If you haven't heard of SOPA and PIPA, you will today, as
reddit,
Wikipedia,
Google,
Craigslist,
Free Software Foundation,
and
many other websites
protest those Internet censorship bills today.
The so-called
Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) is a House bill (H.R.3261)
and the so-called
PROTECT IP Act (PIPA) is a Senate bill (S.968)
(most recently renamed Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic
Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property Act of 2011).
Both have nothing to do with promoting creativity and everything
to do with giving a few large copyright holders
priority over the Internet,
requiring censorship of links to entire domains.
Have you heard of the Great Firewall of China?
That's where the Chinese government censors entire domains such as
facebook, youtube, and twitter because they contain some content
that the Chinese government doesn't want distributed.
SOPA and PIPA would do the same thing,
except putting Hollywood in charge of what would be censored.
In a perfect example of
the DC lobbying revolving door,
former Senator Chris Dodd,
now Chairman of the Motion Picture Association of America,
called the anti-SOPA blackout an "abuse of power".
Funny how it's only an abuse of power when we fight back.
If you don't believe me, listen to Mythbuster
Adam Savage.
Who would have thought that twitter and facebook could foment a revolution?
Yet Wael Ghonim says it did. He's one of the people behind the
"We are all Khaled Said" facebook page, and he spent a dozen days in jail for it:
Here's his
TED Talk:
"Because of the Internet, the truth prevailed.
And everyone knew the truth.
And everyone started to think that this guy can be my brother."
Here's a post from that facebook page on 3 March 2011:
"I really want you ALL to understand that your support to Free Egypt &
Egyptians is vital. Don’t you ever think that sitting on FaceBook
supporting & commenting help help Egypt. A whole revolution started on
Facebook & is now bringing Freedom & starting a new modern Egypt."
Other Egyptian organizers say similar things:
"Online organising is very important because activists have been able
to discuss and take decisions without having to organise a meeting which
could be broken up by the police," he said.'
Many of the Egyptians involved were poor and not usually thought
of as Internet users, but
David D. Kirkpatrick expalined that in the NY Times 9 Feb 2011,
Wired and Shrewd, Young Egyptians Guide Revolt:
The day of the protest, the group tried a feint to throw off the
police. The organizers let it be known that they intended to gather at
a mosque in an upscale neighborhood in central Cairo, and the police
gathered there in force. But the ...organizers set out instead for a
poor neighborhood nearby, Mr. Elaimy recalled.
Starting in a poor neighborhood was itself an experiment. “We always
start from the elite, with the same faces,” Mr. Lotfi said. “So this
time we thought, let’s try.” '
The NY Times story goes into detail about how the online organizing
interfaced with and instigated the initial meatspace protests.
And you don't need a laptop or a desktop computer to use
social media. As Reese Jones
points out,
in 2010 75% of the population of Egypt had cell
phones (60 million phones in service likely with SMS)
possible to message via Facebook via SMS at
http://m.facebook.com/.
And this was all after similar efforts in Tunisia had successfully
exiled their tyrant and inspired the Egyptians, who in turn inspired
the Lybians, etc.
And what inspired the Tunisians to start was Wikileaks posts of U.S. cables
showing the U.S. thought the Tunisian dictator was just as clueless and
corrupt as the Tunisians thought.
So yes, social networking on the Internet has fomented multiple revolutions.
John McCain's speech in Kenner 3 June 2008 got truncated by the news media
when they switched to Obama's speech that same night.
The
versions on YouTube
reflect that problem, since they were made from TV.
They also suffer from TV network labeling and
chyrons chatting about the opposition.
Barack Obama's
speech that same night has network logos and chyrons,
but at least it is complete.
However, when Al Gore endorsed Obama on 17 June, the networks
all cut away immediately after Gore finished talking,
because only the endorsement was news, and they weren't
interested in what the candidate himself might have to say.
But Gore sent out email to supporters earlier that day,
and numerous blogs posted it
(Huffington Post, DailyKos,
Washington Post, etc.).
And Obama's campaign
streamed the whole event live, so nobody had to watch network
logos, chyrons, commercials, or talking heads, and they could see
all of both speeches.
Although, oddly, neither the Gore nor the Obama
speech seems to be on YouTube yet.
Political campaigns can use the Internet to bypass the traditional media.
AT&T.
Time Warner, Bellsouth, and MCI all show up in the same list.
