Universal Digital Library

The mission of the Universal Digital Library: Million Book Collection, hosted by Carnegie Mellon University is to

create a Universal Library which will foster creativity and free access to all human knowledge. As a first step in realizing this mission, it is proposed to create the Universal Library with a free-to-read, searchable collection of one million books, available to everyone over the Internet. Within 10 years, it is our expectation that the collection will grow to 10 Million books. The resultwill be a unique resource accessible to anyone in the world 24×7, without regard to nationality or socioeconomic background.

One of the goals of the Universal Library is to provide supportfor full text indexing and searching based on OCR (optical character recognition) technologies where available. The availability of online search allows users to locate relevant information quickly and reliably thus enhancing student’s success in their research endeavors. This 24×7 resource would also provide an excellent test bed for language processing research in areas such as machine translation, summarization, intelligent indexing, and information retrieval.

It is our expectation that the Universal Library will be mirrored at several locations worldwide so as to protect the integrity and availability of the data. Several models for sustainability are being explored. Usability studies would also be conducted to ensure that the materials are easy to locate, navigate, and use. Appropriate metadata for navigation and management would also be created.

Bookmark the UDL’s home page and search form and use the site often. It deserves support.


Maybe Mark Zuckerberg’s youth–he’s 23–explains Facebook’s ham-fisted schemes to weave its users’ personal information into skeins of gold. I don’t believe his purposes are nefarious. As Facebook Beacon and Facebook Social Ads show, he does have a knack for letting dollar signs get ahead of his judgment. He is developing a skill for reversing field when what looked like a great idea around the boardroom table runs into the buzzsaw of user opinion.

First a recap. A few weeks ago Facebook announced Facebook Beacon, “a new way to socially distribute information on Facebook.”

The websites participating in Beacon can determine the most relevant and appropriate set of actions from their sites that users can distribute on Facebook. These actions can include posting an item for sale, completing a purchase, scoring a high score in an online game or viewing of video. When users who are logged into Facebook visit a participating site, they receive a prompt asking whether to they want to share those activities with their friends on Facebook. If they do, those friends can now view those actions through News Feed or Mini-Feed stories.

In other words, if a Facebook user lists items for sale on eBay or buys a movie ticket on Fandango, a pop-up asks whether the user wants to share this news–and on Facebook this is considered news–with their Facebook friends. The breathtaking narcissism of such newsy updates aside, Facebook Beacon takes a giant step towards a future when we will all be defined by the commercial value of our online data trail. Facebook stated “[i]n keeping with Facebook’s philosophy of user control, Facebook Beacon provides advanced privacy controls so Facebook users can decide whether to distribute specific actions from participating sites with their friends.” However, those “advanced privacy controls” are less assuring than promised. Yesterday a student and I read through Facebook’s user agreement and privacy policies to see whether one could elect not to participate in Facebook Beacon, other than by not using Facebook. Users can elect not to distribute to friends news of specific transactions, but to date there is no one-stop mechanism to opt-out entirely.

Facebook Social Ads are another part of the story. They “leverage the power of Facebook News Feed by serving relevant stories about friends engaging with your business.” Here’s how Facebook pitches them to businesses:

Reach the right people.

Instead of creating an advertisement and hoping that it reaches the right customers, you can create a Facebook Social Ad and target it precisely to the audience you choose. The ads can also be shown to users whose friends have recently engaged with your Facebook Page or engaged with your website through Facebook Beacon. Social Ads are more likely to influence users when they appear next to a story about a friend’s interaction with your business.

The concept is brilliant–every Facebook user can, through association with purchases, downloads, ratings, and other digital flotsam, become his or her own brand. Facebook “friends” (which should always be in quotes in this context) could follow my data trail and decide “my father is sort of like Professor Randall, so maybe he’d like a pound of Malabar Gold Espresso, No Country for Old Men (the book, not the movie–he’s old school, remember), and Lindsay Mac’s Small Revolution for his birthday.” Or, back in the real world, cool hunters will track young fashionistas to decrease the lag between cutting edge and The Gap. Clickstream data, just laying around waiting to be turned into skeins of gold.

Brilliant. Except for the backlash.

Facebook: What Would Google Do?: There is something astoundingly tone deaf about how Facebook has handled its recent advertising initiatives. Mr. Zuckerberg is right: there are lots of people who would find it cool to tell the world what movies they just rented and even what color socks they just bought. But they’ve got to know that others would find this intrusive. And they couldn’t have picked a worse way to implement the Beacon system first: automatically telling your friends everything you did on participating sites unless you found and pushed a button to cancel the disclosure. (This timeline shows how hard it was at first to figure out what was going on.)

Are Facebook’s Social Ads Illegal?: There is at least one problem with this idea: It may be illegal under a 100-year-old New York privacy law. The statute says that “any person whose name, portrait, picture, or voice is used within this state for advertising purposes or for the purposes of trade without the written consent first obtained” can sue for damages. Moreover, such a use is also a criminal misdemeanor.

MoveOn Launches Privacy Campaign Against Facebook Social Ads: Calling Facebook’s new Social Ads strategy an invasion of privacy, MoveOn.org is asking Facebook members to sign a petition against the social network’s new ad plan.

Facebook’s “Fan-sumers:” Do Social Ads Violate Users’ Privacy?: [Law professor and privacy expert Daniel Solove] noted on his blog, “Facebook . . . assumes that if people rate products highly or write good things about a product then they consent to being used in an advertisement for it. Facebook doesn’t understand that privacy amounts to much more than keeping secrets — it involves controlling accessibility to personal data.”

Zuckerberg isn’t stupid, just surrounded by true believers who can’t view Facebook from outside the bubble. After ten thousand slaps upside the head Facebook has made Social Ads opt-in rather than opt-out. Under Pressure, Facebook Modifies Social Ads Program: “As of late Thursday, Facebook users must now proactively consent to alert friends whenever they take various actions, such as renting a DVD or purchasing a pair of sneakers . . . Now, as part of the changes enacted on Nov. 29, consumers who make such purchases will receive notices that Facebook intends to inform others about their actions—but only if they approve by clicking an “OK” button.” Problem handled, until the next wrong-footed product roll-out.

Limited Vista from my Windows

From Information Week: Windows XPP Significantly Outperforms Vista, Tests Show. “[R]esearchers ran a mix of tests comparing existing versions of the operating systems — the original Vista and XP SP2 — and versions that had been patched with the latest updates — Vista SP1 beta and XP SP3 beta. Tests were also run on machines with 1 Gbyte and 2 Gbytes of memory. Windows XP trounced Windows Vista in all tests — regardless of the versions used or the amount of memory running on the computer. In fact, XP proved to be roughly twice as fast as Vista in most of the tests.” (Emphasis additional) From when I purchased my first personal computer in the late 1980s, I bought a new system and upgraded operating system about every two years. It’s been four years+ since I bought a new desktop. I keep patching this Windows XP machine with new hard drives, fans, cables, and disk drives because the prospect of a spanking new machine with Vista is so disheartening. If this system melted down tomorrow I’d seriously consider buying a Mac and using Boot Camp to run XP.

The Purpose of Law School II

Recently, articles about law school and the legal profession have captured my attention more than is customary. I’m not certain why. There are obvious reasons: I’m nearing the bottom of my pile of to-be-written LSAC recommendation letters, I’m talking often about law school, I’ve had retrospective discussions about law careers, and Damages recently concluded its initial season. Uncanny how that show captured the essence of my first year of practice in the municipal finance department. Murder, intrigue, double crosses, nights at the financial printer’s proofreading offering statements . . .

This time I’ll point to Legal Blog Watch, where Carolyn Elefant has done all of the heaving lifting in a post titled Law School Rankings to Students: Don’t Tell Me What You Want, What You Really, Really Want. The entire post and its linked materials (except the Spice Girls’ lyrics) are worthwhile to those interested in law school. Briefly, law students rank “quality of teaching, bar passage rate, placement rate at nine months, practical skills training and faculty-student relations” as most important in evaluating law schools. The U.S. News law-school rankings don’t “consider quality of teaching, practical skills training or faculty-student relations” and give less weight to bar passage rates and placements. U.S. News bases 25% of its rankings on reputation among law professors and deans, 15% on reputation among lawyers and judges, and other factors declining in significance.

