Obama FTC appointee Joshua Wright has ties to Google; Google has had business before FTC

There are lots of stories lurking behind Google, many not good. They are a behemoth, a billionaire predator, but most of "us" think of them as "our" billionaire predator because (a) they're Silicon Valley–based, and (b) they opposed SOPA & PIPA.

But don't be fooled. At some point I'll have time to peel that onion, and there's rot inside it.

For now though, just a taste. This story reveals the nexus intersect of NeoLiberal Barack Obama; the faux–consumer-centric Federal Trade Commission (their supposed job is to police the anti-trust borders); the billionaires behind growing dinosaur Google, and ... the fabulous Koch Bros.

■ Let's start with the news, from Chris O'Brien, a tech columnist for the San Jose Mercury News (my emphases everywhere and some paragraph violence):

Obama FTC Nominee Joshua Wright Has Ties To Google

President Obama announced Monday that he had nominated George Mason University professor Joshua Wright for the U.S. Federal and Trade Commission. Wright has been selected to replace a Republican on the committee, and as such, it will come as no surprise that Wright has a long track record of advocating against anti-trust enforcement and the heavy hand of government.

But what seems to be overlooked in much of the coverage of his selection is that Wright has a history of receiving funding for his work from groups supported by Google. And of course, as we know, Google has had some ongoing tussles with the FTC, and will likely have more down the road.

I first came across Wright’s name earlier this year as part of research for a column I wrote examining the various ways Google and Microsoft sought to engage third parties such as lawyers, pundits, academics, and communications firms, to influence public opinion and policy. There is little requirement to disclose the money that goes toward wielding this soft influence.

I get it. Wright hates the "heavy hand of government" unless he can wield it to benefit his paymasters.

So first take-away — Wright is Google's man on the FTC. Great place to have a "man" (paid retainer) if you have once and future business with this supposed anti-trust minder.

Remember, Obama put him there. Unless this is just heavy senatorial horsetrading — and remember, Obama's pretty much on board with this big-donor stuff already — can you guess the payout? (Think campaign; then think Legacy Library donor. Then ask — is Obama a retainer as well? Sorry, just being a literalist. Look up retainer; it does have a meaning.)

■ Now for the George Mason "University" side — it's a Koch Bros Joint. Desmogblog (a nice site to keep in rotation, by the way) has the goods:

Koch and George Mason University

Funding and Connections

Since 1985, George Mason University (GMU), and its associated institutes and centers, has received more funding from the Koch Family Charitable Foundations than any other organization--a total of $29,604,354. The George Mason University Foundation has received the most funding, $20,297,143, while the Institute for Humane Studies has been directly given $3,111,457, the Mercatus Center $1,442,000, and George Mason University itself has received $4,753,754.

In addition to financial ties, Koch also has personnel involved with the university. Richard Fink, the vice president of Koch Industries, Inc., and the former president of the Charles G. Koch Foundation and the Claude R. Lambe Foundation, serves on the board of directors of the George Mason University Foundation and the Mercatus Center.

Fink's connection to George Mason University is strong. Besides teaching at the university from 1980-1986, Fink has also served on a number of boards at the university including the Institute for Humane Studies and the Center for the Study of Public Choice, the Board of Visitors, and the Student Affairs Committee.

There's much more where that came from; do click. And the Mercatus Center is particularly infamous (and useful).

(If you're DC-based, did you notice that the Koch Bros are touted on the Mall as funding Smithsonian stuff? Add in Nova and it's a great sludge PR campaign: "Chas & David Koch: you know, the science guys.")

So GMU and Joshua Wright are Koch-connected. If approved (foregone, he's a Republican), Wright is Obama's Google's man on the FTC.

But is Obama also Koch-connected? He is if he approves the Keystone Pipeline. And as I read Obama, he wants Keystone bad, but will delay until after the election.

Interesting club they have (that you're not a part of).

Barack Obama – Federal Trade Commission – Joshua Wright – Google Inc. – George Mason "University" – Koch Brothers – Keystone Pipeline – (Barack Obama Legacy Library).

Our Betters; they run the world for them and pretend it's for us. How thoughtful of them (us, to keep them in power).

GP

To follow or send links: @Gaius_Publius
  Read the rest of this post...

Larry Flynt offers $1 million for Romney's tax returns

The Huffington Post Reports:

The Hustler founder is offering a $1 million reward for information on Mitt Romney's taxes, AdWeek reports. Flynt, an outspoken critic of Romney, is taking out two full page ads in Sunday's issues of USA Today and The Washington Post to publicize the offer.

The ad offers cash in exchange for "unreleased tax returns and/or details of his offshore assets, bank accounts and business partnerships.”

"What is he hiding?" Flynt said, according to the Hollywood Reporter. "Maybe now we'll find out."

As I reported last week, a group of hackers claim to have stolen the tax returns and are holding them for a $1 million ransom to be paid in the 'Bitcoin' anonymous payments system. Could there be a deal there?

Having worked on electronic payments for twenty years now, I believe the answer is 'possibly but almost certainly not one that involves Bitcoin.'

Anonymous payment systems like Bitcoin are great in theory. The practice is rather different. Transferring payment from the customer to the merchant is only half the problem. The harder part of the problem is how the merchant convinces the customer that they will deliver the goods.

Flynt could send the hackers $1 million in Bitcoin but he has no assurance that they even have the tax returns, let alone if they would deliver them to him if he pays. Romney and his backers face the same problem in reverse. There is nothing to stop the hackers taking the $1 million from Romney (or his Vegas sugar-daddy) and then selling the returns to Flynt for another $1 million.

