Politics, open government, and safe streets. And the constant incursion of cycling.

Category: Distribution Page 7 of 15

Even Kids (Advocates) Get It: Censorship Doesn’t Save The Children

Boing Boing highlights this story concerning children’s groups pushing back against the Australian government’s plan to filter the country’s access to content on the Internet:

Holly Doel-Mackaway, adviser with Save the Children, the largest independent children’s rights agency in the world, said educating kids and parents was the way to empower young people to be safe internet users.

She said the filter scheme was “fundamentally flawed” because it failed to tackle the problem at the source and would inadvertently block legitimate resources.

Furthermore there was no evidence to suggest that children were stumbling across child pornography when browsing the web. Doel-Mackaway believes the millions of dollars earmarked to implement the filters would be far better spent on teaching children how to use the internet safely and on law enforcement.

Lori Drew Case: On Track to Make Bad Law

I am shocked the Lori Drew case actually went to trial – opening statements took place yesterday.  I wrote about this case back in August:

The Lori Drew case is a case full of disgusting facts – appalling adult behavior (on all sides) contributed to circumstances that drove a young girl to suicide.  One of those adults is now being prosecuted under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act for violating the MySpace.com terms of use agreement.  That’s right, Federal prosecutors are trying to treat not complying with those ridiculous click-through agreements on nearly every web site you use as a crime.  Thankfully not everyone is losing their mind over this (horrible) situation, and the EFF, Public Citizen, and others have stepped in with an amicus brief demonstrating just what a bad idea this is.

I haven’t followed things closely, but given what a stretch it is to apply the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act to these facts, I assumed it was going to settle.  Because truly, who would expect we were about to move into a world that made it a Federal crime to fill out a website user registration form with anything other than your true and personal information.  And yet we’ll take a big step toward that being the case if Lori Drew is convicted.  And with the facts being presented to the jury, I think that’s a very real possibility.

More background on the case itself here.

The Future of “News”

The New York Observer has an interesting few pages on CNN’s enormous spending on things that have very little, if anything, to do with actual newsgathering or analysis.  And it reminds me that I can’t remember the last time I watched CNN or turned to CNN.com for actual news.  I’m sure I’ve tuned into it to catch a live feed, but that was probably more a function of being the next channel in the progression than anything else.   To be sure, CNN has a greater actual capacity to do original reporting around the planet than most any other organization I can think of.  Yet for all of that reach, they manage to filter it in such a way that it’s about a half inch deep by the time it hits your screen.   Their solution to that?  Will.i.am fake holograms and prettier graphics.

Repeat After Me: The Fairness Doctrine Is Dead

and it will stay that way, no matter how much the rightwing noise machine would like to say otherwise.

AT&T Sponsors New Privacy Policy Group

The Washington Post has a press release story about the launch of something called the Future of Privacy Forum:

A group of privacy scholars, lawyers and corporate officials are launching an advocacy group today designed to help shape standards around how companies collect, store and use consumer data for business and advertising.

Well, okay.  That’s certainly something that I’d like to see get more attention.  But what does this group bring to the discussion that the Center for Democracy & Technology, EPIC, and the EFF don’t already?  Oh, here’s the answer:

The group, the Future of Privacy Forum, will be led by Jules Polonetsky, who until this month was in charge of AOL‘s privacy policy, and Chris Wolf, a privacy lawyer for law firm Proskauer Rose [ed. note – and also one of AT&T’s law firms] . They say the organization, which is sponsored by AT&T, aims to develop ways to give consumers more control over how personal information is used for behavioral-targeted advertising.

Because AT&T cares about your privacy.   Also from the press release story:

Mike Zaneis, vice president for public policy for the Interactive Advertising Bureau, which represents online publishers such as Google and Yahoo as well as advertisers such as Verizon, said online privacy issues have long been debated and that “having another voice in this area could help.”

Yup.  I think it’s probably a safe bet that we can look forward to this group muddying the waters of most any privacy policy discussion in the near future.  That isn’t to say this is an entirely useless voice – it’s expected to generally argue for “opt-in” tracking – but anything they issue should be viewed with the question of how it will benefit AT&T.

Reason Magazine on Tor Books

Reason Magazine has an interesting look at Tor Books, one of the most successful publishers of science fiction in the past 25 years (I have shelves and shelves full of nothing but Tor and Baen books).  The author, naturally, takes a particular interest in how Tor’s books have furthered an openness toward the libertarian political philosophy.  The piece makes a number of observations that go well beyond that, though:

Patrick Nielsen Hayden, the goateed and bespectacled Tor eminence who edited two of the house’s Prometheus finalists this year, draws a direct line between youthfulness and openness to libertarian ideas. “Young people read fiction to figure out how the world works,” he says, “and science fiction is an extremely effective, quick way of testing your views of how the world works.” Paraphrasing the late novelist and critic Thomas Disch, Hayden says, “Enormous quantities of science fiction and fantasy are about power, and who needs power fantasies more than teenagers, people who have a little bit of power for the first time in their lives and need to think about how power works?”

Oh, how true that is.

Oh, How I Wish . . .

this to be real.

