« December 2007 | Main | February 2008 »
Lisa over at Sociological Images points to an amazing series of sexist TV ads from Tab Cola over the years. The final one might slip under your sexism radar until you see it in context and realize its the same message in more covert form!
Bruce Schneier has written an eloquent column over at wired.com on the false dichotomy between security and privacy:
The debate isn't security versus privacy. It's liberty versus control.
You can see it in comments by government officials: "Privacy no longer can mean anonymity," says Donald Kerr, principal deputy director of national intelligence. "Instead, it should mean that government and businesses properly safeguard people's private communications and financial information." Did you catch that? You're expected to give up control of your privacy to others, who -- presumably -- get to decide how much of it you deserve. That's what loss of liberty looks like.
It should be no surprise that people choose security over privacy: 51 to 29 percent in a recent poll. Even if you don't subscribe to Maslow's hierarchy of needs, it's obvious that security is more important. Security is vital to survival, not just of people but of every living thing. Privacy is unique to humans, but it's a social need. It's vital to personal dignity, to family life, to society -- to what makes us uniquely human -- but not to survival.
If you set up the false dichotomy, of course people will choose security over privacy -- especially if you scare them first. But it's still a false dichotomy. There is no security without privacy. And liberty requires both security and privacy. The famous quote attributed to Benjamin Franklin reads: "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." It's also true that those who would give up privacy for security are likely to end up with neither.
(Thanks Jen!)
Those of you who know my girlfriend Ann Larie know that she's super geek-friendly, superbly clever, and a great listener. Well, now she's officially opened her own private therapy practice here in San Francisco specializing in couples counseling, personal growth, women's issues, and substance abuse. Plus, she's even started her own blog to talk about interesting therapy-related topics. If you know anyone in need of counseling, send them her way!
In the past day, many news agencies and blogs have been reporting on the MPAA's admission to flaws in its key downloading study. Here's the skinny:
In a 2005 study it commissioned, the Motion Picture Association of America claimed that 44 percent of the industry's domestic losses came from illegal downloading of movies by college students, who often have access to high-bandwidth networks on campus.
then:
But now the MPAA, which represents the U.S. motion picture industry, has told education groups a "human error" in that survey caused it to get the number wrong. It now blames college students for about 15 percent of revenue loss.
and:
The MPAA says that's still significant, and justifies a major effort by colleges and universities to crack down on illegal file-sharing. But Mark Luker, vice president of campus IT group Educause, says it doesn't account for the fact that more than 80 percent of college students live off campus and aren't necessarily using college networks. He says 3 percent is a more reasonable estimate for the percentage of revenue that might be at stake on campus networks.
so:
MPAA said in a statement that no errors had been found in the study besides the percentage of revenue losses that could be attributed to college students, but that it would hire a third party to validate the numbers.
This is, of course, how the problem started. The MPAA hired its own private firm (here, LEK) to generate a "piracy study." Big surprise that some of the numbers came back overinflated. When the study came out in 2005, Congressional members and social scientists asked for the data behind the study so that they could put it through peer review (the same rigorous analytical testing that almost all respected academic studies must undergo).
The MPAA refused. Yet they continue to lobby in DC for tougher copyright laws and stiffer penalties on the basis of secret data and unreviewed studies. This is not how public policy should be made, and the MPAA knows better. If there really is a problem with college students downloading movies, then the data should speak for itself. It should be published openly and subject to scrutiny by any and all comers. There is no need for secrecy, and such secrecy only belies the MPAA's credibility on this issue.
There is room for reasonable debate about the impact of file-sharing on the health of Hollywood. But until the industry comes clean with their data, that debate will always be tainted by suspicion and uncertainty, and ultimately, unsatisfying to all.
Another great example of fair use for political speech purposes:
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a decision on Friday in the Nelson v. NASA case. The case is an interesting one, pitting individual rights of informational privacy versus national security.
In the case, NASA had issued a new mandate requiring "low risk" employees and contractors who worked at their Jet Propulsion Lab in Pasadena, California to submit to extensive and invasive background checks, including giving NASA permission to collect any information relating to their activities from:
The records and information sought may include, but is not limited to:
[the applicant’s] academic, residential, achievement, performance, attendance, disciplinary, employment history, and criminal history record information.
In addition, NASA told personnel that they would also send a form inquiring as to:
"any reason to question [the applicant’s] honesty or trustworthiness” or has “any adverse information about [the applicant’s] employment, residence, or activities” concerning “violations of law,” “financial integrity,” “abuse of alcohol and/or drugs,” “mental or emotional stability,” “general behavior or conduct,” or “other matters.”
Personnel were then given the opportunity to explain any of this "adverse information." Refusal to give NASA permission to collect this information resulted in termination of employment or one's contract. A number of employees and contractors then sued NASA and Cal Tech (where JPL is located), claiming the new requirements were unlawful and moved for a preliminary injunction against their enforcement. The district court denied the injunction and an appeal ensued.
After dealing with some procedural issues, the Ninth Circuit quickly recognized that every citizen has a constitutional right under the Fifth Amendment to "informational privacy" -- the right to avoid disclosure of "personal matters", including sexual activity, medical information, and financial information. Thus, the government would need to show that it had a legitimate state interest in requesting the information and that the requests were narrowly tailored to that purpose in order to have the court uphold them.
In reviewing the forms at issue, the court held that the sweeping and overbroad nature of the information requested, without any narrowing to the specific purpose of the investigation (national security risks), was unconstitutional. The court also went on to consider whether the inquiries were also a violation of the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against searches and decided that they weren't, since all of the information had been given to third-parties and thus was no longer subject to a reasonable expectation of privacy by the personnel under the Supreme Court's holding in United States v. Miller.
Talk from Aspen Live 2007
Originally uploaded by iancr.
My favorite slide from Ian C. Roger's Aspen Live talk on the Future of the Music Industry.
If you're in SF next Tuesday, swing by EFF's 17th Birthday Party at 111 Minna:
After a day at Macworld, join EFF in celebrating our 17th year of defending digital rights! Since 1990, EFF has been there fighting for freedom and civil liberties.
The birthday bash will be on January 15, 7-11 PM, at 111 Minna Gallery in San Francisco. Headliners Adrian & the Mysterious D (A+D), the DJ duo that founded the seminal mashup party "Bootie," will be dropping a shameless, genre-smashing blend of tracks, backed up by DJ sets from Bay Area copyfighters Ripley, Kid Kameleon and EFF's own J Tones and Qubitsu.
The EFF party will also feature an exclusive chocolate sampling with TCHO, "a new chocolate company for a new generation of chocolate enthusiasts." Founded by Wired co-founder Louis Rossetto and legendary chocolatier Timothy Childs, himself a former technologist, TCHO will be bringing a "beta release" of its best dark chocolate to the party table. Attendees are invited to vote for their favorite TCHO beta chocolate flavors at the party -- feedback that will help define TCHO's next steps as they gear up for a national release.
We'll be asking for a $20 donation at the door. No one will be turned away for lack of funds, but all proceeds will go toward our work defending your digital freedom.
Lisa over at Sociological Images has posted a great image outlining the detrimental effects high heels can have on women's bodies. It's hard to think of a single piece of men's clothing that poses a similar risk to a man's health.
For those that don't believe this man can lead, I suggest you watch this.
www.flickr.com
|