What the Bitcoin payment scheme lacks is accountability. When both parties in a transaction are fully anonymous, neither are accountable, neither has a reputation at stake. So even if the hackers claim to be willing and able to supply Romney's tax returns in exchange for $1 million and even though Flynt is clearly willing to pay $1 million, the Bitcoin system does not enable them to complete the transaction.

The only thing we can be certain of here is that people are going to be finding a lot of ways to talk about Romney's tax returns between now and election day. Since Romney is already behind, that means less time spent talking about the issues Romney needs to talk about to catch up

Whatever is in those returns must be really damaging to Romney. Read the rest of this post...

Hacker takes down GoDaddy, and loads of innocent Web sites. Is it terrorism?

A hacker who was using a name suggesting that he was with the group Anonymous claims to have taken down Godaddy today, a site that millions of Web sites, including ours, uses to host our DNS records and nameservers and all other complicated technical things that let you find our site by typing in AMERICAblog.com. So when they took down Godaddy, they potentially took down access to millions of Web sites across the Internet - I know for a fact we were down for many users today.

I'm not entirely sure why innocent people across the Internet, who have defended Anonymous in the past, like me, now need to pay a financial cost for them shutting down our businesses.  Having said that, the hacker is now saying he did this on his own, it was not an "Anonymous" job.*

A friend writes on Facebook:

Supposedly Anonymous has taken down GoDaddy's servers today because they disagree with the company's stances on certain public policies. If true, Anonymous has also disrupted the operations of hundreds of thousands of small businesses (not Wall Street, they don't use GoDaddy's discount services) and small non-profit organizations. Way to go, geniuses! How is this not cyber-terrorism? They're destroying property and trying to instill fear into those who disagree with what they want in order to try to influence public policy ... and they're hurting millions of other innocent people at the same time. How are these guys not terrorists?

*Before anyone mentions how "Republican" Godaddy's owner is, it's still not clear that possibly millions of innocent Web sites, and businesses, should pay a price for that.  I started using them before I knew their owner's politics. To change to another service now, when I'm not even breaking even on the blog many months, would be a change I can't afford at the moment (their competitors charge more, and I'd also have to pay someone to move our dozens and dozens of domain names).  If the economy ever comes back, then we'll talk.

But in any case, should innocent Web sites, Web businesses, across the Net be held hostage to a grudge someone has against Godaddy? Read the rest of this post...

California passes location privacy bill

For those who are not already familiar with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, you need to check them out. They're the best digital rights advocacy group out there and they sponsored this new privacy bill in California. We need to see more states adopt legislation like this that actually benefits consumers.

Location privacy scored a victory today when the California Assembly overwhelmingly passed an EFF-sponsored location privacy bill, SB 1434, on a bipartisan vote of 63-11.

The bill would require law enforcement to obtain a search warrant anytime it requests location information from an electronic device. It codifies the Supreme Court's decision from earlier this year in United States v. Jones, which ruled that the installation of a GPS device for purposes of law enforcement investigation requires a search warrant. Having passed both chambers of the California legislature by a combined vote of 93-17, and assuming the Senate concurs with the version of the bill passed by the Assembly, the bill will soon land on the desk of Governor Jerry Brown.

The last EFF supported California privacy bill -- SB 914, which would have required police to obtain a search warrant before searching the contents of an arrested person's cell phone -- was vetoed by Governor Brown in 2011. In his opinion vetoing the bill (PDF), he wrote "courts are better suited to resolve the complex and case specific issues relating to constitutional search-and-seizures protections." But when it comes to location data, legislatures play an important part in protecting privacy for all of us.

Read the rest of this post...

Your immortality on Facebook

I got a message on Facebook yesterday suggesting that I wish my friend Skip a happy birthday.

Skip did nearly a year ago.

It was a bit creepy.  But it also got me thinking about Skip, who was a reader of this blog and an engineer at Apple, and who I befriended over the years, though we never did meet in person.  And it was nice thinking of him again.

The same thing happened when my sister died.  She had installed some app on her Facebook page that kept posting a daily inspirational photo.   When I saw an update from her pop up on her Facebook page, I was a bit taken aback.

As an aside, Facebook has a way of dealing with the accounts of the dearly departed.  You can ask them to "memorialize" the page. Here's their description:

How do I report a deceased user or an account that needs to be memorialized?
Memorializing the account:

It is our policy to memorialize all deceased users' accounts on the site. When an account is memorialized, only confirmed friends can see the profile (timeline) or locate it in Search. The profile (timeline) will also no longer appear in the Suggestions section of the Home page. Friends and family can leave posts in remembrance.

In order to protect the privacy of the deceased user, we cannot provide login information for the account to anyone. However, once an account has been memorialized, it is completely secure and cannot be accessed or altered by anyone.

If you need to report a profile (timeline) to be memorialized, please click here.

Removing the account:

Verified immediate family members may request the removal of a loved one’s account from the site.

I'm not entirely sure that those are enough options. Why not a third option, whereby some notice is put on the page that the person has died, but you still permit people, anyone, to find the page in search? (And maybe, depending on the family's wishes, permit them to turn off the auto-updates - UNLESS you indicated in some "options" page that you'd like the updates to continue after your death - a virtual Facebook "will and last testament" of sorts.)  I mean, wouldn't it be better for long-lost friends (who aren't your Facebook "friends") to know that you've died, rather than have your page disappear entirely either because of its memorialization or removal?

Now sure, you can do nothing, and the friends will still be able to find the page. And if they read through the comments they'll figure out that you've died.  Still, for me at least, it's a bit unsettling getting "updates" from people who have died.  Maybe since my generation was the first "Internet" generation, it won't be as unsettling for kids younger than me.  Maybe they'll just take it in stride getting annual birthday greetings, and fun photos of the day, from friends and family who passed away years ago.  I don't know.  And I'm not sure entirely sure I think it's a bad thing having Facebook update me on those who are no longer with us.  The occasional memory isn't a bad thing.

