Pawlenty has threatened to veto a major transportation bill because it includes language that would hamper Minnesota’s ability to comply with the [REAL ID Act].
Threat Level has been providing gavel-to-gavel coverage of the murder trial of Linux developer Hans Reiser, who is accused of killing his wife. His defense attorney’s argument is that Reiser is an jerk, but being an jerk doesn’t make you a murderer:
Hans and Nina met in 1998, in Russia, when he was overseas hiring programmers. He picked her out of a mail-order bride catalog, where she was advertised as “5279 Nina.” They married the following year after she became pregnant with their first of two children. DuBois, as he displayed for jurors Nina Reiser’s bride advertisement, said she moved to divorce him five years later, just as she became a U.S. citizen. “She had an ulterior motive to marry Hans,” DuBois said. “It couldn’t have been out of love that she married Hans Reiser,” DuBois said. “I can’t see anybody loving Hans Reiser.” “He has to be one of the least attractive people you can imagine,” DuBois continued. “And she’s a doll.”
Sounds like a charming guy. I feel really sorry for his two kids.
A “sensor” is a device that measures a physical quantity and converts it into a signal that can be read by an observer or instrument. Sensors that convert analog information into digital form are the most interesting. The information they collect is easy to store, transmit, and reuse.
Digital sensors are all around – the keyboard on your computer, your cell phone, the surveillance cameras in your office building, and so on.
Lots of good things come from having these sensors around, and the systems they attach to – that’s for sure. But they don’t always serve our interests. Let’s take a look at an example of digital sensing gone wrong.
A colleague of mine recently returned from a business trip to Las Vegas, where he engaged in important and sober work. He arrived home late from his trip, and his patient and loving wife, already in bed, engaged him in some conversation. Fairly quickly, she asked him whether he had enjoyed himself at the strip bar (!). My hard-working and serious colleague was concerned. Why, on returning to the warm glow of his happy home-life, should he be asked this question?
Normally when you quote someone extensively but selectively and you’re making a different (arguably opposite) point, you acknowledge that.
Stanford Law Professor Lawrence Lessig, who got a chance to lecture a captive Federal Communications Commission during a special public hearing on broadband network management this week, began the lesson quoting from remarks Gerald R. Faulhaber, Professor Emeritus of Business and Public Policy at Wharton, made at Stanford on Dec. 1, 2000 when he was chief economist at the FCC.
I think Prof. Lessig is a gifted and well-intentioned scholar and educator. And Prof. Faulhaber framed the issues well, so it’s understandable why Lessig quoted him.
But Faulhaber wasn’t on Lessig’s page.
I can’t let the week end without calling attention to a Bloomberg article on Republican outrage over the FCC’s cession to Google’s petition for “gaming” the spectrum rules.
At Tuesday’s House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet, Molly Peterson reports that:
Rep. John Shimkus (IL) asked whether Google had “duped” the FCC by bidding primarily to trigger the open-access rules. FCC Chairman Kevin Martin said the agency wasn’t duped, adding that the rules weren’t designed to prevent any company from bidding. “My goal was to make sure that whoever won the C-block had an open platform,'” Martin, a Republican, told the House telecommunications subcommittee.
The 463 blog smartly caught the irony of a company playing the game too successfully:
The only right thing for Google to do is to begin to shut down it’s overly effective Washington operation. They are clearly operating on a level that is unfair to all those telecom giant DC neophytes.
But here’s the real takeaway. Google’s public policy pitch was a crafty and bold maneuver. By asserting public interests, Google convinced the FCC to skew the spectrum rules to favor Google’s ad-based business model over competitive models that receive revenue from monthly subscriptions or operating networks. Continue reading →
… although I would have liked to hear someone work in the term “frack” a few times, too…
Congress Debates Merits Of New Catchphrase
What a great letter Kurt Denke, president of Blue Jeans Cable, has written in response to a cease and desist from Monster Cable.
I don’t know anything about the merits, but Denke seems to, and some lawyer for Monster surely feels like an ass right now as the PR department, and perhaps even people from parts of the business actually producing product and revenue, are asking what the hell is going on.
I, for one, have purchased my last Monster product (I have indeed bought Monster stuff in the past), and will now buy from Blue Jeans Cable. I recommend the same to you.
The FCC is continuing its desperate search for a reason to exist. This year it’s decided to assert its relevance by reengaging an issue that it had ignored since 2004. The “Localism” debate has reemerged and one of the most troubling aspects of this debate is the focus on the supposed lack of ownership of broadcast television and radio stations by women and minorities. While the goal of increasing diversity in the sphere of broadcast media is a noble one, the data being used to justify new rules is specious.
Many have attempted to validate their concerns over ownership diversity by referencing a March 2008 GAO study which focuses on media ownership. However, this report admits freely that FCC data is severely lacking.
Many of you who follow TLF will note that Jerry Brito has done extensive work on government transparency and the importance of making data truly accessible–you know, putting it online rather than in a basement in the Capitol. While it’s no surprise that some agencies haven’t updated their record keeping, it is a little disturbing that the FCC–a commission charged with regulating some of the most advanced technology available–doesn’t keep adequate records. Specifically the GAO sites the problems with Form 323, the FCCs method of collecting information on broadcast station owner gender, race, and ethnicity:
Companies must file the Form 323 electronically. However, FCC allows owners to provide attachments with their electronic filing of the Form 323. These attachments may include the gender, race, and ethnicity data. Since these data are not entered into the database, the data are unavailable for electronic query.
This flaw in data collection is certainly laughable, but the most glaring deficiency is that the FCC doesn’t require sole proprietors, limited partnerships, or non-profits to report on ethnicity of owners—leaving one to wonder how it assesses this information at all. Excluding these legal entities from data collection leaves only incorporated radio stations in the group required to file FCC Form 323 which contains information on race and gender.
But how does one determine the sex or ethnicity of a corporation? Clear Channel Communications—one of the nation’s largest owners of radio stations—has issued nearly 500 million shares of stock. Has Clear Channel polled every share holder about their race or gender? It’s doubtful. It’s also doubtful that any method of determining the race and gender of the owners of corporate stations could ever be done in a way that’s meaningful or anything close to a basis for sound public policy.
Alcohol Liberation Front 5 is happening Monday, April 21, at 5:30 p.m., at the Science Club, 1136 19th Street, NW, Washington D.C.
As if the excitement of hanging around with the TLF bloggers weren’t enough, we’re making the event a fundraiser for our friend (and former co-blogger), Brooke Oberwetter. Brooke was arrested at the Jefferson Memorial the other night – for dancing. Or perhaps for asking why dancing wasn’t allowed. (More information is at the Free the Jefferson 1 blog.)
She needs funds to pay for legal fees, and you need an excuse to drink. It’s a match made in heaven!
Suggested donation: $10. More is better, and we’ll be passing the plate once again after you’re sloshed.
If you can’t make it because you’re out of town, or perhaps because you find the idea of hanging out with the TLF crew absolutely revolting, you can donate to Brooke’s cause by clicking on the image below. Otherwise, see you Monday!
I foolishly neglected to do my homework, and unfortunately, the 18th St. Lounge is closed on Monday afternoons. So ALF 5 will be at Science Club instead. Still April 21, still 5:30 to 7:30. Hope to see you there.
The Technology Liberation Front is the tech policy blog dedicated to keeping politicians' hands off the 'net and everything else related to technology.