Major AT&T recipients include Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-WV who is a big supporter of
retroactive immunity for telco spying, and who recently (spring 2007,
just as the telcos started pushing for that immunity)
got a big spike in Verizon employee contributions, as well.
Steven Levitt points out there are other ways to measure the
effects of a military action than listening to politicians or generals,
and the Internet can promote the production of such measures,
and the analysis of them by multiple parties.
On several measures, M.I.T. professor
Michael Greenstone
finds results of the U.S. "surge" in Iraq to be mixed.
Then he brings in another measure:
The most interesting part of Greenstone’s paper is his analysis of the
pricing of Iraqi government debt. The Iraq government has issued bonds
in the past. These entitle the owner of the bond to a stream of payments
over a set period of time, but only if the government does not default
on the loan. If Iraq completely implodes, it is highly unlikely that
these bonds will be paid off. How much someone would pay for the rights
to that stream of payments depends on their estimate of the probability
that Iraq will implode.
The bond data, unlike the other sources he examines, tell a clear story:
the financial markets say the surge is not working. Since the surge
started, the market’s estimate of the likelihood of default by the
Iraqi government has increased by 40 percent.
This kind of analysis seldom gets written for traditional channels
because (2) there's no academic incentive for it and (3) the only money
in it is usually from special interests.
Here's the main point:
1. This paper shows how good economic analysis can contribute in a
fundamental way to public policy. Anyone who reads Greenstone’s article
will recognize that it is careful and thorough. It is even-handed and
apolitical. It combines state-of-the-art data analysis techniques with
economic logic (e.g., using market prices to draw conclusions about how
things are going).
...
4. The internet can potentially solve both problems (2) and (3) above,
leading to an increased supply of good, timely analysis. If people like
Greenstone can immediately get their findings into the public debate
through the internet, it gives a real purpose (not just an academic
one) to doing the work. In addition, there are now online peer-reviewed
academic journals that have greatly sped the time from submission to
publication, potentially increasing the academic payoff to someone like
Greenstone. With many respected economists now blogging, there is also
a vehicle for these folks to weigh in on the quality of policy-related
economic writings — like I am doing in this blog post.
If the Internet helps focus many eyes on bugs and make them shallow,
why can't it do the same with political and military actions?
Right now it can.
Without net neutrality it wouldn't be able to.
House telecom subcommittee Chairman Edward Markey (D-Mass.) repeated his
call for the Federal Communications Commission to investigate widespread
allegations of telecom privacy law violations by intelligence agencies
that received cooperation from telecom carriers in anti-terrorist
surveillance efforts.
That would be about as likely as Gonzales starting such an investigation.
Oh, wait:
After Markey wrote Martin in March to ask him to launch an investigation
into whether telecom privacy laws have been broken, the FCC chairman
wrote Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to verify that the agency
could not conduct such a probe because it would violate federal laws
governing disclosure of state secrets. Gonzales, who recently announced
his resignation, has yet to respond to Martin.
A free-for-all web (after normal monthly broadband charges have been
paid) is one of the wonders of the world and a binding force for all
communities.
...
The Federal Communications Commission has just been advised by the US
department of justice, under heavy lobbying from the operators who stand
to gain from higher data charges, that a neutral net might "prevent,
rather than promote" investment and innovation. This is twaddle. An
open-access net has produced one of the greatest surges of innovation
ever recorded and has given an opportunity for people all over the world
to communicate with each other and share knowledge on equal terms. Long
may it continue to be so.
It has only become an issue because the US Congress is scrutinising the
question of "net neutrality", though why the US authorities - rather than
an international body - should deem themselves to have jurisdiction over
the internet is not clear.
Well, I had been waiting to post something about the telcos and domestic
wiretapping until more news came out, since much of it was still hearsay.
But now National Intelligence Director and former National Security Agency
Director Mike McConnell has confirmed it:
Now the second part of the issue was under the president's program,
the terrorist surveillance program, the private sector had assisted
us. Because if you're going to get access you've got to have a partner
and they were being sued. Now if you play out the suits at the value
they're claimed, it would bankrupt these companies. So my position was
we have to provide liability protection to these private sector entities.
"The Internet is the new Afghanistan," [New York police commissioner
Raymond] Kelly said, as he released a New York Police Department (NYPD)
report on the home-grown threat of attacks by Islamist extremists. "It
is the de facto training ground. It's an area of concern."
