<?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;gao&quot;</title>
<description>Easily digestible tech news...</description>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/</link>
<language>en-us</language>

<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 8 Mar 2011 08:30:21 PST</pubDate>
<title>GAO Suggests It's Time To Ditch Dollar Bills For Coins</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110307/04030313382/gao-suggests-its-time-to-ditch-dollar-bills-coins.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110307/04030313382/gao-suggests-its-time-to-ditch-dollar-bills-coins.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ While not the first time it's done so, the GAO has once again <a href="http://consumerist.com/2011/03/gao-to-treasury-replace-dollar-bills-with-coins.html" target="_blank">urged the federal government to get rid of dollar bills</a> and replace them with dollar coins.  It says that this single move could save the government $5.5 billion over 30 years.  That's chump change to the government, but it's still $5.5 billion.  The report notes that Canada and the UK have done similar moves, and it has worked despite initial public resistance.  Still, I'd imagine that US public resistance can be stronger than elsewhere on issues that are fundamentally meaningless, but to which people apply a sentimental value.  And let's not even get started on the question of whether or not it's finally time to ditch the penny...<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110307/04030313382/gao-suggests-its-time-to-ditch-dollar-bills-coins.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110307/04030313382/gao-suggests-its-time-to-ditch-dollar-bills-coins.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110307/04030313382/gao-suggests-its-time-to-ditch-dollar-bills-coins.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>that'll-upset-some-folks</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110307/04030313382</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 13 Apr 2010 17:33:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>GAO Concludes Piracy Stats Are Usually Junk, File Sharing Can Help Sales</title>
<dc:creator>Karl Bode</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100412/2346298988.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100412/2346298988.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ <p><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080321/005110613.shtml">For many years</a> we've explored how entertainment and software industry piracy statistics are very reliable -- at least in terms of being consistently and notoriously wrong on an annual basis. Each year companies (especially the BSA) like to throw out marginally-coherent data &quot;proving&quot; the supposedly-huge impact piracy has on the economy, national security or employment. The claims are <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070515/110016.shtml">quickly debunked as nonsense</a> -- yet the same claims return year after year, and often get cited by U.S. politicians as gospel.</p><p><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/profile.php?u=carl242">Carl</a> was the first amongst many to direct our attention to a new study by the GAO on the effects of piracy (covering all sectors, even toys, clothing, automobile parts, and medicine). The GAO's study unsurprisingly found that U.S. government and industry claims that piracy damages the economy to the tune of billions of dollars &quot;cannot be substantiated due to the absence of underlying studies.&quot; The <a href="http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-423">full GAO report</a> is worth a read, and not only argues that claims of economic impact have not been based on substantive science -- but that file sharing can actually have a positive impact on sales:</p><blockquote><em>&quot;Some experts we interviewed and literature we reviewed identified potential positive economic effects of counterfeiting and piracy,&quot; The GAO wrote. &quot;Some consumers may knowingly purchase a counterfeit or pirated product because it is less expensive than the genuine good or because the genuine good is unavailable, and they may experience positive effects from such purchases. Consumers may use pirated goods to 'sample' music, movies, software, or electronic games before purchasing legitimate copies,&quot; the GAO continued. &quot;(This) may lead to increased sales of legitimate goods.&quot;</em></blockquote><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090828/0444096038.shtml">Study after study</a> have supported the conclusion that file sharers purchase more media -- though the idea never resonates the same way as claims of economic armageddon caused by file sharing. While the GAO's report does obviously highlight some of the negative impacts of counterfeiting,  the GAO goes on to argue that any overarching conclusions of piracy's impact on the broader economy may not even be possible. The GAO was instructed to study piracy's impact as part of the Intellectual Property Act of 2008 (PRO-IP Act) -- which delivered plenty of handouts to the entertainment industry. ProIP was ironically pushed through using <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090304/0025383981.shtml">unreliable studies</a> to justify its creation. Of course we'll soon be swimming in new dubious data "proving" the GAO wrong -- and around and around we go.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100412/2346298988.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100412/2346298988.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100412/2346298988.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>completely,-painfully-unsurprising</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100412/2346298988</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 22 Sep 2008 15:53:27 PDT</pubDate>
<title>GAO Notes That Election Officials Not Informed About E-Voting Problems</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080919/1553112317.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080919/1553112317.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ By now, it's pretty difficult to deny that most of the e-voting equipment out there has problems.  We've covered so many stories of e-voting problems, covering all of the major e-voting machine suppliers, that there's a pretty major problem out there.  So what are election officials doing about it?  Not much, apparently.  A new report from the Government Accountability Office (GAO) notes that the Election Assistance Commission <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/18/voting.problems/index.html?iref=werecommend" target="_new">hasn't bothered informing election officials around the country</a> about all of the problems associated with e-voting machines.  And, to make matters worse, a separate report from Common Cause claims that 10 states that had problems in the last election haven't done anything to fix those problems.  Given all of the stories we've had recently about e-voting problems, this is hardly a surprise, but one more reason to wonder who's actually in charge on these sorts of things?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080919/1553112317.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080919/1553112317.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080919/1553112317.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>don't-you-feel-safer?</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20080919/1553112317</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 11 Feb 2008 05:30:23 PST</pubDate>
