Study: More Gov't Funding Of The Press, Less Political Corruption Reporting

from the questions-abound-however dept

There's been some talk of having the government bail out newspapers or somehow fundamentally support newspapers. Of course, for good reason, that scares a lot of people who believe that news organizations (not just newspapers, mind you) play an important role in acting as a government corruption watchdog. So it's interesting to see a new study that found that the more government support the press gets, the less they covered government scandals. Of course, this is a correlation -- so it's entirely possible that governments that support the press are simply less corrupt and less prone to scandal. However, the study did look at the timing of gov't funding as compared to press coverage which suggests that there might be a causal relationship, as the lower incidence of press coverage for gov't scandals tended to lag funding slightly. There are still some questions, but this certainly suggests that if you believe news organizations are important in holding government accountable, pushing for gov't support may not be a good idea.

7 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Biologic Drugs Likely To Get Separate 12-Year Monopoly Protection Beyond Patents

from the and-for-that,-we-all-suffer dept

A few weeks ago, we noted that some biotech firms were pushing hard to get a separate monopoly on biologic drugs, that went beyond patent protection, as if that wasn't enough. While we had some thoughtful comments from some industry insiders, claiming that the issue could be more about liability. If that's the case, then deal with the liability question, not the monopoly protections. Either way, Robert McClelland alerts us to the unfortunate news that our elected officials have caved in to what the big pharma companies wanted and agreed to a new plan that would give a twelve-year monopoly on these sorts of "biosimilars." It's still not clear why this is needed at all, other than to wipe out competition and make drugs much more expensive. The two congressional reps who pushed this through were Representatives Anna Eshoo and Joe Barton. This is no surprise from Barton, but Eshoo, who represents part of Silicon Valley should know better than to be increasing monopoly protections.

Oh wait... a quick look over at OpenSecrets.org shows that (take a guess...) the single largest contributor to Eshoo's election campaigns has been (yup) pharmaceutical companies. Oh, and they've already been the largest contributors to her 2010 re-election campaign. And people wonder why Larry Lessig's Change Congress movement is getting attention. Even if she's being totally sincere in her position, how else can you look on this without saying it smacks of corruption with bought-and-paid-for legislation that gives pharma companies an extra monopoly to gain significant monopoly rents at the expense of the public?

42 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Kentucky Election Officials Arrested For Changing Votes On E-Voting Machines

from the security... dept

While there have been plenty of conspiracy theories over the years concerning e-voting machines, none have been particularly compelling. The evidence looked like plenty of incompetence, with buggy machines that had huge security flaws that could be exploited -- but we hadn't heard of any cases of anyone actually being caught tampering with or trying to tamper with votes. That isn't to say it didn't happen. It's possible that it happened and the perpetrators weren't caught -- but it's a big leap from it "could" happen, to it "did" happen. So, most of our coverage here has been very much on the bugs and the flaws, rather than any of the conspiracy theories that floated around.

However, it appears that a group of Kentucky election officials, the circuit court judge and the county clerk, were arrested for changing votes in various elections between 2002 and 2006 on e-voting machines. The details suggest that there were two parts to the vote changing. First, there was traditional vote buying -- where they paid people to vote in a certain way. However, the second involved actually changing voters' votes on ES&S e-voting machines.

It didn't involve any hacking or direct security flaws -- but the elections officials made use of the confusing user interface and process of the e-voting machines to trick voters into leaving before their votes had been cast. That's because there's a "vote" button, that some people (silly them!) assumed meant they actually voted. Nope. It turns out that just gets you to a page to review your vote and then confirm it. However, these elections officials told people that once they hit vote they had voted -- and were then able to go in and change the actual votes.

33 Comments | Leave a Comment..

There Are Plenty Of Ways For Gov't Watchdogs To Do Their Jobs Without Newspapers

from the life-goes-on dept

Following a series of stories from ex-journalists insisting that the death of newspapers would lead to an age of corruption and the downfall of democracy, Yochai Benkler has written up an article explaining just how ridiculous all this sounds. He points out -- as have many others -- that just because newspapers go away, it doesn't mean that journalism goes away -- and then points out a bunch of different models of non-newspaper watchdog/anti-corruption publications that work quite well today. And, should newspapers actually go away, many additional options would likely show up, as well. The idea that people suddenly stop watching the government just because a newspaper is not around makes little sense. For a bunch of "journalists" to make such a claim, when there's ample evidence that alternative models do work, suggests that they're not doing a very good job reporting on those alternative models.