The report found that the challenge for Western authorities was to
identify, pre-empt and prevent home-grown threats, which was difficult
because many of those who might undertake an attack often commit no
crimes along the path to extremism.
The report identified the four stages to radicalization as
pre-radicalization, self-identification, indoctrination, and jihadization,
and said the Internet drove and enabled the process.
Nevermind that this makes about as much sense as saying "the telephone
is the new Afghanistan" or "talking is the new Afghanistan".
Of course the Internet enables that process!
The Internet enables every communication process.
Let's look beyond communication and information to what people think they
know because of those things:
As the information age deepens, a globe–circling realm of the mind is
being created — the “noosphere” that Pierre Teilhard de Chardin
identified 80 years ago. This will increasingly affect the nature of
grand strategy and diplomacy. Traditional realpolitik, which ultimately
relies on hard (principally military) power, will give way to the rise
of noöpolitik (or noöspolitik), which relies on soft (principally
ideational) power. This paper reiterates the authors’ views as initially
stated in 1999, then adds an update for inclusion in a forthcoming
handbook on public diplomacy. One key finding is that non–state actors
— unfortunately, especially Al Qaeda and its affiliates — are using
the Internet and other new media to practice noöpolitik more effectively
than are state actors, such as the U.S. government. Whose story wins —
the essence of noöpolitik — is at stake in the worldwide war of ideas.
—
The promise of noöpolitik, by David Ronfeldt and John Arquilla,
First Monday, volume 12, number 8 (August 2007)
Also coming to light, is the fact that Stickler's nomination to head the mine administration was twice rejected by congress and rejected when republicans were still in charge.
Rejected reportedly by senators who were concerned about Stickler's safety record when he operated mines.
After his nomination was twice rejected by the Senate, President Bush gave Richard Stickler the mine safety job with a recess appointment.
That's a presidential appointment made when congress is not in session.
Finally, congressional investigations and hearings are now expected to look at a key provision of federal mining law, one which requires the U.S. Government to be the main communicator when an accident occurs.
ABC News now notes it took the mine safety administration two days to take public control of the Crandall Canyon Mine.
ABC also adds, "Others were irate that [mine owner Bob] Murray was allowed to publicly predict success and contradict MSHA itself while agency officials quietly looked on."
At least the traditional media finally noticed the problem with the appointment
of the Mine and Health Safety Administrator.
Imagine if we had more proactive investigative media
that might have actually noticed his appointment when it happened.
And imagine if we had none, which is a very real possibility
with continuing media consolidation and increasing control
over the Internet by a very small number of companies.
EDUCAUSE is up in arms about a proposed
amendment
to the
Higher Education Reauthorization Act that the Senate is supposed
to be considering today.
It basically makes the Secretary of Education an arm of the MPAA
and requires institutions of higher education to police file sharing.
I think this is the most interesting part of the amendment,
where it's saying it will:
(1) the 25 institutions of higher education participating in programs
under this title, which have received during the previous calendar year
the highest number of written notices fromm copyright owners,
or persons authorized to act on behalf of copyright holders,
alleging infringement of copyright by users of the institution's
information technology systems, where such notices identify
with specificity the works alleged to the infringed,
or a representative list of works alleged to be infringed,
the date and time of the alleged infringing conduct together with
information sufficient to identify the infringing user, and information
sufficient to contact the copyright owner or its authorized representative; and
So universities are supposed to keep lists of allegations against
their students (or staff or faculty) and those lists can be used
to determine their funding.
Allegations, mind you, not convictions.
This is once again the entertainment industry tail wagging the dog,
in this case higher education.
Hm, I suppose that's a bad analogy, since the entertainment industry
seems to only understand the big head, not the long tail....
And as if to demonstrate Republicans have no monopoly on horribly
bad ideas, this amendment is proposed by the Senate Majority Leader,
Democrat Harry Reid.
Is the Internet really that hard to understand?
"This is not some virtual world. This is part of our independence. And these attacks were an attempt to take one country back to the cave, back to the Stone Age."
Linnar Viik, an Estonian government IT consultant to the Washington Post.
A society is its communications, and increasingly the Internet is the
matrix of those communications.
Such communications are virtual only in the same sense that society
is virtual.
And it doesn't take an attack by a foreign power to disrupt those
communications.
Too few ISP owners can reduce participatory communications
to limited broadcast, just as has already happened in radio.