It's Time to Expose Exposure

Unpaid internships are an awkward thing with a lot of feelings about them in play.  Opinions exist that they are exposure, or useful experience of a work environment that can enable the intern to go on into commercial roles with more of the industry experience, personal networking contacts and ability to work in a professional environment than peers who have not taken up the opportunity - particularly useful in competitive environments.  Companies that offer them are overwhelmingly in the creative and technology spaces, where traineeships and apprenticeships aren't an option to get a foot in the door like in trades, and where formal intern programs don't exist like in some large professional corporates or specific industries.

These opinions are the drooling delusion of employers who are stupider than a pillow case full of damp rocks, nastier than a three buck chicken burger served lightly seared but otherwise blue, or usually, both.

The reality is that unpaid intern placements are illegal in Australia unless they are part of a formally structured educational program, or put more simply (but no less demandingly), unless they are actually offering useful experience that fits all the criteria that the employers that offer them implore that they do.  The simple reason for this is that without stringent regulation, and arguably even with it, unpaid internships are overwhelmingly a source of exploitative labour for employers and only in edge cases have some potential to offer a handful of insights and experience which are usually available elsewhere without the subjugation, and are only marginal advantages anyway.  Unpaid internships are free labour for employers who would prefer not to pay people to do work which is commercially valuable and contributes to the company bottom line.  The employee gets not much, or probably nothing.

Fair Work Australia publishes an excellent, if wordy, summary of how this works.  To summarise it in two (lengthy) sentences,

If your primary function in a business is to do work for the company which is commercially useful and contributes to operations, you are an employee of that company and therefore entitled to at least a minimum wage and a set of conditions - which are by definition the minimum amount of money which can be paid to someone, and the minimum circumstance that can be afforded to someone, when that someone does commercially useful work that contributes to operations.

If your primary function in a business is to observe how the business works, witness the operations, experience how the industry operates, then you are an intern and not an employee, and the laws and regulatory framework which affords employees a minimum compensation for being an employee do not apply.

Yesterday Hooch Creative got into a bit of a broil on Twitter.  Either the person charged with hiring new staff is an unpaid intern, or their paid employee advertised on Pedestrian including this copy;

Developing and writing press releases, blog posts and social media content will be the forefront of your experience with us, with a heavy emphasis on your own project management skills and team work!

Then the compensation;

The role is unpaid, but you will have the chance to learn a lot in a dynamic, young environment.

I'm not an employment lawyer, and I don't work for Fair Work Australia, but my layperson's initial impressions are that this is a direct description of what would seem to be productive, commercially valuable work with a heavy emphasis on relevant commercial skills that are expected to already exist, with a conclusion that the compensation is a chance to learn a lot about some stuff.

Regardless of whether FWA comes to the obvious conclusion, it's time to wind this up.  It's not relevant that other jurisdictions such as the United States permit this sort of behaviour, it's not relevant that industry figures go on about how valuable they are to the intern, the whole time relishing the idea that you can theoretically pursue infinite profit margins if you can just align labour and resources at zero costs.  Unpaid internships are a slightly more dignified version of slave labour in which employers assert that employees are not even worth the remuneration required to cover their costs of commuting to a dynamic, free-thinking work environment with a subsidised vending machine, bean bags and an Xbox.  It's abject nonsense and it needs to stop.  

The next time you see an ad, reply and ask what formal educational process it is part of that makes it not illegal.  If someone attends your university during a break in a lecture to tell the class about the exciting unpaid internship opportunity they have going at a local business, ask the same question.  It's time to expose this, and shut down the widespread business community opinion that businesses can rely on free labour from people who think they are getting some sort of useful experience from being exploited.

It's time to expose exposure.


Image: dsearls

How Not to Manage Technology PR

Yesterday the Commonwealth Bank's social media team/person got their feet put to the fire over a blog post seeking and failing to detail the bank's response to the heartbleed OpenSSL flaw.  To get across this it's necessary to first go into what heartbleed is.