Public Service Lives at Washington Post . . . dot com

In perhaps its greatest service to the public since Watergate, the Washington Post WashingtonPost.com’s work resulted in this:

A U.S. based Web hosting firm that security experts say was responsible for facilitating more than 75 percent of the junk e-mail blasted out each day globally has been knocked offline following reports from [WashingtonPost.com blog] Security Fix on evidence gathered about criminal activity emanating from the network.

I think I’m only slightly exaggerating the good involved, here.

Friday Notes: Clock Watching Edition

Busy week, and it’ll only get busier between now and Election Day.  At the moment, however, I’m killing some time at home until the lines for in-person absentee voting (hopefully) shrink.  Just popped over there during lunch, and the line was about two hours long.  I did what every pollwatcher fears – I left (as they don’t think you’ll come back (and most don’t)).  But I figure I’ll get some work done here and then head back in a bit, bringing some reading to catch up on (no phones allowed).  Could be worse – I could be in those 5-8 hour lines down in Georgia.

~

Despite my generally writing him off as someone whose judgment I respect over the Iraq war, I’ve been reading Andrew Sullivan on a regular basis, these days.  His struggle with reconciling his conservative principles with the Republican party has been honest and public.   He says:

I face the dilemma every time I go to a college campus and speak about conservatism. When you use the c-word among the next generation, they no longer associate it with small government, individual freedom, humble faith, balanced budgets, respect for tradition or a strong but prudent foreign policy. They think of religious fanaticism, big spending, massive debt, and social intolerance. When I give my stump speech in defense of the conservatism I lay out in my book, there is considerable interest, but it sounds nothing like the current GOP. I come close to washing my hands of the word as Randolph is.

But remember: we had this word first. We can and must reclaim it.

I’ve got some sympathy for him, but something tells me he’s going to be about as successful in doing that as Jay Randal was in his mission to take back another word, in Clerks II (warning, that link leads to something that is almost certain to offend).

~

Dallas Mavericks owner and gazillionaire Mark Cuban may be a dick, but he sure is an admirably public-minded one:

Transparency is key to the success of the Bailout and related loans and investments the government makes with our tax dollars. Without complete transparency, we will get from our government what we always get when it comes to finances, confusion. To do my part, I’ve worked with the folks at Sharesleuth.com to create Bailoutsleuth.com

Its job is simple, keep an eye on our taxpayer dollars and call Bullshit when necessary.

if you take a trip over to Bailoutsleuth you can see that its already time to call BS. In the first contract handed out, in this case to Bank of NY Mellon Corp, the compensation section is blacked out.

Sad. So very sad, that we couldnt make it a week without being afraid of the very taxpayers who are footing the tab for all of this.

Bailoutsleuth will try to publish every day in keeping up with how our taxdollars are spent and the people and companies that are impacted by this program. We are still a work in progress and look forward to your comments , feedback and tips.

He’s got a solid track record in this business, too (see Sharesleuth.com).

~

The chance that any DC bike messengers read Blacknell.net is something close to nil, I think, but I’m pretty sure I’ve got a number of messenger-sympathizers (like terrorist-sympathizers, but different).  So in case you’re interested, maybe come check out the Obamallycat tomorrow.  Folks won’t only be racing for victory and beer, but also this sweet prize.  I’ll be there.

~

How do you talk about the word “Fuck” without saying “Fuck”?   Similarly, can one broadcast a Supreme Court case about broadcasting the word “Fuck” without broadcasting the word “Fuck”?  Fuck if I know.

~

Update: An excellent Halloween tip.  And on that note, since my profanity has probably triggered the corporate firewalls and linking to terribly offensive movie clips has already filtered out the folks who would most object, here’s a Sarah Palin song for you:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evafgvrMci8[/youtube]

Mr. “Oh, I run a *family* blog” made me do it.

The Debates Ought to Be Free

On the heels of the BS attempts at private control of public discourse, the Open Debate Coalition is calling for a number of reforms to the US presidential debate process:

(1) Make raw footage of the debates part of the public domain, so that journalists, bloggers, and citizens can access it without concerns about a major network slamming them with a copyright suit. (2) Allow citizens to vote for questions in advance using the internet, so that town halls aren’t conducted at the whim of a moderator. And (3) reform or replace the Commission on Presidential Debates, a group which declines to make information on its funders public and has not released the debate rules to which both presidential campaigns have reportedly agreed.

I’m completely onboard with the first and third points.  I like the idea behind the second, but wonder whether it would be too difficult to actually implement.  The reasons behind my support for the first point are obvious, I hope – our political discourse should never be subject to the property claims or private control of anyone.  As to the third, did you know about this?

This is not a commission that holds itself to iron-clad ethics rules. Anheuser-Busch has sponsored the presidential debates in every cycle since 1996 — as a result, its hometown, St. Louis, has hosted at least one debate in all but one of the last five presidential elections. Reports the Center for Public Integrity, “For its $550,000 contribution in 2000, the beer company was permitted to distribute pamphlets against taxes on beer at the event.”

I’m not really opposed to Anheuser Busch passing out its flyers – but what are the chances, you think, that any other flyers were permitted?

Free the presidential debates.  More info here.

Page 7 of 15

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén