This is all going on at the same time. First there is the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). That's what they renamed it! It was originally Trans-Atlantic Free Trade Agreement or TAFTA. It is so complicated and lengthy that it is difficult to understand any of it. I tried to read the document that Wikileaks kindly provided. I am certain that the opacity is by intent though. The CFC folks wrote this about the implications of TAFTA - TTIP in plain language.
Then I read a super creepy commentary by Vint Cerf via TechCrunch. He met with the head of SANS and two FCC commissioners and lots of other people at an off-the-record "privacy thought leaders" dinner in Washington D.C. a few nights ago. Immediately afterward, he made the creepy announcement about right to privacy being a transitory anomaly, unknown in human civilization until the 1960's, and an inevitable, necessary casualty of the "digital age".
And now... THIS! From what I can tell, Colum Lynch seems like a sensible person. This latest not-privacy scheme at the UN is something to be concerned about.
Unless circumstances have changed, Glenn Greenwald had all 30,000 to 50,000 of Snowden's documents. Glenn Greenwald is in Brazil, and not likely to be delivering the remaining documents to the NSA in Washington D.C. nor the NSA's Utah data center.
Whether the documents are destroyed or not isn't up to anyone but Greenwald. The Guardian is his employer, but I'm sure another newspaper would be happy to work with him, if The Guardian weren't.
Yes, school districts are agencies of the state. Here, the state is California, which is large and influential. One school district has implemented Geo Tracking. Another, larger district (Burbank) is already considering doing the same..
These are minors. First, they are protected under the Fourth Amendment. Where does the school district draw the line of in loco parentis, despite the child having one, or two, parents or legal guardians?
Even if this were limited to school, I wouldn't like it. It would be better for schools not to allow SMS, Twitter and Facebook during school hours, instead of this 24 hour per day/ 7 days per week surveillance. That is so wrong!
The school is using contractors. If there were a choice, the school district IT department would be required to observe privacy law and be less likely to exploit student information than an outside, private contractor. I'm just saying "what if", as this tracking, 24/7, of all minors is not ethical, whomever does it; with the exception of parents, as a personal family decision that should not be dictated by the school district, nor the state.
Rush Holt had finished his own education and started teaching when I started school at Swarthmore College. He was either an instructor or associate professor of physics.
He was well-liked at Swarthmore, He isn't an extremist about anything, despite Swarthmore College's extensive reputation as a bastion of communist-socialists and militant feminist-lesbians. Yes, they have free speech, as is their right. But their are many viewpoints held by students and academic staff at Swarthmore. I didn't realize that until years later. .
I agree with you, Prashanth. I have followed Rush Holt's career, though not that observantly. He is one of the only members of the current Congress that I respect and trust, unequivocally. I hope I can say that in five years, or ten, and that he remains in public office.
Ninja, don't talk to him like that! What is your problem? You said:
"why are you so bitter ootb? did someone molest you when you were a kid?"
Say whatever else you want. Call him a an a-hole, or an idiot, or Communist, or unpatriotic, or stupid. DON'T SAY THAT THOUGH. It is cruel, excessive, unnecessary. It made me cry. And no, I'm not him, I'm Ellie Kesselman. I wasn't "molested when I was a kid", and I wasn't fortunate enough to be able to have children.
Ad hominem attacks are facile, but, call me a bad and illogical person, I sometimes find them amusing. Trolls can be amusing too. They usually behave, or leave you unscathed, if you recognize and appreciate the genuine aspects of humor, or sorrow/ bitterness in what they say.
This isn't about being "politically correct", or LBGTQ friendly, or feminist or not being racist, or any of that. It transcends all of it. How dare you toss out remarks about being molested as a child as ridicule in a comment thread. Don't tell me to "lighten up" either. With so many other creative, cruel, clever insults available, you say THAT? You've reached the nadir of worthless.
This is becoming impossible for me to ignore, that
"gun control, anti-abortion restrictions, immigration, gay marriage / civil union rights, medical marijuana, birth control, or any of the other hot topics [are] meant to distract the public from what's REALLY going on".
Seems that way to me too. Sadly, it also seems that regulations, which should help, are being used to serve other, quite separate agendas.
Firedoglake sourced it from The Hill, which says that the more stringent disclosure and reporting requirements will still apply to the president, vice president, members of Congress, candidates for Congress, and some nominees. This is the ridiculous part (via Obama signs STOCK stepback):
[The law] would have required roughly 28,000 senior government officials to post their financial information online, and had come under harsh criticism from federal government employee unions.
There are 28,000 senior government officials EXCLUDING all the members of Congress?! Or considered senior enough such that disclosure of financial information on a publicly available online database was:
...found to be problematic and even dangerous for high-ranking government workers... it could needlessly threaten the safety of government employees abroad, as well as make it difficult to attract and retain talent in the public sector.
Obama shouldn't have signed it into law if it were going to endanger government employees posted overseas! But he did, to get a big flashy spotlight of attention back when he wanted to be popular. Then he gets most of it repealed quickly, over a weekend, with complicity of both parties. We aren't idiots! That makes me feel MORE distrustful of government, rather than less.
I've been aware of Teri Buhl's drama for years. I never was privy to her "elite" protected Twitter feed. Annoying that she was a journalist who reported on news that wasn't accessible to the public (me)! She's vacillated between protected-on, protected-off for her Twitter feed for awhile. Teri Buhl news stories are always high-drama!
TechDirt showed remarkable restraint and courtesy. Buhl comes off as very arrogant and presumptuous. This is especially so, as she has a pending court case against her for harassment of a minor.
Weird spelling, "jurno". That's not a "SoCal Trojan" nor a New Canaan expression. This made me laugh:
It is surprising that she's never seen journalists ignore requests to keep her tweets private, though perhaps it's because there's never been any reason to quote her prior to this.
Given my low-level curiosity about her seeming (self-)importance for years, I enjoyed this post, and the one prior, immensely. Thank you.
The Verge is a fine one to talk! They shamelessly scraped many paragraphs of content yesterday about an important tech legal type news story, from Reuters UK. I could barely find the link, it was tiny with only one word of anchor text, for attribution. They really shouldn't be complaining so loudly about HuffPo!
If you wire transfer the proceeds that you receive for your novel, regardless of the subject matter, to terrorists, you will likely have problems. As a British citizen, if you reside in the U.K., I don't think the U.S. government will be arresting you though. It would be U.K. law enforcement, as they do not encourage the funding of terrorist organizations.
It isn't the publisher that's they're saying is the problem. The government seized the money received as an advance payment for the graphic novel. The government seized it because they believe that the authors of the novel have transferred that money to a terrorist organization.
Although... maybe I understand your point now... there aren't enough details in the TechDirt post to tell. If the publisher is directly transferring the advance payment for the graphic novel to the terrorists, rather than to the authors, that would be a problem. In that case, both the authors (who would have had to request their advance payment be made to someone else), and the publishers who had completed the money transfer would be at fault.
You're right: The funds seizure needs to be based on specific evidence, which shouldn't be a problem to obtain, if it exists.
Of course, you're correct. It is not new, nor does it only happen to books, or obscure works. Movies too, such as "The Manchurian Candidate" were banned. In that situation, the movie was pulled from theatres after release, with a requirement that re-release be allowed after the passage of 25 years. It is a good movie, starring Frank Sinatra and Angela Murder-She-Wrote. I saw it a few years ago. (How did the government decide that 25 years was the right length of time to wait, I wonder?)
Zbigniew, thank you for the URL to that SSRN article! It looks good, based on the abstract. Especially nice: It distinguishes between software patents and patents in other fields where patent law remains functional (as it was for most patents in the past e.g. chemical engineering).
In return, you and others might like browsing through the Patent Reform Group items that I just found on scholarly article bookmarking site, CiteULike.
Thank you, Mike Masnick! I found out about this here, via TechDirt, before anywhere else. You were FIRST.
Here's something for you, as a token of my gratitude https://www.google.com/transparencyreport/removals/copyright/data/ It is the download page for all copyright-related data used in preparing the Google Transparency Report. It even includes a data dictionary (and the format is zipped CSV files, not PDF ;o) I think it is a new feature, as the page is time stamped 12 Dec 2012.
Yes! That is my impression too, regarding literary writers, as well as authors of scientific works, of the past. I guess this was 50 or more years ago. I was surprised how complex (congenial, or even colleagial) the relationships were, between the agent-editor and the writer. It was nuanced, i.e. an agent was not necessarily an employee of any publishing firm. Now, I see writers who go with giant publishing firms, with minimal benefit. Even well-known authors, experts in their field, may receive little or no editorial guidance. The same is true with production support, for charts or graphs.
EVERYONE needs editorial guidance. If one self-publishes, then turn to a friend or establish a contract arrangement, if necessary. It is preferable to have an experienced editor, with a firm hand though. I don't understand big publishers at all! They don't even provide this to big-name authors, let alone those who are not. Yet editorial input is so important for a publication's success! It is also one of the few ways of demonstrating a traditional publisher's competitive advantage over self-publishing e.g. through Amazon.
Do publishing firms still employ editors? An editor and an agent might or might not be the same person. The editorial function is for the book content, and the agent is for marketing and negotiating payment, is that how it works? Might you know, um, Lord Binky?
Search engines are not the villains. The Irish newspapers are flailing in frustration with the approaching demise of print media and independent third-party news reporting and journalism. Well, that's my (presumptuous) guess. The copyright concern is something of a red herring (false flag?)... but it is short-sighted to dismiss newspapers as irrelevant, because they haven't evolved and adapted to a profitable business model in a digital, internet era. Remember the idea of public good.
Newspapers and media, biased as some may be, DO have standards of journalistic integrity. Reporters have a code of ethics they must uphold, else they will be fired. I read this article a few days ago, in a tech publication. It expressed regret that independent third-party news and information sources would soon be a thing of the past. The author said that while preferable, they were not viable businesses. As a replacement, CISCO has already hired over 1,000 news writers and Nissan (Toyota) has done the same. They won't be neutral, by their own admission. Corporate news media, as in "CISCO News" or "Nissan News" (not as part of a holding company, but rather, tightly integrated within the corporation) isn't a scenario I look forward to.
Google doesn't need to save the newspaper industry, isn't morally or ethically bound to do so. Yet someone, somewhere, should consider it carefully. I don't know who, I have no ideas about that, nor what can be done.