<title>GAO Says E-Voting Machines Not The Problem In Florida; E-Voting Experts Not So Sure</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080208/162130212.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080208/162130212.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ In the ongoing saga of the <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20061108/184456.shtml">lost votes</a> of Sarasota County Florida in the
2006 election, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) has now come
out with a report suggesting that <a href="http://www.news.com/8301-
10784_3-9867717-7.html?part=rss&#038;subj=news&#038;tag=2547-1_3-0-20">the e-
voting machines were not to blame</a>.  This comes after <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070226/005323.shtml">another report</a>
last year also said the machines weren't to blame.  However, that
report came under some criticism as it only involved security folks
looking at the source code, rather than actually getting to test the
software on an e-voting machine itself.  Similarly, this new GAO report
is coming under some criticism as both <a href="http://www.votetrustusa.org/index.php?option=com_content&#038;task=view&#038;id=2743&#038;Itemid=113">David
Dill</a> and <a href="http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/?p=1255">Ed
Felten</a> are questioning the methodology of the GAO's tests -- which
do sound rather limited.  Felten points out that ES&#038;S (makers of the
machines used in Sarasota) are likely to proclaim this a vindication.
However, there are still plenty of additional questions -- and, most
importantly, the very fact that it's been so difficult to verify how the
voting turned out shows just how <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080120/07521615.shtml">problematic</a> these machines can be in
managing a democratic election that the populace can trust to be both
fair and accurate.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080208/162130212.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080208/162130212.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080208/162130212.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>needs-more-testing</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20080208/162130212</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 19 Dec 2007 16:43:17 PST</pubDate>
<title>SEC Computer System Not So Great For Catching Insider Trading</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071218/014045.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071218/014045.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Well if the FBI can have a terrible computer system that's <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20040512/098203_F.shtml">useless</a> at catching terrorists, should it really be much of a surprise that the SEC has a computer system that <a href="http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20071217.wgtsec1217/BNStory/Technology/?page=rss&#038;id=RTGAM.20071217.wgtsec1217">isn't particularly useful at catching insider trading</a>?  That, at least, is the word from the Government Accountability Office (GAO) in its latest report to Congress.  Apparently the GAO found that the SEC's computer system can't even search referrals from its own investigators concerning insider trading.  Of course, what's not clear (at least from the article) is how much the SEC paid for this computer system... and how much more it will cost to get one that's actually useful.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071218/014045.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071218/014045.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071218/014045.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>whoops</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20071218/014045</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 12 Dec 2007 19:55:37 PST</pubDate>
<title>Can The FCC Actually Manage The Switch To Digital TV?</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071211/232239.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071211/232239.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ The debate over the shift from analog over-the-air TV to digital over-the-air TV has gone on for ages, but it's finally (fingers crossed) going to happen in 2009.  This is important because it will free up a ton of <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20051020/196234.shtml">useful spectrum</a> that could be put to much better use.  Even if it ends up costing <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20040920/0149204.shtml">billions</a>, the overall benefit will certainly outweigh the cost of <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070312/125053.shtml">subsidized TV converters</a>.  Remember, that the transition really only impacts those who use over-the-air TV signals -- meaning those of you with cable or satellite or IPTV are basically unaffected by this move.  Still, there are likely to be problems.  The Government Accountability Office, one of the few government agencies who you can actually trust to be pretty honest in its assessment of things, is now warning that <a href="http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/djf500/200712111425DOWJONESDJONLINE000674_FORTUNE5.htm">the FCC isn't prepared for the switch</a>, noting that it doesn't seem to have much of a plan to educate people about the switch.  The FCC claims that isn't the case at all (its response was apparently longer than the initial GAO report itself).  And, perhaps the timing is a coincidence (somehow I doubt it), but right after the news of the GAO report came out, so did press reports about <a href="http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/343212_digitaltv12.html?source=rss">major retailers starting to stock up on converters</a>.  So, perhaps there is a plan after all...<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071211/232239.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071211/232239.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071211/232239.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>one-would-hope</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20071211/232239</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>