 Nov 2, 2009
Search Warrants for Web-Based E-mail Accounts
Posted by: Tim Gebhart - 11/02/2009 11:53 AM (Internet, Legal) Of all the constitutional guarantees, one most Americans are familiar with is the Fourth Amendment. In its entirety, it states, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." But that protection may not entirely apply to Web-based e-mail, a federal judge in Oregon has ruled.
The case involved a Gmail account and another web-based email account and whether the government can simply issue a search warrant to the internet service provider without notifying the e-mail account users. U.S. District Judge Michael Mosman said the Fourth Amendment provides protection "for homes and the items within them in the physical world." But when a person is using a web-based e-mail provider, "the user’s actions are no longer in his or her physical home; in fact he or she is not truly acting in private space at all," Mosman wrote. Instead, users voluntarily convey and expose their e-mail to a third party, which becomes the holder of the information. As the holder, it was enough for the government to serve it with the search warrant in the context of the particular case. That wasn't the judge's entire rationale. Mosman pointed out that Gmail's privacy policy, like those of most internet service providers, says Google can share a user's personal information if it has a "good faith belief" that disclosure is "reasonably necessary" to satisfy legal process or an enforceable governmental request. That means, according to Mosmon, that Gmail users "are, or should be, aware that their personal information and the contents of their online communications ... can be shared with the government under the appropriate circumstances. ... Some people seem to think that they are as private as letters, phone calls, or journal entries. The blunt fact is, they are not." The potential impact of the ruling could be vast. Look at Google alone. It allows you to store not only e-mail but documents and your personal calendar. Flickr, Facebook and the like all allow online storage of photos. Thus, once again, we confront the interplay of our lives in cyberspace and the real world and whether the former entitled to the same protections. (Comments welcome at A Progressive on the Prairie.) Nov 1, 2009
Bloggers Back in Senate Shield law Proposal
Posted by: Tim Gebhart - 11/01/2009 10:38 AM (Internet, Legal, Media) You may recall I wrote last month about how a U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee amendment to legislation creating a federal "reporters privilege" appeared to require that a person work for the mainstream media, thereby excluding most bloggers. Now it appears the committee will do a near complete reversal.
Sens. Charles Schumer (D.-N.Y.) and Arlen Specter (D.-Pa.) both announced yesterday an agreement with the White House over national security concerns the White Houses said the "Free Flow of Information Act" raised. The last paragraph of the Senators' press release noted that the new version of the bill "revisits the change made to the definition of journalist in the September 24 Manager’s Amendment by removing the requirement that the journalist be a salaried employee or independent contractor for a media organization. This should permit freelance authors to be covered, and it also provides the potential for journalists publishing on blogs to be covered as well." Although I have been unable to locate a copy of the revisions online, reports indicate that the focus returns to the type of activity a person is engaged in, not who employs them. The WaPo reported the language of the new version applies to those with the "primary intent . . . to disseminate to the public news" if they had that intent from the "inception of the newsgathering process." That is a test at least three federal courts of appeals have used to determine who can invoke the privilege and was part of an amendment Sen. Specter offered on the Senate floor in late July 2008 to the version of the bill introduced in the last Congressional session. The 2008 version of the bill with this language died in the Senate. Maybe the compromise with the White House bodes better for the bill with the reported changes. Still, even this version would differ from the one approved by the House and any version that becomes law would apply only to federal authorities, not state and local ones. UPDATE: The Citizen Media Law Project blog has the new language. (Comments welcome at A Progressive on the Prairie.) Oct 29, 2009
Why We Must Fix Our Immigration System
Posted by: Tim Gebhart - 10/29/2009 9:09 AM (Legal, National Issues, Politics) If you haven't noticed, we've got an immigration problem. It isn't illegal immigrants -- it's that our immigration system is broken.
