Damon Hill (ex-racing driver) still makes his moves. Here he is testing out the new Mercedes-Benz SL. Please note the expressions on the reporter’s face. Stay tuned until the end!

After a test in a local supermarket (Super de Boer Roosendaal), the Dutch company HEM is going to roll out it’s age-verification-system nationwide with C1000-supermarkets. The system works like this: two webcams are located at a special kiosk. When a product with an age-limit (like cigarettes) is scanned, one of the cams looks at the client. An operator of HEM will check the client’s face for age characteristics. When the operator is in doubt, the second cam is activated. The client needs to show his/her ID to this cam, so the operator can verify the age of the client.

HEM says that this is a fool-proof system, fair to everyone. No longer can under aged friends of the counter personnel have an advantage. Also, supermarket-owners say that this system – called Plaaaza – will let counter personnel do their actual work. Instead of checking a client’s age, they can scan the shoppings. What do you think? Is this one bridge too far when privacy is concerned?

In fact it is strange to blog about something that’s supposed to be ‘normal’. But I was aware of a very positive feeling after getting in touch with Autotaalglas. The reason was less pleasant: a stone jumped on my windscreen and created a large crack in it. After a phonecall to the insurer, I found out that I could have it repaired with any associated company. One of them: Autotaalglas. So I checked out their website and learned that they had a form online that could be used to bring in my case. Normally I do not expect much of these forms. But now, within 15 minutes, I was called and a transfer to my local Autotaalglas was made! The appointment is coming Friday 08.00 sharp. This was because the windshield needs to be ordered. When they would have it in stock, I could come along right away…

Personalizing direct mailings is thé thing for many years. The more personal you can get, the better the results. New technology is in place to make it possible to create handwritten messages (or other representations) including a person’s name. But this initiative of www.strandnaam.nl is very low-tech. And charming nonetheless. How it works? Via the (Dutch) website of strandnaam.nl you can order a photograph of someone’s first name handwritten in the sand of Bamburi Beach at Mombasa (Kenya). This writing is done by Moses Onoo and his family. In total 8 families profit from this initiative by Dutchman Pim Bottenberg. During a visit he facilitated them with a camera and teached them how to photograph and use the PC in a nearby internetcafé. For 10 euro you can get this personalized piece. Now that is what you can call digital development!

source: NRC.Next – Olga van Ditzhuijzen

My first thought however was: how come that the Bank’s analysts do not share their knowledge with the people responsible for spending the communication budget? Recently ABN AMRO bragged about their participation in Second Life (the world’s quietest bank office probably). But then again: this initiative generated a lot of free publicity in itself. In that perspective the effect of the virtual venture itself is quite irrelevant…

While everybody was condemning the show (ethical mainly) I was never under the impression that this was for real. I could not imagine that this kind of television actually was goiing to happen. I thought of the whole initiative as a rather creative way to raise awareness for the ongoing problem we have in The Netherlands when it comes to a shortage of organ donors. Despite numerous campaigns done by the government and several ‘good causes’ during the years to alter this situation. None were successful. But now we had the whole country (and the world) talking about this topic. While the real issue was covered by the ethical discussion, I am sure that the common public is now more aware of the situation that ever before. In this respect the hoax can be regarded as a huge success. People actually were forced to really *think* about their point of view on being a donor or not. It is rather impossible now – after this hoax – to NOT have an opinion. Saying “I do not (yet) know” on the question “Are you going to be a donor?” puts you in a rather peculiar standpoint: either you are a convinced donor now. Or a convinced non-donor. The time spent in the Dutch government speaking about the moral ins-and-outs of this initiative, could – in my opinion – better be spent on discussion about solving the problem. As BNN puts it: “The problem is real, the waiting lists are real and the three candidates waiting for a kidney are real. The show was a fake. We deliberately caused a stir to raise awereness for this big problem”. Mission accomplished as far as I concern. Pity the ones that still talk about the means and not about the goal.