5 Comments | Leave a Comment..

No, The Death Of Newspapers Does Not Mean An Age Of Corruption

from the let's-think-this-through-a-bit,-shall-we... dept

A few folks have sent in Paul Starr's long but thoughtful article in The New Republic, which worries that, thanks to newspapers dying, we'll be entering a new age of corruption, since no one will be watching government officials like investigative reporters have in the past. The article is well worth reading, and brings up a number of interesting points -- but, in the end, fails to make a compelling case for a number of reasons -- most specifically that it relies on both a faulty model of news production and a faulty understanding of economics. This isn't to knock Starr or the article, because the mistakes are subtle, but important.

The first mistake is in looking at news production itself -- and specifically investigative reporting. Starr seems to significantly overestimate how much investigative reporting newspapers do. In fact, investigative reporting is a fairly new phenomenon and has never been a major focus of newspapers. Those bemoaning the supposed "loss" of this function don't seem to recognize how little money has been put towards such investigative reporting in the past. As that second link suggests, most newspapers spend more on their comics pages than on investigations.

Furthermore, the article brushes off the fact that the increase in information out there, and the ability for almost anyone to consume different media, means that a lot more people can participate in the process itself. Starr does mention some of this, but seems to brush it off without a deeper investigation. And that leads to quotes like the following:

Altogether, according to the governor's office, the number of full-time statehouse reporters in New Jersey has fallen from more than fifty to fifteen in the past decade. That is a lot fewer pairs of eyes to keep watch over state agencies.

Which of course assumes that the only people who can monitor government agencies are reporters. That's simply not true. There are many more "eyes" watching over state agencies -- it's just that they don't do it as a full-time job. That doesn't mean that as a group they're somehow less effective. If well organized, they can be much, much, much more effective -- enabling multiple people to assemble different pieces of the puzzle and work together as a team to unearth problems. This is often brushed off as useless because some of those people might be "biased" or have an "agenda," but, in practice, that issue is often negated. Those with obvious biases or agendas are usually pretty quickly outed.

So, while the nature of the beast may change, there's little evidence that corruption will suddenly be free to roam. Especially in the political realm, where there's so much interest in digging up "dirt" on opponents, it's increasingly hard to keep corruption secret.

The second mistake is much more subtle and quite easy to understand. It's in focusing on the idea that "news" is somehow a public good. Much of the discussion, then, about public goods is based on an older understanding of public goods and what that implies from an economic standpoint. But, that thinking on public goods has gone through something of an economics revolution in the last decade or so, with much of the research being so recent that plenty of well-known economists are still digesting it. The claims that public goods are necessarily "under-produced," because there isn't enough incentive for private providers to supply them, knowing that there will be free riders, is looking less and less true -- especially when it comes to information.

That mistake is based on a simple misconception (which many still hold), that the business model needs to be about the public good itself. When the product is information, that's not true. You can use the information itself to create different business models, by effectively bundling the information (or infinite) good with a corresponding scarcity. In fact, that's exactly what newspapers have done for years, in reality. They've used the information to attract a community -- and then sold that community to advertisers. The problem newspapers face isn't that they're producing a public good -- it's that they never fully realized that they were selling their community's attention, and were unprepared when that community found other places to go.

Starr, unfortunately, only focuses on "non-market" production of public goods, using Yochai Benkler's excellent discussion on "The Wealth of Networks." That's a useful starting point, but it's hardly the end of the discussion. Through bundling and creative business models, you can very much create very strong market production of such infinite goods (which are misnamed "public goods"). The issue is just setting up those proper business models, and we're starting to see more and more examples of those pop up every day.

When you correct for both of these mistakes, you realize that the widespread participation of the community, combined with newer business models for the production of such infinite goods, allows such "investigative reporting" to be done more cheaply -- while actually providing an even larger revenue stream. I recognize that last statement seems like a bit of a leap of faith (especially to those who are worrying about dying newspapers), but as you look through the economic evidence, it's difficult to find a market that wasn't greatly enlarged by the injection of more "infinite goods," combined with a more efficient system for participation.

Don't fear the changes that are coming. They may take a little while to sort out, but the opportunities are huge, and they will be too tempting for some to pass up.

20 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Corrupt Judges Sent Kid Who Made Spoof MySpace Pages To Detention... For Profit

from the wow dept

We've covered a few different cases involving students suspended from school for creating fake social networking profiles of teachers or school administrators. There was even one time we wrote about a principal taking a student to court over a fake MySpace profile (he lost). However, we hadn't heard of kids actually being sent to juvenile detention centers for such antics... until now. An anonymous reader sends in a story from a week ago that highlights how Hillary Transue was given three months in a detention center for setting up a MySpace profile mocking an assistant principal. The sentence surprised pretty much everyone -- as she was a first time "offender," a "stellar student" and the "crime" was pretty minor. But the story is getting attention because it's an example of how some corrupt judges in Pennsylvania were making millions of dollars from kickbacks from certain juvenile detention centers to sentence as many kids as possible to those centers. The story is rather horrifying. The two judges in question have pleaded guilty and will serve 87 months in jail.