Our immigration law labyrinth is not only a factor in illegal immigration, it adversely affects our ability to bring the world's "best and the brightest" to America. Just how big a problem the latter is requires a brief summary of some immigration basics. What everyone calls a "green card" is the end result of the process to become a legal permanent resident (LPR) of the United States -- an immigrant. As the name suggests, LPRs can live and work permanently in the U.S., with or without eventually taking the steps to become a citizen. Green cards fall into two broad classes -- employment-based and family-based. Two frequently used employment-based routes are the EB-2 and the EB-3 visas. Not only do both normally require a U.S. employer offer the individual full-time, permanent employment, the employer must prove to the U.S. Department of Labor that U.S. workers have been recruited for the job and are unavailable. Roughly 90 percent of these visas have additional rather stringent requirements. The EB-2 is limited to professionals with an advanced degree or persons of "exceptional ability" in the sciences, arts, or business. Thus, it is often used by doctors and scientists. Three-quarters of the EB-3 visas are reserved for professionals with bachelor's degrees and "skilled workers," those filling positions that require a minimum of two years of training and experience. This would include many computer professionals, software designers and health care occupations. Now it makes sense that we would want these types of workers in the U.S., particularly when the federal government says no American worker is adversely affected. Here's the rub. Under our current system, less than 100,000 of these visas are available annually, allocated by country of birth (not citizenship). That means some extremely long waits. According to Charles Kuck, the 2008-09 president of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, nearly 53,000 people born in India and China have been approved but are still waiting for EB-2 green cards. Another 140,000 people are waiting for EB-3 visas. Neither figure includes roughly 150,000 applications already somewhere in the application process. What's that mean in real life? While admitting his calculations might be a bit rough, Kuck figures:
Every single [person approved but waiting for a visa] has a job offer, an employer, and a certification that either there are no qualified, willing and able US workers for the job, or that the individual is so good, we do not even have to test the labor market. We need these people. We want these people. How many do you think will now just give up and go home?So what?, critics ask, we don't need more of "them." Well, look at what some of "them" have done. My friend Joel Rosenthal points out that one of Google's co-founders is an immigrant. This year, the first six Nobel Prize winners were American citizens. Four were immigrants (winning the Medicine and Physics Prizes). Our immigration system is broke. We need to fix it. If we don't, how many future Nobel Prize winners and genuises in technology, medicine and science will we have kept from bringing their expertise to this country? (Comments welcome at A Progressive on the Prairie.) Oct 21, 2009
Book Price War: Skirmish or Armageddon?
Posted by: Tim Gebhart - 10/21/2009 1:49 PM (Books) War has broken out in the book retailing world. First, Wal-Mart last week said it would offer preorders of 10 top books to be released in November for $10 each online with free shipping. Amazon, of course, jumped in to match the price. That prompted a retaliatory strike by Wal-Mart, which lowered the price to $9. The battle erupted into a three front war when Target jumped in at $ $8.99 and Wal-Mart has since lowered its price to $8.98.
So what does this mean for the book industry? It depends on who you listen to. Some contend this is just an effort by Wal-Mart, and now by Target, to attempt to drive book purchase traffic to their web sites with the forthcoming holiday season. Others aren't so sure. For example, MobyLives, the blog of Melville House Publishing, calls it "capitalism run amok, a race toward an Armageddon[.]" In addition to pointing out that this artificially dictates what a business can charge for its products, Moby makes the astute observation that this mere means a book is "reduced to a thing of no inherent actual quality, just a price." That's a point also made in a NYT article on the subject when Wal-Mart announced the price cuts. "If you can buy Stephen King's new novel or John Grisham's [new novel] for $10, why would you buy a brilliant first novel for $25?," Grisham's agent told the paper. "I think we underestimate the effect to which extremely discounted best sellers take the consumer’s attention away from emerging writers." We're all looking for a deal. I tend to buy as many books online as locally because the price is better. I also tend to buy more from the B&N chain store than local independents because of both the variety of selection and price. These actions unquestionably hurt independent and local bookstores. The impact on publishers may be a bit different because, at least to my understanding, these discounts probably come from the retailer's share, not what the publisher charges the retailer. But, to use a cliche, maybe we're seeing some of the chickens coming home to roost. Like other consumers, readers have apparently shown that price is important. If behemoth big box retailers insist they will sell books at only a certain price point, does their market power allow tremendous influence on what publishers can