I'm not sure where you get the idea that I'm a half step away from suggesting any law. And I'm quite amazed that you can infer my "sympathies" from a pretty balanced look at funding transparency.
And again, nothing I wrote takes away anyone's speech. Simply reporting that some groups are getting anonymous, or in most cases, poorly publicized contributions doesn't take away anonymous speech. No one's speech is getting restricted by shining a little light on the process.
As for the term "astroturfing" being overused, that's my analysis as a reporter who has covered D.C. tech policy for 12-plus years.
The term gets thrown around a lot and pinned on groups that disclose who funds them. Most of the 14 groups we included in our ratings of funding transparency would not fit a strict definition of astroturfers because they either disclose who funds them or they don't present themselves as grassroots organizations. If you disclose your funding, that almost disqualifies you from being an astroturf group, although you could probably still do some astroturfy things.
So a pro-net neutrality group that doesn't have a lot of funding transparency but appears to get significant support from individuals would not be an astroturf group, under a strict definition. Neither would an anti-regulation think tank or advocacy group that doesn't disclose its donors but also doesn't claim to be a grassroots group.
You can lack funding transparency and still not be an astroturf group. I've seen the term thrown around a lot by people who don't seem to understand its meaning.
You may some good points, and we address a right to free speech in the main article.
I believe there is a right to anonymous speech, but when you're paying someone else to speak for you, and you're trying to influence the political process, that may be different.
An anonymous poster on Slashdot generally isn't trying to be something he's not. Anonymous speech online (or elsewhere) generally doesn't carry with it an air of credibility that advocacy groups and think tanks try to project.
I should also note that our reporting looked at groups both in favor and opposed to strong net neutrality rules. Generally, groups in favor of net neutrality got better transpaIrency grades, but we looked at both. We weren't targeting one side, and a handful of pro-net neutrality groups received mid-level or lower grades.
Finally, our reporting, while taking a lot of work, didn't really unmask or shame anyone. We used information that was generally publicly available from the groups, if in many cases, hard to find. I'm not sure how that amounts to shaming.
PIPA and electronic privacy are entirely different issues. Believe it or not, it is possible to be for electronic privacy and also be for heavy copyright enforcement. Apples and oranges.
And yes, it's pretty evident I wrote that story. I thought the story was on topic.
The story linked by Slashdot is not a rewritten press release. There's a bit of journalism in the story, including an interview with Lawley. Sometimes, press releases actually point reporters to some actual news, believe it or not.
There were a number of websites/blogs that rewrote the story, took the good quotes and slapped a new headline on it. This journalism thing is tough work, apparently.
Yes, this is a complicated issue that seems to stem from a business dispute. Looking back, I could have done a better job characterizing the issue that way.
I have a wife and a 5-year-old son. My wife works, so my son goes to day care (and now school). My wife does not expect me to get house work and chores done during the day. She sometimes asks if I can run an errand during lunch or something, but it all depends on my schedule and willingness.
I frankly don't understand how a spouse could expect someone working from home to watch the kids. I don't understand how they think they could barge in at any time. It sounds like a respect issue, among other things.
If you or your spouse cannot respect your work situation, then, yes, working from home is going to be a problem.
Taking a shower and getting dressed helps. I don't dress up when I'm working from home, but I at least change out of pajamas.
I don't think you need a door, as some others have suggested, but it helps to have your office away from the main portion of the house. Mine is in the basement.
Working from home is not difficult if you have a regular work product to deliver. If you have something to give to your boss every day or something to prove you've been working, it's not that difficult to stay away from the distractions.
I also find that it helps to get out of the house for a little bit of time most days. A walk, lunch at a diner, something where you're interacting with other people face to face is good for my mental health.
Obama administration has been pretty consistent in supporting strong copyright laws. The only real change was when it appeared to express concerns about SOPA and PIPA, and even that statement wasn't definitive.
One of the targets of the FTC letter is the majority owner of the company that published XY (as the story says). The other target of the letter was an investor in XY. The assert ownership of the data.
The FTC has actually filed civil lawsuits against multiple companies that the agency thought didn't live up to their privacy promises. The FTC sees the act of breaking privacy promises as a deceptive trade practice that's outlawed in the FTC Act.
