<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/">
<channel>
<title>Techdirt. Stories filed under &quot;conflict&quot;</title>
<description>Easily digestible tech news...</description>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/</link>
<language>en-us</language>

<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 7 Dec 2012 13:40:34 PST</pubDate>
<title>Press Parrots Cybersecurity FUD From Former NSA Boss Without Mentioning Massive Conflict Of Interest</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121203/02332821207/press-parrots-cybersecurity-fud-former-nsa-boss-without-mentioning-massive-conflict-interest.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121203/02332821207/press-parrots-cybersecurity-fud-former-nsa-boss-without-mentioning-massive-conflict-interest.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Not this again.  Nearly three years ago, we wrote about the <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100302/1024048361.shtml">growing hype around "cyberwar"</a> in the US government -- much of it being pushed by one Michael McConnell.  News reports love to cover McConnell's fear-mongering about how the internet is at risk.  He used to always talk about "cyberwar" but that term went out of fashion, so lately it's all "cyberattacks" and "cyberterrorism."  The reason the press loves McConnell is that he's a former head of the NSA (under Clinton) and director of national intelligence (under George W. Bush).  What those reports <i>don't</i> like to mention is that since leaving the government, McConnell has a very cushy job as <a href="http://www.boozallen.com/about/leadership/executive-leadership/McConnell" target="_blank">Vice Chairman of Booz, Allen, Hamilton</a>.  Booz Allen is a company that regularly seems to do <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100517/1141179445.shtml">$100 million+ deals with government agencies</a>, many of them related to cybersecurity.  You think that having a former NSA director running around scaring agencies about how they're at risk of "cyberwar" or "cybersecurity" isn't useful for business?
<br /><br />
And yet, it seems that time and time again when we see McConnell's name, reporters completely fail to mention this particular conflict of interest.  Instead, they report his claims as if they're fact, despite the much simpler and more obvious fact: no one has died from an internet attack.  Ever.  None.  Zero.  Zilch.  
<br /><br />
Take, for example, this News.com article by Steven Musil.  And then <a href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-1009_3-57556669-83/former-spy-chief-says-u.s-has-had-its-cyber-9-11-warning/" target="_blank">let me know where either of these points is made</a>.  You can't, because they're not in there.  McConnell's connection to Booz isn't mentioned.  Nor is the fact that "cyberthreats" are still as dangerous as a ghost story.
<br /><br />
Instead, he throws in a couple scary scary quotes from McConnell about how we're getting close to a cyber-9/11 or a cyber-Pearl Harbor without pointing out that plenty of people think such claims are completely overblown.  Also, we've been hearing about this for years now, and while it's been quite profitable for McConnell, there's been no evidence that such a threat is really any closer.  But, boy does it make money for government contractors.  This isn't to pick on Musil in particular -- plenty of reporters seem totally taken in by McConnell's old job and seem to throw any skepticism (or the ability to do a basic Google search about his current job) out the window.  But if we keep seeing it, we're going to keep calling it out until people realize that maybe there are motives there beyond what McConnell says.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121203/02332821207/press-parrots-cybersecurity-fud-former-nsa-boss-without-mentioning-massive-conflict-interest.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121203/02332821207/press-parrots-cybersecurity-fud-former-nsa-boss-without-mentioning-massive-conflict-interest.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121203/02332821207/press-parrots-cybersecurity-fud-former-nsa-boss-without-mentioning-massive-conflict-interest.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>do-some-freaking-research</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20121203/02332821207</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 4 Apr 2011 02:29:21 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Questions Asked About EU Appointing IFPI Lobbyist To Copyright Role</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110401/17090013735/questions-asked-about-eu-appointing-ifpi-lobbyist-to-copyright-role.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110401/17090013735/questions-asked-about-eu-appointing-ifpi-lobbyist-to-copyright-role.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Following the news that the EU Commission was apparently appointing a <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110330/10322113699/eu-hires-ifpi-lobbyist-to-lead-copyright-issues-how-do-you-spell-regulatory-capture.shtml">top lobbyist from the IFPI</a> to the position of being in charge of copyright policy, two European Parliament Members, Christian Engstrom and Marietje Schaake have <a href="http://christianengstrom.wordpress.com/2011/04/01/parliamentary-question-on-the-eu-commissions-new-copyright-czar/" target="_blank">asked the Commission to explain the apparent conflict of interest</a>:
<blockquote><i>
Does the Commission not see any problems in recruiting top civil servants from special interest organisations, especially when being put in charge of dossiers directly related to their former employers? If not, why not?
<br /><br />
Does the Commission feel that such an appointment would help to build confidence with the European Parliament and the general public that the Commission can be trusted to handle copyright-related issues in a fair and balanced manner?
</i></blockquote>
Elsewhere, KEI has done a good job highlighting some of Maria Martin-Plat's <a href="http://keionline.org/node/1105" target="_blanK">previously stated positions</a>, including this lovely one: "private copying [has] no reason to exist and should be limited further than it is."  Just the person to lead on 21st century copyright issues, huh?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110401/17090013735/questions-asked-about-eu-appointing-ifpi-lobbyist-to-copyright-role.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110401/17090013735/questions-asked-about-eu-appointing-ifpi-lobbyist-to-copyright-role.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110401/17090013735/questions-asked-about-eu-appointing-ifpi-lobbyist-to-copyright-role.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>now,-what-will-the-answers-be</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110401/17090013735</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 21 Jan 2010 03:33:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>Flexible Or Paradoxical? Why The NY Times' Plan Is Inherently Self-Limiting</title>
<dc:creator>Marcus Carab</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100120/1939487849.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100120/1939487849.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ The New York Times has followed up on their initial coverage of the <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100117/2309157783.shtml">choice to go metered</a> with <A href="http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/20/dialing-in-a-plan-the-times-installs-a-meter-on-its-future/" target="_blank">a column by David Carr discussing the move</a>. It's worth reading, and though there are a lot of points he makes that I can't really speak to, there's one section that I think highlights the flaw in the plan:<br />
<blockquote><i>
"The decision announced Wednesday morning represents a hedge, an operating model that puts maximum flexibility in the hands of the leadership of the newspaper. As the digital czar Martin Nisenholtz said over and over in a meeting about the decision on Tuesday, "the idea is to maximize revenue" with an eye toward the cyclical state of the advertising business. With Times Select, The New York Times lost eyeballs at precisely the time when sheer tonnage of readers became the defining metric in advertising. By building a metered system, the executives have installed a dial on the huge, heaving content machine of The New York Times. Access can be gradually ramped up or down depending on macro trends in the market. Given the dynamic state of the advertising business and how quickly things change on the Web, not so dumb when you think about it."
</i></blockquote>
Sounds great, right? Except that where they see flexibility, I see conflict. They've saddled themselves with two opposing business models: the old one, where the audience is the product and the advertisers are the customers, and the new one, where news is the product and the audience is the customer. The "dial" is going to become a tug-of-war between an advertising team that wants more eyeballs to sell and a subscription team that wants more walled-up content to sell. It will be virtually impossible to make business decisions that are good for both sides, and by trying to have the best of both worlds they may end up with no growth for either.<br />
<br />
One could argue that this conflict has always existed in news organizations, but it's never been as charged as it's about to become at the Times. In the past, readers were readers, and increasing circulation was always the number one goal. But a newspaper that sacrifices casual readers, challenges the loyalty of dedicated readers and reduces its value to advertisers, all in one fell swoop, and succeeds? I'll believe it when I see it.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100120/1939487849.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100120/1939487849.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100120/1939487849.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>putting-business-lines-in-conflict</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100120/1939487849</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>