41 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Revolving Door Undermines FCC's Watchdog Role

from the network-neutrality dept

In previous installments of my series on network neutrality, I've pointed out that the end-to-end principle is not as fragile as a lot of people assume. Technological platforms have a kind of momentum that make them hard to change once they've become established, and so it's not at all obvious that major broadband providers have the ability to significantly change the Internet's architecture. In my view, this is one reason to be skeptical of making the FCC the nation's network neutrality cop.

Here's a good example of another reason for skepticism: Catherine Bohigian, chief of the office of Strategic Planning and Policy Analysis at the Federal Communications Commission, stepped down effective September 5. Her next job will be with cable giant Cablevision. According to the Washington Post, Bohigian has worked closely with chairman Kevin Martin throughout his tenure. And before her tour of duty at the FCC, Bohigian—like Martin—worked at Wiley, Rein & Fielding, a private law firm specializing in communications law. In other words, Bohigian first worked at a law firm that regularly appears before the FCC, then she became one of the key decision-makers at the FCC, and now she's going to be working for a company that regularly appears before the FCC. It's reasonable to assume that she'll be using her intimate knowledge of the regulatory process—and, perhaps, her close ties to other FCC staffers—to gain regulatory advantages for her employer.

Now, this isn't illegal. It's not even unusual. But this kind of low-grade corruption does give us a window into how the regulatory process works. Theoretically, the FCC is supposed to be a neutral agency that enforces the law in the public interest. In practice, the revolving door between the commission, major telecom companies, and the high-priced law firms that represent those companies means that the people who staff the agency and the people who lobby the agency are largely the same people at different points in their careers. In the next few years, if Cablevision wants to make sure that a particular FCC decision comes out in a way that promotes their interests, they won't just be able to make their arguments via the formal legal process. They'll also be able to dispatch Bohigian to have lunch with key FCC staffers—many of whom will be her friends, and possibly her former employees—to personally plead Cablevision's case. And of course, many of those staffers will be thinking about what their next gig will be, and it will be obvious that their chances at getting a cushy job at a major telco or cable company will be enhanced if they're helpful to those companies while they're still with the Commission.

You could mitigate this somewhat with stricter lobbying rules. For example, Congress imposes a one-year time limit on Hill staffers lobbying their former colleagues after they take jobs in the private sector. Maybe the FCC should beef up its own conflict-of-interest rules. (Update: As some commenters have pointed out, senior FCC officials are are already subject to a one-year cooling off period. This restriction could obviously be broadened or extended in various ways, but it's not going to be feasible to write rules that would eliminate the influence of industry insiders at the FCC.) But shutting down the revolving door completely would be extremely difficult. The regulations the FCC enforces are complicated, and the FCC needs a pool of people with in-depth understanding of those rules in order to do its job. But for people with expertise in the areas of law the FCC administers, the only other use for those skills is representing clients before the FCC. A ban on former FCC staffers working for telecom firms or the law firms that represent them would make it extremely difficult for the FCC to recruit talent, because working at the FCC would essentially be a dead-end job. Once somebody had taken a job at the Commission and developed expertise in telecom law, she'd have no real options for using those skills.

Which means that when we're debating new regulations of the telecom industry, we have to remember that the rules will be enforced by an agency that has close ties to incumbent telco interests. If Congress passes network neutrality regulations, those regulations will be interpreted and enforced by an agency whose key staffers have close ties to the major telephone and cable incumbents. Which means that the results are likely to be more incumbent-friendly—and less consumer-friendly—than network neutrality advocates expect. If Cablevision gets in hot water for a network neutrality problem, they'll be able to dispatch Bohigian and others on their payroll to make sure the company doesn't get more than a slap on the wrist. And, as I'll explain in the next installment, not only can this sort of lobbying render regulations toothless, but in some cases it can actually make things worse by allowing incumbents to tie their competitors up in red tape.

---

Other posts in this series:

• Censoring The 'Net Is Hard
• Ownership Doesn't Always Mean Control
• Changing The Internet's Architecture Isn't So Easy
• Revolving Door Undermines FCC's Watchdog Role

Timothy Lee is an expert at the Insight Community. To get insight and analysis from Timothy Lee and other experts on challenges your company faces, click here.