Up until the 7th of April when the patch was released, assuming the websites you communicate with acted immediately, websites your computer connected to in order to show the page you wanted were missing a "bounds check" in the heartbeat extension to the software that secures your communication.  Bounds checks make sure that information stored in memory is read and written only to a fixed extent, and the lack of one in heartbleed affected sites and applications could be told to read back a section of memory as a security check which was larger than the amount of memory needed to store the check value and subsequently return other stuff in memory stored after it.  Imagine I give you a password which you write on the first page of a paper diary so that if I ring you, you can recite it and I can be sure I'm speaking to you.  I then ring and ask you to confirm your identity by reading the first 100 pages of your diary.  Being obedient and without a proper bounds check, you read the secret password and then continue on leafing through your diary to recite the name of that hot guy or girl at work, your progress towards saving a deposit on a first home, your recipe for tuna and sweet potato risotto and precisely what you think of your mother in law.

The real word tech implications of this are pretty disastrous.  Actual security breaches have occurred and the footprint of the affected software was huge due to its popularity.  A really big deal.

People want to know what this means for their personal safety, and one of the popular (and correct) assumptions is that if ever you entered a username and password into a website which was stored in memory after the bit of memory that the software was authorised to ask for, it may have been revealed to an attacker.  If you've used a website that reported that it has patched the bug, this means that the memory can no longer be erroneously read. What it doesn't mean is you're safe - your password can now be in an Excel spreadsheet being sold on the Silk Road for fifty euros, having been revealed back when the site wasn't patched.  You should change your password if a service admits it has patched the vulnerability.

Enter the social media expertise of the Commonwealth Bank. In a blog post titled What You Need to Know About Heartbleed, they detailed a lot of assurances about how good CBA's staff are at managing security, how nobody needs to worry, but not whether they were;

  1. Not users of OpenSSL, or at least the affected version, and never have been, or
  2. OpenSSL users who have patched it to a version that is not affected, but because passwords may have been revealed users would need to change passwords on CBA services and other services where that password was also used

Ironically for a post titled What You Need to Know About Heartbleed, the post did not tell people what they needed to know about heartbleed.

The reality according to CBA is option 1, but this only came in an update after the social media presence, presumably acting in isolation of IT engineers who could've provided more appropriate answers to customer questions (for example technically plausible and correct ones), repeated the same approved communications points without calling for backup, and after it had long been detailed that the boilerplate nothing to see here wasn't addressing what people by now understood to be a choice between two specific factual circumstances.

From the post in response to one question;

Hi @jamesmacyou do not need to change your NetBank password. We are patched against the Heart Bleed bug. We are dedicated to ensuring our data and that of our customers is safe and secure. We take matters of security very seriously and our security teams are always up to date with all of the latest security developments so that we can continually strengthen the protections we have in place.

Then in response to another;

Hi @ac3we are patched against the Heart Bleed bug. We are dedicated to ensuring our data and that of our customers is safe and secure. Our security teams constantly monitor and stay abreast of the latest security technologies and updates, and we continually strengthen the protections we have in place.

And another

Hi @Nathanyou can use NetBank and our websites with confidence. You do not need to change your NetBank password and we are patched against the Heart Bleed bug. We take matters of security very seriously and our security teams are always up to date with all of the latest security developments so that we can continually strengthen the protections we have in place.

And so it goes on with increasingly terse and outraged comments demanding that the moderator provide which of the two circumstances are applicable in which people can actually be assured or use with confidence or whichever other positive emotions suit.

User Nathan summed it up;

Please answer cammac's and ChadNash's questions properly.Your current responses to both of them completely ignored the key issue they raised. Simply repeating "we are patched" doesn't help, quite the reverse: it implies you have been vulnerable up until this week when the patch was released.

No demands for further information were met until the blog post was updated in its entirety, long after it's safe to assume that the social media, public relations, communications and marketing staff finally went to an engineer and asked for the facts of the issue.  CBA has suffered widespread outages today directly after the social media heat.  Whether that's incidental or whether they weren't completely transparent and the outages are associated with remediation work for heartbleed is unclear and it's likely that it'll remain that way.

Managing technology security risks for a major financial institution in 2014 is like patting a baby to sleep. Your soothing words and assurances that everything is OK only work if the baby isn't sitting in stink.  If it is, you need to fix the technical issues before the lullaby is going to get you a moment's respite. This is because while cooing is a valuable enough skill it's only useful in the specific set of circumstances where there is no clear evidence that everything is not OK.  Ignore evidence of disaster that the baby knows about and focus on positive messaging and you'll get constant wailing and perhaps more stink until you address it.

Hopefully the next time a vexing flaw is discovered in a pervasively used piece of security software, Commbank will remember that, the memory underscored by the lesson it had to learn this time.  Remember to use sanitiser gel on your hands guys.