I just found it odd, and somewhat unsettling, at first.  What do you think?  Has this happened to any of you? Read the rest of this post...

Is a judge compromised by blogging?

British judges were warned against blogging recently. And while our initial reaction might be to cry "over-reaction," I'm not convinced that the warning (below) is without merit.

The new rules are:

1. Blogging by judges is still okay.
2. You cannot identify yourself as a judge.
3. You cannot post content which might lead someone to question your impartiality.
4. These same rules apply to anonymous blogging.

Well, let's dissect this a bit.

1. They didn't ban judges from blogging all together, so that's a good sign.

2. Their concerns about anonymous blogging - that it's not a guarantee that your secret identity won't be found out - is justified.

3. Now for the thing about identifying as a judge. People aren't stupid. It's not very hard to figure out that someone's a judge if they use their real name. So, while not saying you're a judge will help keep the general public in the dark (because most people won't google you to figure out who you are), it's not a guarantee that they won't find out.

4. And now for the crux of the matter, bias. I'm always a bit conflicted on this one. People often raise the same concerns about journalists - not only concerns about their supposed bias, but concerns that the bias not show. Is that a nuance without a difference? After all, a journalist is just as biased whether he shows his bias or not. The only issue with revealing his bias is that after it's revealed, at least now we know about his bias. And isn't it better to know about the bias of journalists, and judges, than not know about it? Which also raises the point of "why just judges"? Isn't this concern relevant to a lot of professions - journalists, any government employee?

One downside of knowing someone's bias is that people could try to play the refs, as it were. If you knew a judge hated bloggers, for example, you might try to get before that judge (or avoid him, as the case may be) if you had a case involving a blogger. You also might try to craft your case to appeal to the judge's bias. Same goes for pitching a reporter if you knew their biases.

One problem I foresee - defining "bias." What exactly is it that the judges shouldn't be opining about? The guidance isn't clear.

Second problem, the guidance only applies to "blogging." What about Twitter? What about Facebook?

And finally, to cede one point to those concerned about judicial blogging, one could argue that blogging is no different than any other kind of writing, be it in a newspaper or where. So why issue special guidance? Because blogging is online, and is often done without an editor. Thus the sphincter of better judgment may be missing. Just as with emails, blogging makes it far too easy to fire off a nasty answer (or comment) to someone who ticks you off. It's an impulse you might not have followed through on, or at least would have caught it after the fact but before publication, had your comment been prepared for publication in the Sunday Times, and had to go through an editor first.

Now for the memo:

Blogging by Judicial Office Holders

Introduction

This guidance is issued on behalf of the Senior Presiding Judge and the Senior President of Tribunals. It applies to all courts and tribunal judicial office holders in England and Wales, and is effective immediately.

Definitions

A “blog” (derived from the term “web log”) is a personal journal published on the internet. “Blogging” describes the maintaining of, or adding content to, a blog. Blogs tend to be interactive, allowing visitors to leave comments. They may also contain links to other blogs and websites. For the purpose of this guidance blogging includes publishing material on micro-blogging sites such as Twitter.

Guidance

Judicial office holders should be acutely aware of the need to conduct themselves, both in and out of court, in such a way as to maintain public confidence in the impartiality of the judiciary.

Blogging by members of the judiciary is not prohibited. However, officer holders who blog (or who post comments on other people’s blogs) must not identify themselves as members of the judiciary. They must also avoid expressing opinions which, were it to become known that they hold judicial office, could damage public confidence in their own impartiality or in the judiciary in general.

The above guidance also applies to blogs which purport to be anonymous. This is because it is impossible for somebody who blogs anonymously to guarantee that his or her identity cannot be discovered.

Judicial office holders who maintain blogs must adhere to this guidance and should remove any existing content which conflicts with it forthwith. Failure to do so could ultimately result in disciplinary action. It is also recommended that all judicial office holders familiarise themselves with the new IT and Information Security Guidance which will be available shortly.

Read the rest of this post...

How one guy got seriously hacked, and Apple blew it

Horrific story on WIRED.

In the space of one hour, my entire digital life was destroyed. First my Google account was taken over, then deleted. Next my Twitter account was compromised, and used as a platform to broadcast racist and homophobic messages. And worst of all, my AppleID account was broken into, and my hackers used it to remotely erase all of the data on my iPhone, iPad, and MacBook.

In many ways, this was all my fault. My accounts were daisy-chained together. Getting into Amazon let my hackers get into my Apple ID account, which helped them get into Gmail, which gave them access to Twitter. Had I used two-factor authentication for my Google account, it’s possible that none of this would have happened, because their ultimate goal was always to take over my Twitter account and wreak havoc. Lulz.

Had I been regularly backing up the data on my MacBook, I wouldn’t have had to worry about losing more than a year’s worth of photos, covering the entire lifespan of my daughter, or documents and e-mails that I had stored in no other location.

I didn't even know that you could link those various accounts. Jesus, read this part about how they hacked Amazon:

Getting a credit card number is tricker, but it also relies on taking advantage of a company’s back-end systems. Phobia says that a partner performed this part of the hack, but described the technique to us, which we were able to verify via our own tech support phone calls. It’s remarkably easy — so easy that Wired was able to duplicate the exploit twice in minutes.

First you call Amazon and tell them you are the account holder, and want to add a credit card number to the account. All you need is the name on the account, an associated e-mail address, and the billing address. Amazon then allows you to input a new credit card. (Wired used a bogus credit card number from a website that generates fake card numbers that conform with the industry’s published self-check algorithm.) Then you hang up.