charge? If so, where does that leave authors, particularly those who aren't household names? The 10 books offered by Wal-Mart have "list" prices of $22 to $35 so it's a helluva discount. Actually, there's maybe one book out of the 10 I would consider reading and even that one I would most likely wait until it was out in paperback or get from the library. Still, there are plenty of people who are interested in them and best sellers account for a fair share of the market (hence, I suppose, the term "best seller"). But you aren't going to see the Wal-Marts of the world giving Melville House's Every Man Dies Alone -- one of my favorite books this year -- this type of discount. How, then, is quality literature to compete in the marketplace? If it can't, how can Melville House and other publishers continue to afford to publish these books? There's no easy solution. You can't really blame consumers for looking for the best price, whether it's books or detergent. But there is far more interchangeability with the latter. If Wal-Mart and Target have a price war over detergent, the societal impact is negligible and there remains a relatively objective basis by which to judge the products. But to reduce the number of books (or movies) or which ones are distributed because of price rather than content runs counter to the core concept of creativity. The book price wars probably don't mean the end of book publishing as we know it. Still, it never bodes well to treat a part of the humanities as just another fungible commodity. (Crossposted at A Progressive on the Prairie.) Oct 14, 2009
What About MJ?
Posted by: Tim Gebhart - 10/14/2009 10:15 PM (Culture, Media) My wife watches Entertainment Tonight so before or during dinner I occasionally hear snippets of what passes for news there. But I must admit that lately I feel adrift.
Seems like David Letterman did some things he maybe shouldn't have and some man did something to Letterman he really shouldn't have. Some people named Jon and Kate evidently don't like each other any more and it's affecting some TV show I've never seen. And evidently Marie Osmond has some connection I have yet to figure out with stars dancing on some other program I've never seen. But that's why I'm lost and confused. Ever since Michael Jackson died in June I heard enough here and there to know he was still the most important thing going. But these other developments have left me stranded. Is Michael still dead? If so, was he really buried? Did his kids leave the Jackson compound today? Are his kids HIS kids? Thankfully, although ET seems to have temporarily abandoned the MJ watch, I did catch a commercial this week. Seems Michael has a movie coming out that shows him not all that long before he died. Thank goodness. Now maybe he can regain his primacy in the entertainment news and I won't have to agonize over whether we quit hounding a dead man and his family too soon. After all, it's another three months before American Idol returns and becomes the most important thing in Americaa. (For more commentary and plenty about books and other topics, visit A Progressive on the Prairie.) Oct 1, 2009
Shield Law Amendment Impacts Most Bloggers
Posted by: Tim Gebhart - 10/01/2009 9:00 AM (Internet, Legal, Media) Both houses of Congress are still considering legislation to create a federal "reporter's privilege," legislation that took different approaches for bloggers. At bottom, the difference was whether someone had to earn an income from blogging to be protected by the law. Now, an amendment in the Senate Judiciary Committee would not only abandon the Senate's original position that deriving income from blogging didn't matter, it would essentially exclude from protection any bloggers who aren't working for the mainstream media.
A shield law basically protects reporters from having to disclose confidential or unpublished information in response to subpoenas or court orders unless certain conditions are met. The House version of the Free Flow of Information Act, which passed on a voice vote in March, requires that an individual's work in journalism must account "for a substantial portion of the person’s livelihood or for substantial financial gain[.]" The Senate version, however, required only that the activities be regularly engaged in. Once the bill reached the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY), a co-sponsor of the Senate bill, offered an amendment that radically changes the definition of a journalist. Under the amendment, a "journalist" is someone who: (iii) obtains the information sought while working as a salaried employee of, or independent contractor for, an entity— (I) that disseminates information by print, broadcast, cable, satellite, mechanical, photographic, electronic, or other means; andPlainly, someone who blogs as an employee of the New York Times, Entertainment Tonight or a South Dakota media outlet would be protected. But the "and" at the end of paragraph (I) makes clear that someone like Cory at The Madville Times would not. Whether that is a legitimate distinction is something apparently reasonable persons can differ on and legitimately debate for hours. If the amendment survives and the bill is approved by the Senate, that doesn't mean it will become law as it would differ from the House version. Moreover, this law would apply only to federal authorities. Cory and others may need to see what a South Dakota shield law would say -- that is if the news organizations in the state who support such a measure consider bloggers worthy of the same protection. (Crossposted at A Progressive on the Prairie.)