The budget blueprint, released Thursday, provides no more details about the fee. Despite some speculation to the contrary, it may not, however, be a fee on wireless voice and data spectrum, but on spectrum used by U.S. radio and television stations.
The proposed spectrum license user fee, which would be $200 million in 2010 and $300 million in 2011, takes up one line on page 126 of the 142-page budget blueprint.
A similar fee, proposed but not enacted in past federal budgets, has not been for wireless spectrum that companies have purchased in auctions from the U.S. Federal Communications Commission, but on TV and radio spectrum that's been allocated to broadcasters, said a government source familiar with past FCC budgets.
As has been said elsewhere here, the posted story is out of date. The committee turned around and approved a proposal requiring independent audits for e-voting machines on Tuesday.
"Hmm... what's the relationship of that article to the original article and this one from a few days ago? What exactly are they recommending/rejecting?"
The committee essentially reversed itself the next day. The second proposal was worded differently, making it clear that only future e-voting machines would be required to have independent audit mechanisms. The second version also addressed some concerns about accessibility of disabled people to the paper trail mechanisms.
So, in short, the story posted on slashdot is old and no longer valid.
It's a weird voting situation they have there. The chairman only votes to break a tie, and two other members chose not to vote. There was a tie, but under the committee's rules, it needs eight votes to pass any proposal, so the chairman's vote wouldn't have put the vote over the top, so to speak.
But as others have pointed out, the committee essentially reserved itself the next day and will require independent audits.
Not necessarily. Certainly, if you implement paper-trail technologies the wrong way, the e-voting machine can print out the same results stored electronically.
But "voter verified paper trail" generally means the vote checks the printout. Before the voter leaves the voting booth, he or she sees the printout and verifies the results. The voter doesn't take the printout with him or her, but the printout goes into a secure box where it can be used to check the electronic results.
-- Grant Gross Washington reporter IDG News Service
Depends on where you live. It might not work in Topeka, but there are plenty of cities where the local music scene offers some quality acts. My last residence was not-that-big Minneapolis, where local music included Prince, Semisonic, the Jayhawks, Soul Asylum (ok, maybe not the most current example there), Paul Westerburg, lots of stuff in genres I'm not that familiar with.
And yes, I continue to read my local newspaper, because I like to think I care about what's going on around me. Even if the newspaper's not that great, the alternative is... ignorance.
EFF isn't a lobbying group
on
GeekPAC
·
· Score: 1
The EFF does some great things, but it's not a Washington lobbying organization, its an advocacy and legal defense organization. John Perry Barlow almost revels in the fact the the EFF is a Washington outsider. From a NewsForge story published on March 8:
.... One audience member asked him if there are ways to effect change from inside the political establishment, instead of outside it like the EFF seems to be doing. Barlow noted the EFF used to have an office in Washington, and the White House would call frequently to get the organization to "sign off on something diabolical."
"We found ourselves with a greater incentive to stay at the table than to be right," he said. "There's a Washington phenomenon called logrolling, which is to maintain negotiations at all costs. We found ourselves whoring around in so many different ways that the only way to buy our vision back was to leave Washington."
But Barlow said he still wants the EFF to be a force for change, even as a Washington outsider, by pointing out to the public what's wrong there. "Somebody needs to maintain a sense of clarity about this, and there are relative degrees of outsiderness," he said. "I'm not Richard Stallman. Richard has done a valuable service to what has become the Open Source movement, but it seems that Richard has placed more value on being an outsider than on winning."
Still, it's possible that the American Open Technology Consortium (which is its name, not GeekPAC, since they haven't even decided yet if it will be a PAC) could draw some money away from the EFF, if it's successful. In a perfect world, people who care about these issues would give money to both the EFF and a "geek PAC," so that these issues could be attacked in Congress, in the courts, and in the court of public opinion.
Slashdot Mirror
I wonder if that new iPad will run Fallout 4 as well as my modded 5-year-old desktop does.
I'm not sure where you get the idea that I'm a half step away from suggesting any law. And I'm quite amazed that you can infer my "sympathies" from a pretty balanced look at funding transparency.