Next you call back, and tell Amazon that you’ve lost access to your account. Upon providing a name, billing address, and the new credit card number you gave the company on the prior call, Amazon will allow you to add a new e-mail address to the account. From here, you go to the Amazon website, and send a password reset to the new e-mail account. This allows you to see all the credit cards on file for the account — not the complete numbers, just the last four digits. But, as we know, Apple only needs those last four digits. We asked Amazon to comment on its security policy, but didn’t have anything to share by press time.

One thing I don't like about the article is that the writer assumes you know what he's talking about when he writes of "daisy chaining" two accounts together. I'm not entirely sure whether he means using the same "id" for both accounts, or literally is there some way to link the two accounts? Or what "two-factor authentication for Gmail" is. Okay I looked up two factor verification, I know what it is - it's a pain in the ass. Keeps phoning you when you want to log in to gmail or Blogger. Seriously annoying "fix." Read the rest of this post...

Is Twitter censoring Tweets on behalf of corporate partners?

Kind of looks that way. From Dan Gillmor in the Guardian:

This time, Twitter has suspended the account of a British journalist who tweeted the corporate email address of an NBC executive. The reporter, Guy Adams of the Independent, has been acerbic in his criticisms of NBC's (awful) performance during the Olympics in London.

Adams has posted his correspondence with Twitter, which claims he published a private email address. It was nothing of the kind, as many, including the Deadspin sports blog, have pointed out. (Here's the policy, which Adams plainly did not violate, since the NBC executive's email address was already easily discernible on the web — NBC has a firstname.lastname@ system for its email, and it's a corporate address, not a personal one — and was published online over a year ago.)

What makes this a serious issue is that Twitter has partnered with NBC during the Olympics. And it was NBC's complaint about Adams that led to the suspension. That alone raises reasonable suspicions about Twitter's motives.

In essence Twitter is banning traditional advocacy where you post the email address of corporate execs and ask people to contact them. It's hard to understand why such behavior is okay on Web sites, but not okay on Twitter? After all this was a corporate email, and of a top guy. He's got computer people to filter out the emails, if not a secretary. Any in any case, people have been publishing actions with corporate emails for years. Why did Twitter do this, if not for its corporate benefactor?

And why did NBC? Read the rest of this post...

AT&T to charge iPhone users to use Facetime over 3g

Facetime is a cool app on the iphone that lets you have a video phone call with another person who also has the app, either on their phone, ipad, or I believe computer.  It's quite cool.

Well, the latest is that AT&T may be planning on charging its iphone customers an extra fee is they use Facetime on AT&T's network. Why?  Because, as the vulgar joke goes, they can.

AT&T, along with Verizon, already gouges Americans, charging them an exorbitant price to use the iphone as compared to what you pay when using other non-iphone phones that seem to work equally well.  (I'd been an AT&T customer for 11 years, including with the iPhone from the beginning, and only recently switched to Verizon because AT&T's coverage is a disaster in the Chicago suburbs - Verizon while not perfect in that locale, at least works.)

I'd written in May about the cost of an iphone plan in France as compared to the price in the states.  I have a better plan here in France for nearly 20 euros a month (25 bucks) than I have in the states with Verizon for $90 a month (same price with AT&T).  And that's the "cheap" plan I have in the states.

But, not happy with simply charging Americans nearly four times what you'd pay in Paris for an iphone plan with MORE coverage, AT&T now wants to charge people who use Facetime.

Why?  I'm sure because AT&T claims that it fears that people will use Facetime instead of making calls on AT&T. And that, my friends, is a bunch of bull.

1. Smartphones are already far more than telephones.  There's a reason I pay $90 a month, and it's not for phone service or I'd dump both AT&T and Verizon.  I want a phone that can surf the web well.  I don't ever use all of my phone minutes in any given month because that's not the main thing my phone does for me anymore.  So were I to shave my phone usage by using Facetime, I'd still be paying the exact same monthly fee for the same monthly number of phone minutes (450, I believe) - so AT&T wouldn't be losing a dime.

2. It's doubtful that Facetime will cut into real phone traffic.  Kids today text, they don't make phone calls.  And adults aren't going to start making significant numbers of video calls any time soon (I tried to get my mom to skype with me and she said she didn't want to because then she'd have to get dressed up).

3. AT&T's Internet bandwidth would get bogged down, they may claim.  Well that's their problem.  AT&T, and Verizon, promise you a couple of gigs or so of bandwidth a month - nay, they didn't just promise, they SOLD ME 2 gigs a month. It should matter to them HOW you spend you Internet time, all that matters if that they give us 2 gigs a month and we can use it as we please.  They have no right to charge me for spending my time online doing one thing versus another - that is the essence of the Net Neutrality argument, stopping companies from regulating what you can and can't do online simply because they think they can make more money by forcing you to do something else.

Now, if AT&T wants to claim that, sure, they SOLD me 2 gigs a month, but they don't really HAVE 2 gigs a month because they never thought I'd actually USE 2 gigs a month, well, then we have a little fraud claim to file, don't we.  Not to mention, how is charging, say, 5 bucks a month going to change the bandwidth usage of Facetime?

This is typical of the shoddy customer service Americans get from a lot of our companies, especially telecommunications.   Chris has written before about the absurdly expensive cable TV bills we all pay in the states - in Europe, 30 euros ($38) a month will get you cable TV, super-fast cable Internet, and phone service with free calls in country and free calls to dozens of countries worldwide.  In the states we pay, what, for just (slower) Internet and TV - $150 a month, $180?