Sep 28, 2009
PLEASE Let This Be Hype
Posted by: Tim Gebhart - 09/28/2009 1:34 PM (Books, Politics) Perhaps ironically apropos for Banned Books Week is the following: "When author J.K. Rowling was proposed as a recipient for the Presidential Medal of Freedom, [President George W.] Bush nixed the idea because Rowling's Harry Potter series 'encouraged witchcraft.'"
What?!?! Now whether Bush himself canned the idea is open to debate. The book that is quoted actually says the objection came from "people in the White House." Still, the fact the executive branch of a 21st Century America is worried about witchcraft ought to frighten anyone. Granted, one could debate whether Rowling should receive this country's highest civilian award. To earn the Presidential Medal of Freedom, an individual must have contributed to: (1) the country's security or national interests, 2) world peace, or 3) cultural or other significant public or private endeavors. I can see Rowling being honored because her series truly got children and even young adults reading. But to reject someone who introduced thousands of kids to the "magic of reading" for fear of witchcraft demonstrates who truly is living in a fantasy world. (Crossposted at A Progressive on the Prairie.) Sep 24, 2009
Where Network News Budgets Go
Posted by: Tim Gebhart - 09/24/2009 1:48 PM (Media) No one can doubt America is a celebrity society. There seems to be more coverage of celebrities and what they're doing than objective analysis of pressing issues like the economy, healthcare, homelessness, etc.
And proof that even the American news media is far from immune from celebrity comes from a column this week on the Columbia Journalism Review web site. Michael Massing, the magazine's contributing editor, observed: Katie Couric’s annual salary is more than the entire annual budgets of NPR’s Morning Edition and All Things Considered combined. Couric’s salary comes to an estimated $15 million a year; NPR spends $6 million a year on its morning show and $5 million on its afternoon one.
Now that can be easily explained by the fact CBS is a national television network that can sell commercial time throughout the day and during prime time and Sunday football games. And as we NPR listeners are aware from fundraising weeks, NPR is listener supported. Still, isn't it a bit appalling that society has no problem paying one woman more than it invests in public radio's premier news programs? Perhaps the better question is one Massing notes in the column. What would happen to the quality of the news coverage if CBS invested some of that money on foreign and domestic news bureaus and more reporters? I know -- another delusional idea. (Go to A Progressive on the Prairie for more thoughts on books, culture, issues and other topics.) Sep 22, 2009
'Hollowing Out' Rural America
Posted by: Tim Gebhart - 09/22/2009 8:59 AM (Economy, Education, State Issues) Two sociologists say the meltdown of rural America has reached a tipping point, one which is "transforming rural communities throughout the nation into impoverished ghost towns."