Trying to put the U.S. News Rankings into perspective for prospective law students can be frustrating. The rankings promise to impose order on the difficult choice of selecting a law school but like many analytic tools, people wield them without understanding how to do so or try to make them do more than they can. There’s just something irresistible, atavistic even, about numbered lists. I recall a student deciding between two schools who was convinced that a school ranked 63rd by U.S. News would provide him with a materially better education and job prospects than one ranked in the mid-70s. That’s nonsense. Finish at the top of your class in either school and you’ll have excellent job prospects in their markets. Finish in the bottom half of your class and it won’t matter if your school is ranked in U.S. News’s top 20. Many wanna-be law students forget that half of them will finish in the bottom half of their class, at least until Lake Wobegon Law School opens its doors.

The disconnect between law students’ wants and the U.S. News ranking factors reflects the yin and yang of law school education. Does law school introduce students into analytic thinking that is the backbone of legal problem-solving or does it teach a trade? Which is more important for a law school graduate, sophisticated understanding of legal principles or knowing how to search a title? This should not be binary question; lawyers should know the how and the why of law. There are extremely smart attorneys who are flummoxed by law’s mundane, boring, and necessary details and law mill practitioners churning out form documents who can’t see the forest for the trees. Elefant agrees with a blogger who “wonders whether law student[s] are sufficiently qualified to evaluate the quality of a law school, or to know what aspects of legal education are important.” She says “the most important skills that law school teaches are (1) writing ability and (2) analytical thinking.”

I think the answer is more complicated. Recent posts have discussed the difficulties some law graduates have finding jobs that pay enough to cover their law-school loans. Many students enter law school without any clear understanding of what lawyers actually do only to discover that (1) they don’t like doing it, (2), they aren’t good at it, and/or (3) it is not at all what they expected. The practice of law is stratified, with the handful of top graduates (not all of whom graduated from the U.S. News top-ranked schools) landing the best paying jobs at corporate firms and everyone else finding their niche along the continuum from “interesting and challenging” to “mind-numbingly and soul-suckingly dull.” Learn to analyze, learn to write, but if you are in the bottom half of your class at a lower-ranked school and $150,000+ in debt, you had better come out of law school knowing how to do something besides spot issues.

Court to Consider D.C. Gun Ban

The U.S. Supreme Court announced that it will hear the appeal in Parker v District of Columbia, the March 2007 decision from the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals striking down the D.C. law banning possession of handguns. The Court will hear arguments next March. This challenge to the D.C. handgun ban, which I discussed in one of the Second Amendment posts earlier this year, could provide a definitive ruling on whether the Second Amendment embodies an individual rights or collectivist theory of the right to keep and bear arms. Whether it reverses the D.C. circuit and upholds the constitutionality of the D.C. gun ban or not, the decision in the midst of the presidential campaign is certain to polarize a deeply-divided country.

The Sun Always Shines II . . .

. . . except when it doesn’t. A friend sent me an article from Bloomberg titled Credit Market Collapse Claims Victims as Lawyers Exit, reporting on dismissals from law firms that service structured finance, private equity, and mergers and acquisition transactions. So far the numbers of dismissals is small but expected to increase. The article quotes a source from Citi Private Bank’s law firm group: “You’ll see firms use this slowdown as an opportunity to raise the performance bar and clean out the bottom 5 percent of their performers.” It is indeed a schizophrenic time for BigLaw associates. One day starting salaries increase to $160,000, the next senior associates are axed because the work isn’t there. And associates aren’t the only ones feeling the pain: “Chicago-based Mayer Brown fired or demoted 45 partners in March that the firm said were underperforming.” No, it isn’t all camel rides.

Follow up 11/28:  Law.com reports  that, barring a quick turnaround in the credit markets, Thacher Profitt and Wood will lay off 24 non first-year associates in January. The 350-lawyer firm also offered 29 first-years “the option of taking four months severance and leaving the firm.”  The article did not report what option faces those first-years who decline the severance.    53 lawyers = 15% of firm professionals.

The Sun Always Shines . . .