And again, nothing I wrote takes away anyone's speech. Simply reporting that some groups are getting anonymous, or in most cases, poorly publicized contributions doesn't take away anonymous speech. No one's speech is getting restricted by shining a little light on the process.
As for the term "astroturfing" being overused, that's my analysis as a reporter who has covered D.C. tech policy for 12-plus years.
The term gets thrown around a lot and pinned on groups that disclose who funds them. Most of the 14 groups we included in our ratings of funding transparency would not fit a strict definition of astroturfers because they either disclose who funds them or they don't present themselves as grassroots organizations. If you disclose your funding, that almost disqualifies you from being an astroturf group, although you could probably still do some astroturfy things.
So a pro-net neutrality group that doesn't have a lot of funding transparency but appears to get significant support from individuals would not be an astroturf group, under a strict definition. Neither would an anti-regulation think tank or advocacy group that doesn't disclose its donors but also doesn't claim to be a grassroots group.
You can lack funding transparency and still not be an astroturf group. I've seen the term thrown around a lot by people who don't seem to understand its meaning.
Grant
You may some good points, and we address a right to free speech in the main article.
I believe there is a right to anonymous speech, but when you're paying someone else to speak for you, and you're trying to influence the political process, that may be different.
An anonymous poster on Slashdot generally isn't trying to be something he's not. Anonymous speech online (or elsewhere) generally doesn't carry with it an air of credibility that advocacy groups and think tanks try to project.
I should also note that our reporting looked at groups both in favor and opposed to strong net neutrality rules. Generally, groups in favor of net neutrality got better transpaIrency grades, but we looked at both. We weren't targeting one side, and a handful of pro-net neutrality groups received mid-level or lower grades.
[Here's our sidebar rating the groups.
Finally, our reporting, while taking a lot of work, didn't really unmask or shame anyone. We used information that was generally publicly available from the groups, if in many cases, hard to find. I'm not sure how that amounts to shaming.
Grant Gross
Reporter
I would never, ever say that.
-- Grant
Still, some big-name advocates of strong net neutrality rules also have limited transparency mechanisms in place.
And who exactly are they and where is your proof of their limited transparency mechanism? Do you have actual specifics or simply vague FUD?
We rate the groups based on objective measures in this story.
Grant Gross
IDG News Service Washington correspondent
PIPA and electronic privacy are entirely different issues. Believe it or not, it is possible to be for electronic privacy and also be for heavy copyright enforcement. Apples and oranges.
And yes, it's pretty evident I wrote that story. I thought the story was on topic.
Translation: The CNET story was wrong.
Politicians do a lot of dumb things, but this would have been a total reversal for Leahy.
The story linked by Slashdot is not a rewritten press release. There's a bit of journalism in the story, including an interview with Lawley. Sometimes, press releases actually point reporters to some actual news, believe it or not.
There were a number of websites/blogs that rewrote the story, took the good quotes and slapped a new headline on it. This journalism thing is tough work, apparently.
Yes, this is a complicated issue that seems to stem from a business dispute. Looking back, I could have done a better job characterizing the issue that way.
Grant Gross
I have a wife and a 5-year-old son. My wife works, so my son goes to day care (and now school). My wife does not expect me to get house work and chores done during the day. She sometimes asks if I can run an errand during lunch or something, but it all depends on my schedule and willingness.
I frankly don't understand how a spouse could expect someone working from home to watch the kids. I don't understand how they think they could barge in at any time. It sounds like a respect issue, among other things.
If you or your spouse cannot respect your work situation, then, yes, working from home is going to be a problem.
Taking a shower and getting dressed helps. I don't dress up when I'm working from home, but I at least change out of pajamas.
I don't think you need a door, as some others have suggested, but it helps to have your office away from the main portion of the house. Mine is in the basement.
Working from home is not difficult if you have a regular work product to deliver. If you have something to give to your boss every day or something to prove you've been working, it's not that difficult to stay away from the distractions.
I also find that it helps to get out of the house for a little bit of time most days. A walk, lunch at a diner, something where you're interacting with other people face to face is good for my mental health.