In an article in The Chronicle of Higher Education, husband and wife Patrick J. Carr and Maria J. Kefalas say a brain drain has led to a "hollowing out" of rural America -- losing the most talented young people at the same time changes in farming and industry have changed the landscape for those who stay. Although the couple moved to Ellis, Iowa, about 80 miles north of Des Moines, to do their research, pictures of Arlington, S.D., and Humboldt, S.D. accompany the article on the publication's web site. The loss of jobs and family farms in rural areas has been caused by a variety of factors, they say, including such things as the rise of agribusiness and big-box retail stores and the decline of unions and blue-collar wages. "Civic and business leaders in the places most affected by hollowing out will tell anyone willing to listen how it is their young people, not hogs, steel, beef, corn, or soybeans, that have become their most valuable export commodity," they write. They broke the youth into four categories: 40 percent were working-class "stayers;" 20 percent were collegebound "achievers" and they often left for good; 10 were "seekers" joining the military to see the world; and the rest were "returners," those who eventually came back home but only a small number of whom were "high fliers," i.e., professionals. The local high school guidance counselor put it more bluntly, saying "the best kids go while the ones with the biggest problems stay, and then we have to deal with their kids in the schools in the next generation." Not only is the lack of job opportunities a problem, so is what is available in the workforce. Today's economy demands more than just a high school education for economic viability, meaning "the choices stayers make doom them to downward mobility and poverty." If the best and the brightest leave and the downwardly mobile stay, it's not hard to tell where a community will end up. While some have advocated abandoning the plains (the so-called "Buffalo Commons"), Carr and Kefalas say it would be a mistake to give up on rural America. They suggest a variety of approaches, several at the local level having to do with education and several at the national level dealing with economic stimulus and education. But rural states like South Dakota do face a Catch-22. While South Dakota works hard to provide smaller schools with Advanced Placement courses and similar opportunities through such things as the South Dakota Virtual School, it probably increases the likelihood the best and the brightest become exports. Even if we do entice them to stay or come back, what are the odds they will return to rural communities as opposed to towns along the I-29 corridor? It's a difficult problem and one I fear may ultimately be insoluble. (Crossposted at A Progressive on the Prairie.) Sep 15, 2009
Media Sinks in Opinion Polls
Posted by: Tim Gebhart - 09/15/2009 10:55 AM (Media) We hear a lot lately about the struggles of traditional news media in the Internet age. But it seems a lot of people believe the damage may be self-inflicted.
A new study by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press indicates the fewest number of people in more than two decades believe the media accurately reports the news. The study shows that in July 2009 only 29% of Americans believe news organizations generally get the facts straight, while 63% say news stories are often inaccurate. That is a drastic change from when this was first surveyed in July 1985. Then, 55% said news stories were accurate while 34% said they were inaccurate. What should be equally concerning to news organizations is that this attitude also seems to be reflected in views of its stature. Today, a full 70% say the press tries to cover up its mistakes, compared to 55% in 1985, while those saying the press is "highly professional" dropped from 72% in 1985 to 59% this year. The latter mirrors almost exactly the increase in those saying the press is "not professional," up to 27% this year from 11% in 1985. These results also appear to reflect some degree of partisanship in American politics. For example, while 11% of both Democrats and Republicans considered the press not professional in 1985, this year it was 39% of Republicans and 18% of Democrats. Yet there is one area where the decrease in believability was more bipartisan. In 1985 37% of Republicans and 32% of Democrats said the media was often inaccurate compared to 69% of Republicans and 59% of Democrats this year. Polarization in American politics over the last two decades in seen in other areas. For example, nearly three-quarters of Republicans (72%) view Fox News favorably compared to 43% of Democrats. While I'm surprised the last number is that high, I am even more shocked that in 2007 61% of Democrats viewed Fox News favorably. For comparison, only 16% of Republicans view the New York Times favorably compared to 39% of Democrats. While Fox News was the media outlet viewed most favorably by Republicans, for Democrats it was CNN at 75% (compared to 44% for Republicans). What perhaps isn't surprising is that, as a rule, local news outlets fare a bit better. A majority of people hold favorable opinions of local TV news (73%) and the daily newspaper they are most familiar with (65%). But there's also bad news for newspapers which most people won't find surprising. While television continues to be the main source of national and international news for most (715), the Internet is now second in that category. It increased from 24% in September 2007 to 42% now, while newspapers stayed roughly the same (34% and 33%, respectively). The only saving grace for newspapers appears to be local news, where 41% rely on newspapers and only 17% on the Internet. It isn't clear, though, whether the survey distinguished between how many of those relying on the newspaper for local news were getting the news from the dead tree version or off newspaper web sites. As the survey was conducted in July, they don't reflect the impact of the coverage of the health care reform debate during the August Congressional recess. I speculate the media would fare even worse in the accuracy department across the board. (Crossposted at A Progressive on the Prairie.) |
|
|
|
© 2010 KELO-TV -- KELOLAND.COM -- ALL RIGHTS RESERVED