We are being cheated, folks.  And most people, while sensing in their gut that something's unfair, have no idea what it's like in the rest of the developed world.

As with the outrageous prices Americans are charged for prescriptions drugs, these companies cheat us on a daily basis because they can. Read the rest of this post...

Unions demand Change.org worker rights policy

Yesterday Ryan Grim broke a story in HuffPost Hill that a number of labor unions, including "AFT, the AFL-CIO, AFSCME, CWA, IBEW and the Steelworkers," had written a letter to Change.org, asking the company to have a clear policy about not working with organizations who advocated union busting. This followed a pressure campaign lead by the American Federation of Teachers to have Change.org stop working with the union-busting organizations Students First and Stand for Children.

I've received a copy of the unions' letter to Change.org Founder and CEO Ben Rattray. Of note is the unions' strong demand for a clear policy from Change regarding their stand on workers' rights:

An unequivocal public statement from you articulating Change.org’s position on collective bargaining, and on workers’ rights more generally, would go a long way toward clarifying what your brand represents.

The letter goes on:

As you know, leaders from a variety of labor unions and organizations over the past year have attempted to address with you the concerns we raise here. They and we are seeking clarification on how Change.org meshes two compelling objectives: remaining an open platform and (simultaneously) honoring your stated commitment to the public good over private corporate benefit. On a number of occasions, staff from unions that have raised this question with you have been assured that they should not worry about this issue, that contracts violating the spirit of your expressed goals were ending, and that Change.org was engaged in internal discussions about whom you would and would not work with in the future. Nevertheless, it appears that Change.org is entering into new contracts with groups that are not respectful of the right to collectively bargain or the benefits that flow from that right.
...
Organizations that weaken workers’ rights and facilitate the privatization of public services undermine the common good for private corporate benefit. Experience has shown that when these services upon which the public depends are opened to corporate interests, considerations of equal access, fairness and quality become much less important than profitability. We ask that you issue a response clarifying your position so that we can use your platform again and in good conscience recommend it to our brothers and sisters in labor and in the wider progressive community.

Last night Grim quoted a spokesperson for Change.org as saying, "As we've noted, Change.org is undertaking a company-wide process to evaluate and clarify our client policy." They also said that Change plans on reaching out to "thousands" of "stakeholders" for their input into what their policy should be. Hopefully this process is prompt.

Clearly unions representing workers affected by anti-teacher campaigns taking place on Change.org are not yet mollified by the response from them. Change.org has good, clear policies relating to other issue areas. The big hole is regarding workers' rights.

The answer to this problem is fairly obvious from a progressive standpoint, but apparently less clear-cut from a business standpoint. It isn't exactly news that corporate-funded organizations who are hell-bent on busting unions have a lot of money to spend, including on tools and advertisers like Change. Change.org's decision to stop working with Students First and Stand for Children is one that was undoubtedly a costly one, at least in so far as these organizations have lots of money from the Koch Brothers and the Walton family and others to spend. A broad, blanket policy to not work with union busters would surely foreclose business opportunities for Change.

The flip side, as the union presidents say in the letter, is that labor wants to be able to recommend other labor unions and progressive organizations use Change.org. Doing the right thing from a progressive standpoint should make clear to other liberals that they are a business worth doing work with.

Though the letter doesn't explicitly threaten a boycott of Change.org by labor and their allies, the implication is that these unions are prepared to use economic pressure strategies if the company doesn't enact a strongly progressive policy towards This may well serve to light a fire behind the already ongoing process to evaluate Change.org's client policy.

For me, the answer is pretty simple. Just as Change.org refuses to work with clients who are anti-gay, anti-immigrant, or anti-woman, they should make clear that they will not work with clients who are anti-worker. Read the rest of this post...

Verizon says it can edit your access to Web sites like the newspaper edits content

So, basically, Verizon is saying that it can pick and choose which Web sites Verizon broadband customers can access and which it can't, just like a newspaper picks and chooses which articles, or letters to the editor, it publishes.

Which is an interesting argument since, as Jeff Jarvis notes, that means Verizon is saying that it owns the content of every Web site a Verizon customer accesses just as a newspaper owns the copyright on everything it publishes in the paper.

Huh?

What's next?  Does Verizon Wireless have the right to edit my phone conversations in the same way a newspaper edits itself?  Or does that only apply to VOIP phone calls done over a Verizon Internet connection?  And does Verizon own the content of my phone calls?

Americans pay an oscene price for their broadband connections as compared to Europe.  As Chris has noted before, in France you can get a much faster connection than we have here in the US, and get cable TV and phone service (with free calls at home and to dozens of countries), for about 30 euros a month (or $36).  And on top of it, we have to deal with telecom companies that think they own us.

It is interesting that Verizon is so interested in controlling my Internet access when it can't even control my cell phone. Verizon says it has no way to block the telemarketer who calls my iPhone several times a day from an unknown number and then hangs up as soon as I answer.  Interesting that there's "no way" to block the person, but I can simply jailbreak my phone and then get an app that can - what? - block "unknown" callers. Read the rest of this post...

Is the US government reading your email without a warrant?

The ACLU is trying to find out and the deadline for providing a response is quickly approaching. During the Bush years, many suspected that it was a Republican obsession with hating privacy but sadly it's a political class and government problem and likely a lot more widespread than any of us would like.

ACLU lawyer Catherine Crump, who ran the cellphone location data investigation, is at it again. This time, she has filed similar Freedom of Information Act requests with several federal agencies, asking about their policies and legal processes for reading Internet users' emails.

"It's high time we know what's going on," Crump told msnbc.com. "It's been clear since the 1870s that the government needs a warrant to read postal mail. There's no good reason email should be treated differently."