Image:  CarbonNYC

Eich Should Never Have Been Hired

Mozilla Foundation CEO Brendan Eich has stood down or been stood down by the foundation in the face of outrage at his former donations to a campaign in opposition to the rights of gay people to marry in California. The Australian is covering it because while it is not an Australian issue per se, the issues dealt with are relevant in every country where gay people exist, that includes Australia and indeed every country in the world.  Eich should never have been hired, because he is not suitable to lead Mozilla.  In order to examine this we need to do a bit of management of business theory 101.

To understand what CEOs do and why ones who oppose the rights of any particular section of any particular community are wholly unsuitable, we need to examine the difference between individual contributors such as the Mozilla community who produce its products and work in its offices, the managers of Mozilla who either there or in any organisation are responsible for the arrangement of effort to achieve goals, and the leaders such as the CEO who set the direction and vision for the company.  It's easy to see the world as individual contributors and managers / leaders, but these management and leadership functions are entirely different.

All this can sound like weekend retreat for middle managers waffle, and to an extent it is, but it's still directly relevant to the issue at hand and bares understanding.  What is the difference between what a manager and leader does, and why is Eich a bad CEO for the Mozilla Foundation?

Imagine you are part of a team which is cutting a path through the jungle from one village to another so that people can get between them.  There will be people cutting through the jungle with machetes to clear the path, these are individual contributors.  There will be people sharpening the machetes as they get blunt and tending the wounds of any people who get hacked by a fellow individual contributor (managers), then there'll be a guy climbing through the jungle and up a tree a few hundred meters ahead, crying out "THIS WAY!" and pointing towards the second village.  That's the leader.

Some businesses have no leaders but do have managers, and those businesses tend to be good at organising resources towards an undefined goal, but therefore never get anything of value done.  There's skilled people arranged into groups, administration executed, timesheets, profit and loss (or more likely just loss) statements, performance evaluations, but because there isn't any plan for the future or end goals, nothing of value gets accomplished - only administrivia and wheel-spinning.

Some businesses have leaders but no managers; vision, creative flare, passion, a plan - but no ability to apply business resources toward that plan because there is no arrangement of the appropriate people and things to move towards the second village. After the first furtive cracks towards where everyone knows the second village is, half the jungle choppers are dead from their wounds and the other half are standing around with blunt machetes or foam bats with no ability to progress despite the crystal clear understand of what needs to be done.

Businesses typically have both leadership and management to some degree, sometimes management and leadership functions are performed by the same people, and management and leadership can have company-wide or team-wide or function-wide scope, but the non-negotiable thing is they are two separate functions and skill sets. 

Now to Eich.

The CEO of a business is the primary person who is responsible for the vision and direction of a company.  The entire Mozilla Foundation looks to the CEO of Mozilla and the direction he's pointing, and trusting that he is using his every ability and skill as a visionary, a decision-maker, a creative force and a visualiser of a where the foundation will be in the future.  He is the one climbing the tree hundreds of meters ahead yelling "This way!" and he's accountable for the fact that when everyone stops chopping, they need to be in village B.  

Eich's $1000 donation to a campaign supporting the overturn of the right of gay people to marry in California isn't an example of bigotry that would really preclude you from being a good individual contributor or manager, provided you weren't' so bigoted that you couldn't effectively perform tasks and duties alongside a gay person or had trouble managing them because you had an irrational dislike of who they innately are. Leadership is different though, and is much more seriously damaged by a leader's unethical position that some people have no right to get married to who they want to.

Vision for the future, a creative mental image of what a business or foundation's future looks like, is completely flawed if it comes from a person who doesn't value people equally.  Studies and surveys vary wildly for obvious reasons but most reportage puts 10-20% of the United States population as the type of person that Brendan Eich didn't want to have the basic right to love who they want and make a public commitment to them in front of friends and family - and not want them to so much he gave a lot of money to people who successfully stopped them.  A vision of a commercial company has to include how its products will make everyone's lives better.  Everyone's life better.  Not just straight people, or white people, or men, or people who speak English... everyone.  If this is ever a mutable concept it's not mutable at Mozilla, a non-profit organisation which exists to support the open source Mozilla project.  Open source was and is always about making everyone's life better through the application of information technology, setting aside the usual lucrative benefits of closed source, guarded intellectual property and commercial secrets.