Obama administration has been pretty consistent in supporting strong copyright laws. The only real change was when it appeared to express concerns about SOPA and PIPA, and even that statement wasn't definitive.
Obama administration supports ACTA.
One of the targets of the FTC letter is the majority owner of the company that published XY (as the story says). The other target of the letter was an investor in XY. The assert ownership of the data.
Nothing except the threat of a lawsuit filed by the FTC. The agency has brought several similar cases.
The FTC has actually filed civil lawsuits against multiple companies that the agency thought didn't live up to their privacy promises. The FTC sees the act of breaking privacy promises as a deceptive trade practice that's outlawed in the FTC Act.
This may not be a fee on wireless carriers at all, but on broadcast spectrum, according to some sources.
http://www.thestandard.com/news/2009/02/27/obama-proposes-spectrum-license-fee
The budget blueprint, released Thursday, provides no more details about the fee. Despite some speculation to the contrary, it may not, however, be a fee on wireless voice and data spectrum, but on spectrum used by U.S. radio and television stations.
The proposed spectrum license user fee, which would be $200 million in 2010 and $300 million in 2011, takes up one line on page 126 of the 142-page budget blueprint.
A similar fee, proposed but not enacted in past federal budgets, has not been for wireless spectrum that companies have purchased in auctions from the U.S. Federal Communications Commission, but on TV and radio spectrum that's been allocated to broadcasters, said a government source familiar with past FCC budgets.
about Linux taking over the desktop now?
How has that worked out so far?
As has been said elsewhere here, the posted story is out of date. The committee turned around and approved a proposal requiring independent audits for e-voting machines on Tuesday.
Grant
"Hmm... what's the relationship of that article to the original article and this one from a few days ago? What exactly are they recommending/rejecting?"
The committee essentially reversed itself the next day. The second proposal was worded differently, making it clear that only future e-voting machines would be required to have independent audit mechanisms. The second version also addressed some concerns about accessibility of disabled people to the paper trail mechanisms.
So, in short, the story posted on slashdot is old and no longer valid.
Grant
It's a weird voting situation they have there. The chairman only votes to break a tie, and two other members chose not to vote. There was a tie, but under the committee's rules, it needs eight votes to pass any proposal, so the chairman's vote wouldn't have put the vote over the top, so to speak.
But as others have pointed out, the committee essentially reserved itself the next day and will require independent audits.
Grant
Not necessarily. Certainly, if you implement paper-trail technologies the wrong way, the e-voting machine can print out the same results stored electronically.
But "voter verified paper trail" generally means the vote checks the printout. Before the voter leaves the voting booth, he or she sees the printout and verifies the results. The voter doesn't take the printout with him or her, but the printout goes into a secure box where it can be used to check the electronic results.
-- Grant Gross
Washington reporter
IDG News Service
Depends on where you live. It might not work in Topeka, but there are plenty of cities where the local music scene offers some quality acts. My last residence was not-that-big Minneapolis, where local music included Prince, Semisonic, the Jayhawks, Soul Asylum (ok, maybe not the most current example there), Paul Westerburg, lots of stuff in genres I'm not that familiar with.
... ignorance.
And yes, I continue to read my local newspaper, because I like to think I care about what's going on around me. Even if the newspaper's not that great, the alternative is
"We found ourselves with a greater incentive to stay at the table than to be right," he said. "There's a Washington phenomenon called logrolling, which is to maintain negotiations at all costs. We found ourselves whoring around in so many different ways that the only way to buy our vision back was to leave Washington."
But Barlow said he still wants the EFF to be a force for change, even as a Washington outsider, by pointing out to the public what's wrong there. "Somebody needs to maintain a sense of clarity about this, and there are relative degrees of outsiderness," he said. "I'm not Richard Stallman. Richard has done a valuable service to what has become the Open Source movement, but it seems that Richard has placed more value on being an outsider than on winning."
Still, it's possible that the American Open Technology Consortium (which is its name, not GeekPAC, since they haven't even decided yet if it will be a PAC) could draw some money away from the EFF, if it's successful. In a perfect world, people who care about these issues would give money to both the EFF and a "geek PAC," so that these issues could be attacked in Congress, in the courts, and in the court of public opinion.
Grant