There are hints that it is being treated differently, however. In a landmark 2010 case, United States v. Warshak, government investigators acknowledged that they read 27,000 emails without obtaining a search warrant, violating both the suspect's privacy and the privacy of everyone who communicated with the suspect, according to Crump.

Read the rest of this post...

Another liberal tech company doing work for conservatives

Updated below
NationBuilder is an online campaigning tool kit, providing clients with the ability to do online advocacy, email supporters, raise money and integrate social media.

NationBuilder was founded by a group of progressive and Democratic technologists with campaign and grassroots non-profit organizing experience in the Netroots. It's not particularly different from other online tool kits like Blue State Digital, Salsa or Action Kit, with the notable exception that it is dramatically cheaper, with pricing starting at $19 per month for smaller campaigns and non-profits.

Online tools can be quite expensive, beyond the reach of many state level campaigns, or even congressional candidates. NationBuilder has, in my estimation, been successful at making online organizing tools more accessible to people with less money to spend.

All of this is preface to another disappointing development: NationBuilder has announced a deal to be the "exclusive software provider for the Republican State Leadership Committee."

Excuse me?

The RSLC helps elect Republican state legislators, the very people who are going around the country passing things like bans on marriage equality, racist laws targeting immigrants for deportation, and rolling back reproductive rights and environmental protections. These reactionaries think passing legislation banning Sharia law is a good use of time. And NationBuilder is going to provide the technology to help more of these people get into office.

Have no fear, despite being started by progressives and made popular in large part from progressive and Democratic business, NationBuilder is only a technology platform.

[Co-founder Joe] Green said he has no misgivings about providing technical assistance to candidates with whom he likely disagrees vehemently.

“Our ultimate goal is simply to level the playing field and let the people decide based on the strength of the arguments, not based on who has the biggest TV ad budgets,” Green said. “We’re proving that political software can and will be nonpartisan.”

I'm sure Green and his business partners won't mind, then, if Democratic campaigns and progressive organizations fire NationBuilder today.

Much of the controversy around Change.org revolved around their construction of an open campaign platform, staffing themselves with many notable progressive campaigners, accepting the mantle (both earned and perceived) as being a progressive piece of infrastructure, and then deployed a defense of "But we're an open platform!" when criticized for working with union busters.

In fairness, NationBuilder has been more open about a willingness to work with the Tea Party from its earliest days. But its founders' backgrounds in Democratic electoral politics and the activist-progressive film and organizing group, Brave New Films, have lead to many grassroots progressive organizations to embrace the tools. Again, NationBuilder has said they're non-partisan, but there's a bit of a difference between being an open platform and inking a contract to provide tools to just about any Republican state legislative candidate in the country.

It isn't openness when what you mean is you'll work for anyone who gives you a big check. That's what Lanny Davis does with his lobbying services and I don't think it'd be accurate to call him an open platform.

Technology can be used to do anything. At its most basic level, programming may be fundamentally non-ideological. But once code enters the world, it is used for specific ends. The people who sell technology can decide whether they want their code to be used for good or ill. They have a choice. And NationBuilder is choosing to work for people who want to put women in jail for getting abortions and deport any brown person with a Hispanic-sounding name. That anyone can pay to use NationBuilder's tools is no defense. It's an excuse and a sad one at that.

I think it's time for progressive activists and organizations to start putting out clear expectations about the behavior of companies who want our business. Clearly there is a problem with ostensibly left-leaning technology firms and their willingness to do work with conservative activists.

My recommendation is to deny business to technologists who are working with conservatives to turn America back to the late 1800s. If you are a client of NationBuilder, fire them. If you are considering hiring them, don't. Make your decision public and make sure that even if NationBuilder isn't going to change, other technologists will know that progressives won't work with the people whose code is being used to attack the human and civil rights of women, gays, immigrants, people of color, and workers.

Update 6/29:
I've received feedback on this post, both in the comments and offline, and I think it was inaccurate for me to describe NationBuilder as a "liberal tech company." They are non-partisan and honest about that fact. I noted this in the post, but the headline and lede do not make that clear.

That said, the criticism of any company for objectionable business practices is fair, especially one which derives a significant portion of its revenues from progressive organizations and campaigns. NationBuilder should be treated exactly the same way as any other business which works to help get reactionary Republicans elected. Recent examples would be Waffle House, Koch Industries, and Coors Brewing Company, though online progressive groups regularly run campaigns pressuring businesses which support conservative work, as we saw with tremendous campaigns against ALEC's corporate donors.

In short: There's no reason to give technology companies that progressives use any different treatment from any other companies who are doing objectionable things. Read the rest of this post...

Comcast joins Verizon in rejecting file-sharing policing

It's not often that either ISP does the right thing, but this time they are. Let's not kid ourselves into thinking they're doing it because they like their customers because if they did, they would bring their prices and services down to industrialized world standards. It's also doubtful that they care much about privacy, but if that's the line they want to try, go for it.

Since they're now looking at tiered pricing models, they probably even like file-sharing if that helps them get customers paying more. In all likelihood, the larger issue for the ISPs is that the monitoring cuts into their otherwise highly profitable business model. Where else can you have such little competition, the ability to deliver a sub-standard product and charge huge fees?

If you remove the time consuming RIAA and MPAA lawsuits, life is pretty good for US ISPs. ExtraTorrent has more:

Earlier, the ISP complied with all the subpoenas, but now gave up and told the Illinois District court that it wants them quashed. First of all, the Internet service provider claimed that the court didn’t even have jurisdiction over some of the defendants, since those didn’t reside in the district where they were being sued. In addition, the company argued that the rights owners had no grounds to join this bunch of the defendants in a single lawsuit. The claims were that the copyright holders were exploiting the court in order to force defendants into paying settlements.