Leadership skills preclude people who support inequality.  You can lead by personality or values, but a bigot as a leader is awful and defective, and bigotry as a value is not one that should lead. Bigots are bad leaders. Let's hope Mozilla's next CEO has a vision of where to lead Mozilla for all of its users, and lets hope the backlash shows other companies whose mission is to make everyone's life better, that a leader with a record of distaste for some people, isn't fit to lead.

Image: Pargon



We Must Protect Children from Something

Paul Fletcher MP invited submissions on his plan to radically shift regulation of the Internet in Australia, or more accurately, regulate the Internet out of Australia.  Further accurate again would be to say that he opened the door to discussion about coalition government preconceived ideas that were in the form of a discussion paper that canvassed that we ought do something about the undefined risk to children from the Internet.  This entire circumstance was for show; well before the closure of submissions the pre-election discussion paper was being referred to as government policy and media appearances by Fletcher were setting direction and vision for what the policy outcomes would be.

The entire farce will, must, fail.  I'm here to tell you why.

As outlined in the introduction section of the discussion paper, the Internet has indeed become a daily and integrated part of life for many Australian families and mine is no exception.  In the last three decades as I have grown up and my family has formed, the Internet has become such an integral part of our life that we have scarcely (if at all) noted its existence.  The Internet has indeed become no longer a thing in its own right, but a mere mechanism by which the entirety of our day-to-day lives unfurls.  In the same way that the Bruce Gygnell's ``Good evening, and welcome to television" sounds anachronistic nearly sixty years after he spoke it on TCN9, the concept of the Internet as a specific thing rather than just a way things are done is an oddly awkward one, and something my two year old son Patrick has no concept of.  The introductory section subtitled "The dominance of Internet use and social media" correctly points out that over 95 percent of young Australians use the Internet regularly.  This is within a rounding error of all of them, and certainly adults are not meaningfully different.  Where the paper showed more caution I'd like to round up a little and assert in my introduction that "everyone uses the Internet, all the time, and barely anyone notices."  Against that backdrop I'd like to respond to the rest of the paper, because with that context we can see that the ideas that the government has come up with on how we should change daily life in Australia are pretty important ones to get right.  Bad Internet policy is outright terrible policy.

The paper asks of a proposed "Children's e-Safety Commissioner";

What Existing Programmes and Powers Should the Commissioner take Responsibility For?


Nor any new ones.

As part of the election campaign in September 2013, the Government asserts that it committed to appoint a senior Commonwealth official as a Children's e-Safety Commissioner.  I'm not completely persuaded that it did.  In April or March 2012 the coalition formed an Online Safety Working Group and in the space between there and the 2013 Australian Federal Election it undertook various consultations and roundtables (with whom is unclear) and further released a discussion paper which in many ways is similar to current policy, but that discussion paper sought input on the ideas mooted in it which seem then to have been commuted directly into a governmental agenda of regulatory response.  Precisely where the political equivalent of thinking out loud and inviting people to offer their feelings turned into where we currently stand is murky, but for our present purposes we might as well accept for the moment that this is long-standing government policy even if that doesn't fit completely comfortably - almost like that one door in your house when it gets a bit damp.  It is ultimately more interesting to look into why the idea of a governmental regulator or czar for the area of children's safety is an completely awful idea than it is to examine whether the idea is official or speculative anyway.

What problem are we trying to solve?

This applies a lot to the policy, but it's as useful to examine it here as it is anywhere.  For the last twenty years that the Internet can be meaningfully said to be a normal way of conducting life, there have been those in the community who have expressed a range of emotive concerns about it ranging from hesitant consent to it being part of their lives through to full scale doomsday prophecy.  This is so normal that it's boring; respected scientist Conrad Gessner warned how the modern world overwhelmed people with data and that this overabundance of communication between people posed great risks.  Of course the modern world in this context is Switzerland in the early to mid 1500s but he wasn't an outlying point of data, he was one popular begining of modern terror about communication.   You can trace the sentiment back to Socrates of course, who wrote in The Republic that children can't tell reality from fiction (presumably they then like now wandered around him doing just that while he wrote), but it was the printing press in Gessner's era that really got the idea going that people are under some great danger from technological advancement in communication, and consequently started off a four and half century history of people putting this point forward without clearly and convincingly articulating a single harm that comes from the communication.  Not one.  They just flailed about nearly wetting their pants in terror (perhaps their tights in Gessner's case, I'm unfamiliar with 16th century Swiss attire.)