. . . when you are a summer associate. Last week I was comparing notes about our legal careers with an acquaintance. We met when we overlapped briefly at a large Boston firm–I was on my out the door to become general counsel with a real estate development company, he had just come in as a lateral from another Boston firm. He stayed for about five years, went into private practice, and is now very happy as general counsel for a travel-services company. Our reasons for leaving BigLaw were similarly family-driven. As he said “I got to see all of my kids’ school plays, coach their baseball and basketball teams, and be part of their lives.” I thought of this conversation and our mutual gimlet-eyed view of the BigLaw experience when I read this lead paragraph from Legal Blog Watch:

Summer associates gave their firms overall good reviews in The American Lawyer’s 2007 Summer Associates Survey, and why shouldn’t they? After all, what’s not to like? Some found exotic adventures abroad, with one traveling four-and-a-half hours by horseback across the Egyptian desert and another put up in a fancy apartment in Paris. Others were treated to skyboxes at baseball games, cooking classes, musicals, symphony concerts, whitewater rafting trips and scavenger hunts. In New York, there was Kobe beef and Picasso at the Museum of Modern Art, while in San Francisco there was helicoptering under the Golden Gate Bridge and debauchery at Half Moon Bay. All that and a paycheck of nearly $3,000 a week.

I’ll put it like this. None of our recollections of BigLaw life involved Paris apartments, camel rides, or helicopter rides below or above the Golden Gate Bridge. And the debauchery did not occur at Half Moon Bay.

To P2P or Not to P2P

A section of the College Opportunity and Affordability Act (summary) unanimously approved this week by the U.S. House of Representatives Education and Labor Committee would require universities and colleges that participate in federal financial aid programs to “develop a plan for offering alternatives to illegal downloading or peer-to-peer distribution of intellectual property as well as a plan to explore technology-based deterrents to prevent such illegal activity.” In other words, institutions of higher learning subject to the act must offer students subscriptions to music- and other file-sharing sites approved by the recording and motion picture industries and must beef up technological obstacles to such file-sharing, or face consequences. An official from Educause, which represents college network operators, is quoted here saying that “[t]he language in the bill appears to be clear that failure to carry out the mandates would make an institution ineligible for participation in at least some part of Title IV (which deals with federal financial aid programs).” On the other hand “[h]ouse committee aides respond that failure to craft those antipiracy plans would not imperil financial aid awards. A fact sheet distributed by the committee this week attempts to dispel “myths” that it argues are being circulated by “supporters of intellectual property theft.””

I’ve not read the draft bill, which is reportedly 700 pages long, so I don’t know the exact language of the anti-piracy provisions. Whatever they say, I question why this committee is seeking to impose on colleges and universities the duty to become what the New York Times referred to as “copyright cops.” This quotation from the assistant director of federal relations of the Association of American Universities captures perfectly my objections to these provisions: “You have the federal government requiring a nonprofit educational institution to develop plans to help a for-profit industry to earn more revenue from their students.”

Cost of Filtering

Having just discussed ACLU v Gonzalez this week, the 2006 decision that struck down the Child Online Protection Act, this headline caught my eye: $285,000 to install at S.J. libraries, plus yearly outlays. At the instigation of city councilor Pete Constant San Jose is reconsidering its 1997 decision not to install software filters. ACLU v Gonzalez rests in part on the court’s findings that software filters provide an effective and less-restrictive means than COPA of limiting minors’ access to objectionable materials. (I’m putting aside arguments about the definition of what is objectionable.) Why, I wondered, is the cost of installing filters in San Jose libraries so expensive?

Library director Jane Light said it would cost cash-strapped San Jose $285,000 to implement library computer filtering and $265,000 a year to maintain it. Most of that cost – $210,000 – would come from adding staff seven days a week to handle requests to unblock legitimate Internet sites, as Constant has suggested.

It’s not the filtering software that is expensive, it’s protecting access to constitutionally-protected speech that adults have the right to obtain or that filters should not block in the first place.


D.C. officials confirmed this week that Administrative Law Judge Roy Pearson was not reappointed. Pearson is the one who sued a dry cleaner for $67.3 million over a pair of lost pants. The case ended poorly for everyone. The court dismissed Pearson’s suit, he lost his job, the dry cleaner’s owners went out of business because they were so shaken by the suit, and the legal system took a hit.