13 Comments | Leave a Comment..

E-Voting Isn't Perfect, But It Takes Less Work to Corrupt Big Elections

from the O(1) dept

Thad Hall, a political scientist at Caltech, complains that e-voting critics rarely make apples-to-apples comparisons between electronic and paper voting systems. They contend that if traditional paper voting systems were subjected to the same kind of close scrutiny that e-voting endures, security experts would find flaws—ballot tampering, ballot box stuffing, and so forth—at least as serious as the problems commonly identified in touch-screen voting machines. Rice computer scientist Dan Wallach responds by pointing to a new paper he's written proposing an elegant way to think about the security of voting systems. Computer scientists use "big-O" notation to describe the complexity of algorithms. He suggests a similar terminology to describe the effort required to compromise voting systems as a function of the size of the election. A security flaw that can be compromised with an effort proportional to the number of voters N is said to be a O(N) flaw. A flaw that can be exploited with an effort proportional to the number of polling places is an O(P) flaw. A flaw that can be exploited with a constant amount of effort, regardless of the number of voters, is an O(1) flaw.

The last kind of attack is the most dangerous because it's feasible for a small number of people—perhaps even a single individual—to do a lot of damage. The reason paper-based elections tend to be better than touch-screen elections isn't that the former don't have flaws. The difference is that attacks against paper-based voting systems are far more likely to be O(N) or O(P)—that is, you have to tamper with a lot of ballots or corrupt a lot of poll workers. In contrast, because they contain re-programmable computers at their hearts, touch-screen voting systems are far more susceptible to O(1) attacks such as a custom-developed virus or a corrupt employee at the e-voting vendor. Because they allow a single individual to do extensive damage, they're much more dangerous than other kinds of attacks, even if carrying them out takes relatively more skill or effort than other attacks with O(P) or O(N) cost. The reason to prefer paper-based voting to touch-screen voting isn't that paper voting is flawless, but that the attacks against them are labor-intensive enough that it's difficult to carry out large-scale attacks without getting caught.

Timothy Lee is an expert at the Insight Community. To get insight and analysis from Timothy Lee and other experts on challenges your company faces, click here.

14 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Warner Music Admits It Hired Police Investigator Before The Pirate Bay Investigation Was Complete

from the that's-not-good dept

Back in April, we wrote about the fact that a police investigator in Sweden who had been in charge of the case against The Pirate Bay had been hired by Warner Brothers. At the time, there was no proof that he had been hired during the investigation. In fact, it appeared otherwise. Based on this, I didn't see why this was such a problem -- though many people in the comments felt I was being naive. And, indeed, it turns out that a further investigation has now turned up the news that, in fact, the guy was hired while the investigation was ongoing. Though he's now left that job, this does call into question the entire investigation against The Pirate Bay.

And while it turned out that I was wrong about what happened, based on the evidence at the time, I still believe that it was wrong to jump to conclusions about what Warner Music did without actual evidence. Jumping to conclusions without evidence is what the industry does. We should be above that. When the actual evidence is there, then we should be clear and call it out -- and indeed, finding out that Warner hired the guy in the middle of the investigation is a huge problem and should throw the entire case into question. But, let's hold ourselves to a higher standard than the entertainment industry, rather than stoop to their level.

21 Comments | Leave a Comment..

When Governments Put Together Big Databases On People, They Get Abused

from the you-have-no-privacy dept

For years, the government has pushed repeatedly to build bigger and more comprehensive databases of information around citizens. There are certainly justifications that can be made for such databases -- so long as people weigh those justifications against the fact that the databases will absolutely be abused. We recently wrote about the case where a government employee used a Homeland Security computer system to track an ex-girlfriend. The latest story is that a corrupt customs agent was selling access to federal databases. While it's good that he was caught, he wasn't caught due to any protection mechanisms put in place, but because a drug dealer who had been paying the customs agent for access to the database, was stopped for a traffic violation, and the police officer noticed the business card for the customs agent. The police then followed up to try to figure out why the guy had the agent's card, leading to the story unfolding. Hopefully, since then, more stringent protections have been put in place, but it seems likely that there are still plenty of questionable uses of these sorts of databases.

26 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Why Do Elections Officials Always Seem To Side With E-Voting Companies Over Voter Concerns?

from the vote-here-and-let-us-know dept

For years, every time yet another report would come out about e-voting vulnerabilities, we'd quickly see responses from elections officials defending the e-voting systems. It wasn't a surprise to hear the e-voting manufacturers defend their machines, but why would elections officials almost always take the side of the e-voting manufacturers over various computer security experts and the very voters whose votes they're supposed to be protecting? There are some obvious possibilities, such as embarrassment over buying faulty machines or (more likely) fear at the cost of replacing those machines. However, Tim Lee points to a potentially more troublesome reason: many elections officials move in and out of jobs for the e-voting companies before and after their state jobs. Conflict of interest? Apparently it's just politics as usual.

28 Comments | Leave a Comment..