Read the rest of this post...

Verizon releases 300Mbps internet service, at an ugly price

The speed is definitely impressive. The price? It's even uglier than their earlier prices and still lagging far behind the overall service that is readily available outside of the US. Imagine what would happen with a bit of real competition, dare I say capitalism?

Verizon ought to call this the High Speed Internet for the 1% since it's so cost prohibitive.

There are two downsides to the 300Mbps FiOS Quantum. The first is that Verizon FiOS isn’t available in all areas, so you may not be able to get FiOS at all. The second is that the 300Mbps FiOS Quantum package is $210 per month ($205 if you agree to a two-year contract).

The 150Mbps FiOS Quantum service (with the same 65Mbps upload speed) may be more sensible in many cases. At $100 a month (or $95 on a two-year contract), it costs less than half of the top of the line service while still delivering more than adequate broadband speeds.

I love that they knock off $5 a month if you buy a two-year contract worth nearly $5,000.  How generous.

On a related note, what fool in Washington believes that it's a good thing to make the Internet so expensive that it's not easily available for all Americans? If they really want the country to compete, they need to allow competition and not what exists today.

I'll remind everyone again that in Europe we have plans for 30 euros a month that include Internet, cable TV, and an unlimited phone service to much of the world.  You are being ripped off.  (On a related matter, see John's earlier post about his $26 a month French iPhone service (I have the same plan) that beats anything you can find in the states.) Read the rest of this post...

Change.org and union-busting

By now I assume you've seen that Change.org has dropped its two union-busting clients. This is the right move and I'm glad to see it. John's post this morning does raise some real concerns, though I'll leave those aside as they've already been covered.

I want to follow up on John's excellent post from yesterday on Change.org's work for conservative clients. I think John nails a lot of the reasons why Change working for conservatives is deeply problematic, but it's worth getting into the specifics of what Change was doing, why it is relevant, and why there was a strong push by supporters of workers rights' to get them to drop these clients.

As a disclaimer, because I view the use of ".org" to be a misleading piece of branding by a for-profit, I refer to them simply as Change.

Change had a long-running relationship with Students First, a group started by Michelle Rhee and funded by conservative Republican luminaries like Rupert Murdoch. Rhee and Students First are in the business of busting teachers unions, promoting private, for-profit schools, and making it easier for teachers' to be fired. If you've signed a petition on Change in the last year, you've probably been asked afterwards if you want to sign a petition for Students First. They're one of the most common promoted petitions I've seen, regardless of what issue I'm signing - even those related to workers' rights!

Despite lots of criticism, Change never backed down from their work with Rhee. Students First has gathered over 1.2 million supporters through Change, though it's not clear exactly how many of those came from paid acquisition versus visitors to the website genuinely wanting to bust teachers' unions.

The discussion of Change's partnership with union busting organizations has exploded this week because it appears they made a jump from working with an organization which advocates busting unions (Students First) to working with a group that is actively involved in a labor dispute (Stand for Children).

What's the deal with Stand for Children? According to the AFL-CIO, "a billionaire-funded “education reform” group founded by Jonah Edelman, that Chicago teachers say directly interferes with the collective bargaining process between the Chicago Teachers Union/AFT and the School Board." Billionaire funding including the Walton Foundation (of Wal-mart fame) and Bain. For more information about Stand for Children and their conservative, corporate funders, check out this post and this post.

The Chicago Teachers Union/AFT are currently in a bitter bargaining fight with the Chicago School Board. At issue are such life-changing matters as teacher pay, including the arts in the curriculum for children, and making sure there are nurses and counselors available for children in public schools. The union's members voted to authorize a strike, with 90% of members approving the move. This is notable, as Rahm Emanuel and Stand for Children had recently support a change to a law requiring CTU to have 75% support to strike.

Jennifer Johnson, a Chicago public school teacher and a CTU member, created a petition on SignOn.org (MoveOn's competing toolset to Change) that asks Change founder Ben Rattray to stop working with Stand for Children:

I am very dismayed to discover that you have taken on an anti-labor client, targeting teachers, at the height of their contract negotiations. These teachers are negotiating for libraries, art classes, school playgrounds, and support staff including counselors and nurses. These are important for schools and more importantly, children. To promote an anti-labor group’s anti-labor petition in the middle of a contract negotiation is unacceptable and dangerously close to crossing a picket line. Please stop promoting Stand for Children’s petition immediately. The teachers of Chicago deserve a public apology and assurances that you won’t promote conservative groups who work to weaken their bargaining ability on behalf of their students and jeopardize the quality public education for students that they are fighting for.

It's really important that Change listened to Jennifer Johnson and was responsive this progressive criticism.

It's worth noting that in recent months, corporations which not only have never marketed themselves as progressive, but are largely anti-progressive, have withdrawn from the conservative advocacy group ALEC in the face of progressive pressure (again, Wal-Mart comes to mind). It's good to see Change be at least as responsive as these other for-profit businesses.

Union busting isn't ever OK, at least not for progressives. While Change has done the right thing by dropping Students First and Stand for Children as clients, it'd be great to know if this means they won't take other union-busting groups as clients in the future, or if this is them just caving to a particular pressure campaign. As John noted earlier, there are certainly things that are concerning in even how they talked about the choice they made.

Nonetheless, this is a strong victory, lead by the teachers' unions and progressives who believe that protecting workers' rights is just as much a part of what it means to be progressive as protecting LGBT rights or immigrant rights. Read the rest of this post...