The entire introduction of both the government's Children's e-Safety policy and the working group output that preceded it, and to be fair the former ALP government's furtive efforts in the same area, treads carefully and precisely in the footprints of Socrates, Gessner, and every other Henny Penny since then through the eras of writing, the press, radio, recorded music, television, computers and the Internet. It all convinces us with well-researched assertion that Australians in general and children in particular communicate more than ever before, and completely fails to articulate how this is a problem.  Indeed, were it a problem that nearly 95% (or all as we've decided to say) of Australian children use the Internet, we could expect to see a national bloodbath that would be the subject of great shame.  Instead, we see schoolchildren almost absent mindedly playing Candy Crush Saga on their phones at the bus stop, occasionally flicking to the app that tells them if the bus is late and by how much.

What specifically do we mean by harm to children from the Internet?  That children will find information that is difficult to contextualise at their age?  This doesn't seem worthy of a national scale policy response.  That children will suffer some sort of mental anguish specific to the way in which other children treat them online?  That seems more like something handled at a school or community level with appropriate public health style responses more than it does a reason to put a burecrat in charge of Facebook.  Perhaps we indulge in the idea that children are stalked and predated on the Internet? The research tells us that this is vanishingly rare outside of tabloid media and children are at far greater risk of being abused by a parent, step-parent or friend of the family than strangers who use the Internet to browse for victims of horrifying crimes. Perhaps the public would be a little awkward about a Commissioner of Safety Around Leery Step dads though.

It's worth a note that the discussion paper points out that in September 2013 a Tasmanian 15 year old girl took her life after being bullied, a 13 year old took her life in Sydney in similar circumstances in 2013 and and in 2012 and 2009 Melbourne girls of 14 years apiece took their lives apparently in response to bullying.  These suicides are preventable tragedies for which we should be ashamed.  The Australian Bureau of Statistics records that in the five years to 2012 1,727 men and 546 women died by suicide - 10 per 100,000, six people per day.  80 boys and 35 girls made irreversable decisions in 2011 and considering all causes of death, suicide accounts for a tad over a quarter of deaths in 15 - 19 year old males.  If we can support the mental health, safety and wellbeing of our young Australians and give them options when faced with challenges, they are a chance at going on to live long and full lives.  We need to do better, but to assert that there is a meaningful angle to the tragedy of youth suicide where we can do something by better further regulating the Internet seems at best to be unsupported speculation and probably just using the awfulness of suicide to create fake impetus for your policy.

While the Internet may have improved the ability for people in Australia's history to make each other's lives a misery by increasing their communication capabilities with each other, Australian law rightly seeks to regulate the behaviour of Australians, not the conduits by which they behave. This is particularly so when those conduits are capable of being used for pleasant as well as nefarious behaviour.  Existing legislation regulates carriage services as well as stalking and harrasing behaviour, what does the government seek to achieve by further regulating already illegal behaviour? In the face of the legislative prohibition on murder, does Australia need a law against murder committed on Thursdays?  With the existence of legislation prohibiting stalking someone and applying such emotional stress that they end their life, what does the coalition consider the extra value is in more specific regulation against doing so via Twitter?  These questions need answering before we can move onto the next reason a Commissioner for e-Safety cannot work.

Australia cannot regulate not-Australia

In 2012 then "DBCDE" (now department of Communications) which currently seeks to appoint an Australian commissioner in charge of Internet companies variously incorporated in Ireland and the United States, received a copy of the final report into the review of the Interactive Gambling Act 2001.  This is simultaneously one of the most amusing and embarassing pieces of legislation about the Internet in Australia and given the volume and calibre of competitors in that area this is quite an achievement.  The Act prohibits (inter alia) the offering of an interactive gambling service to Australians, an activity largely indulged in by entities incorporated in other countries and not subject to Australian laws.  2200 of them in fact, according to the report.  That report further pointed out that the number of Australians accessing these services is significant and growing, and about a billion dollars in revenue disappears overseas with gay abandon each year.   The review rather sheepishly realised that a primary reason for this is that Australian law doesn't apply overseas to foreign entities unless we have some sort of external agreement in which both parties agree to enforce each other's standards.  We have no such agreement with the countries in which these entities are incorporated and as such our laws don't apply to them. Overwhelmingly the largest obstruction to the effectiveness of a Commissioner in charge of children's safety on Facebook (setting aside my previous point that there appears to be no well articulated problem that one would solve), is that Facebook is not Australian and not subject to Australian laws in its operations in foreign countries.  Google is in the same boat, as is Twitter, Myspace, Webo, Instagram, Snapchat, RenRen, Skype, Stickcam, or any other corporate entity which offers a service to Australian children upon which they may make each other miserable. If we act now, and choose to not act, the government can be saved the awkward embarrassment in a decade when it is revealed that the children's safety cyberczar has not made a single arrest, issued a single fine or set a single child out of harm's way.  If the government continues with this instead, we'll read about it sometime in 2024, bewildered.

