplace, squeezed out by more persistent pop forms. Based on a recent study highlighting the ubiquity of synth-pop, the news may be the final nail in rock’s coffin. (I’m just shocked that there was room for one more.)

According to Hit Songs Deconstructed, 79 percent of top 10 pop hits used a synthesizer as the song’s primary instrument. That’s up from 62 percent a year ago and seems to signal that the current electro-pop fad is here to stay — at least a little while longer. Further boosting that theory: the fact that 88 percent of Top 10 songs used electric-based instrumentation. As for the least popular instrument? The guitar, which hit a low of 4 percent during the second quarter of 2011….

…as for lyrical themes in pop music, “hooking up” is the most popular so far in 2011, prevalent in 38 percent of hit songs, followed by “inspirational” songs, which have steadily increased to account for 25 percent of the Top 10 in the second quarter of 2011, “partying/clubbing” (21 percent) and “love/relationships” at 17 percent. Curiously, any “other” categories of lyrical themes have failed to register at all, coming in at zero percent so far in 2011. Last year, when music listeners were seemingly interested in a little more than sex, it was at 9 percent.

Now, it’s easy to come right back and say that the vast majority of rock songs have been about fucking. That may be true, but the flexibility and durability of the form was such that it could include both “Wango Tango” and “Roundabout” in the same canon. I’m not sure that today’s pop will evolve to the same extent.

For those of us who still traffic in this antiquated form, there are more troubling indicators:

Other curious trends pointed to a steep drop in solos, down from 17 percent to 5 percent of hits, and the once popular bridge portion of a song now only exists in 42 percent of songs, down from 54 percent last quarter and 55 percent a year ago.

You may think that it’s perfectly fine to eliminate the guitar solo. Years of co-existing with jam bands elicits a certain sympathy for that worldview. I still enjoy them (if they’re well-placed and say something), but they aren’t a musical necessity. I have more of a problem with the idea that nobody employs bridges anymore. Sure, some of them are useless, but they are a time-honored construct that helps to give songcraft a form. I’m all for experimental art, but eliminating the bridge is kind of like saying we’re no longer going to bother with paragraph breaks. Can you get away with it? Probably. But it says something about our society if we abandon such formalities. It’s a short hop from here to anarchy. Anarchy, I tell you!

One thing that I like about having quantitative data on the death of rock is that it liberates me to keep making it. I am The Contrarian, after all. It would hardly befit my status to toil in a popular genre.

As always, we’re interested in your reactions. What do you think of this data? Was rock dead all along, and we’re just now noticing? What if it turns into a zombie? Are we prepared for that?