Change.org drops anti-union clients, then slurs progressives as "imperialist" and "anti-Muslim"

I wrote yesterday about the news that Change.org, an online petition organization that has become a favorite of progressive activists, is actually a consulting firm working with, among others, conservative anti-union, anti-teacher clients.

As a result of the outcry over the news, Change.org has dropped its two anti-union, anti-teacher clients. But statements from the organization, and news reports, suggest that nothing has changed at Change.org.

The organization believes that the only reason it's being criticized is because American progressives mistakenly believe that Change.org is a progressive organization with progressive values.  In the latest story from Ryan Grim at the Huffington Post, Change.org makes clear it is not.

Change.org leaders, for their part, said they think some of the outrage resulted from a misunderstanding of the company's goal, which is not to spread American-style progressive values around the globe, but rather to empower as many people as possible under the theory that the world will be better as a result. By not embracing American progressivism, the company said it hopes to make its platform more welcoming to people around the globe who might see such an association as imperialist or anti-Muslim. [emphasis added]

Seriously?

Change.org was afraid of being perceived as a progressive organization because of the reputation that American progressives have for promoting international imperialism and anti-Muslim hatred.

So, Change.org decided to work with American conservatives, who have a much better track record with imperialism and diversity.

I've worked all over the world with the "left" in various countries, mostly in Europe, but I've also worked in Africa, Asia and Latin America. And the "left" in those countries tends to see itself as a partner of American Democrats. It's pretty clear to everyone in the world who the "imperialists" Muslim-haters are, and it tends not to be people who espouse progressive values.  I just find that graf extremely disturbing and, I'm sorry, but it sounds downright deceitful.

I've dealt with a lot of companies in the past that have crossed the line, usually on gay issues, but not always. And this isn't the kind of statement they issue when they "get it."  It's the kind of thing they say when they want you to go away.

It doesn't sound like Change.org has changed at all. Read the rest of this post...

Change.org is working for conservatives

There's a rather large brouhaha growing over the fact that unbeknownst to a lot of progressives, Change.org - a site a lot of folks on the left use to build free petitions - is actually a for-profit consulting firm whose clients include some rather nasty conservative causes, including anti-union and anti-teacher clients.

I'm sure the folks at Change.org would argue that they're simply in the business of making the world a better place, and part of the way you do that is by inviting all sides to participate, even conservative Republicans.  (Otherwise, why would they be accepting conservative clients while claiming that they're all about "change"?  They clearly don't find the two inconsistent.)

I'm sorry, but you're not in the business of making the world a better place if you provide tools - excuse me, charge for tools - that good guys use to make the world a better place, and bad guys use to stop good guys from making the world a better place.

Change.org sounds like the global arms dealer who claims that they're not hurting people because they sell guns to everyone. Well, of course they sell to all sides - no better way to keep the war going, and thus sell even more guns in the future.

Change.org hired a lot of our liberal friends, and some of us had qualms about the organization from the beginning - claiming themselves as a dot-org when they're really a for-profit consulting firm; leading progressives to believe that Change.org is simply a free platform for progressive petition-building (when in fact they're using people who sign those petitions to get more paying clients, including Republican clients); and now we find out that Change.org's clients include bad guys, and that they're defending that choice by arguing that bad guys do good too.

Well, no they really don't.

I've been consulting for 15 years, and have been in politics for nearly 25. I know that the money in politics tends to be on the right. And it irks me to think that I'd probably be rich today had I remained a Republican rather than switching parties two decades ago.  But I didn't stay a Republican. I chose to change from John.com to John.org.  And there's never been a question as to whose side I'm on.

Change.org, however, has been Change.com from the beginning.

And let's not even get into the other question of what that organization has done to effective advocacy by distilling all political action down to the equivalent of the Easy-Bake Oven - just pop it in and it's ready! Now everyone's an activist!

And it now becomes clear that Change.org's intent all along - or, perhaps it was only after it was clear that the money was to be made on the right - was to truly make everyone an activist, even conservatives.

I've never been comfortable with political consulting firms who play both sides. I've always said that you cannot trust staff who work both the R and the D side of an issue - even if the staff are separate,  one side of the company handles Republicans while the other side handles Democrats, good luck not have the R staffer see what the D staffer is doing, and then tell their R friends about it.  I think it's a rather large conflict of interest.

But more importantly, I think a lot of progressives would be upset if they knew that by creating, signing, or sharing a Change.org petition they were actually helping a consulting firm make a lot of money by advancing conservative causes.

Now they know. Read the rest of this post...

9 year old food blogger shut down by politicians

Great values that are being taught by those in power. Who really wants a 9 year old kid doing something to help school kids eat well and then donate money to feed poor kids in Africa? How outrageous, right?

If the political class doesn't like being embarrassed by the terrible food that they're serving kids, they should fix the system rather than ban a kid from stepping up and trying to improve the system. Read the sad story at Wired. Read the rest of this post...

UK accuses Google of deliberately capturing private data

It's not exactly the "don't be evil" that Google used to talk about. If true, whoever approved this stupid move (and it was reportedly at high levels) overlooked the legal impact of grabbing this data and holding onto it. The legal action around the world is going to be very expensive for Google and it was completely avoidable. The Guardian:

Google is facing increasing pressure after the information commissioner launched an investigation into claims that it orchestrated a cover-up of its capture of emails, passwords and medical records of people in the UK.

The UK data watchdog has written to Google demanding answers after it emerged that the search engine firm knew its Street View cars could harvest personal information as they photographed homes across the globe.

The information commissioner's office said it was likely that highly private data – including email messages and browsing history – was secretly and deliberately captured from internet users in the UK. Google will now have to explain whether it misled regulators over the saga, which has hounded the company for more than two years.

Read the rest of this post...