With the points offered that there is no cogently articulated problem that a children's e-safety commissioner could busy themselves solving, and that for such a commissioner the majority if not entirety of their responsibilities would be out of their grasp, it's hard to have cogent responses to the discussion paper's questions about what machinations of government would best bear out such a commissioner.

Image:  lucianvenutian

Stealing the News


Here's one for how complicated Australia is in a technology-powered world.

In an Australia where news organisations howl that Google stole their news by providing links to it, erect paywalls to secure content behind a revenue stream, then howl that nobody is reading their news, the profitability of journalism in Australia is an interesting topic.

News is complicated and it's expensive but the principle behind it is simple enough; traditionally you spend resources to find things out (journalism), that people want to know (news), and give it to them along with some things your customers (advertisers) want them to know (advertising).  New models are emerging like spend resources to find things out then directly sell access that news to your customers who are news consumers (rather than advertisers), but for now it's the advertising model.  Or a mixture of the two.  Or public relations professionals outright pay news outlets to run advertisements that look like news.

OK maybe the principle behind it isn't that simple.  Maybe to put it very simply we need to go back a step further and summarise journalism's business model as "spend as few resources as possible to publicise things that are as interesting and unique as possible."  Under this elemental description the ideal scenario would be if you could have somebody saunter up to you with a highly controversial and compelling story which they give you for free, allowing your to reveal it to your readership amongst quite a bit of scandal/outrage/sensation without having to do the expensive bit of getting an inkling about something, asking some people who know about it what they think, reading up in a bunch of journals to confirm that something is what you think it is, lodging formal requests like Freedom of Information requests or legal challenges etc.  Of course that could never happen.  Who goes around finding out who has done the wrong thing, confirming it, double checking it, then gift wrapping it and handing it to news organisations?

Meet Asher Wolf.

Asher's a Melbourne-based nuisance of the highest quality.  She has been involved in a wide range of social justice issues around Australia.  The former ALP government's proposals to censor the Internet from 2007 to 2012?  There.  The cryptoparty phenomenon intended to teach cryptography and privacy to layfolks?  There (successes and challenges).  Wikileaks, Pirate Party, surveillance, privacy, hacking, cracking, legislating and arguing, it seems Asher Wolf is either in the middle of it, at the front of a Twitter crowd yelling at it, providing expert commentary to contextualise it or most deliciously, making those responsible for it look silly or inept.

Today ABC News published, and I use the term tentatively, a story where the acting head of the Manus island refugee prison camp is a former Sri Lankan military commander.  This is obviously beyond astonishing; some of the refugees on Manus Island are there as a consequence of fleeing the Sri Lankan military.   The byline of the article says Jeff Waters, but Wolf asserts that she investigated the story - complete with scouring Sri Lankan government journals - to confirm that the person is who she thought they were, and then gift wrapped the story to three news outlets, the first of which was unable to get the in-house silks to sign off on the legal risk to running it, the second of which delayed discussing it and ran the risk of running the story stale, and the third was the ABC which initially agreed to attribute the story to her, but then ran it without crediting her.

If this is true - and speaking personally I have a great deal of trust in Wolf's integrity - the national broadcaster outright lied in order to release a story to its readership which had a near 100% profit because it hard to do none of the work but would get all of the value out of doing so.

It's a pretty ugly business model even in a group of very ugly models, but "take someone else's hard work and present it as your own" appears to be joining "put all your articles behind a paid login" and "arrange inconsequential factoids into lists of 10" as the way to make money with journalism.

As/if more information comes to light, Any Any will update.  If it's someone else's revealing, Any Any will check with them if it's OK, and credit them where appropriate.


Image:  carolina terp