January 2012

Code for America opens 'civic accelerator' in San Francisco

[Commentary] The nonprofit Code for America plans to open a first-of-its-kind "civic accelerator" in San Francisco, a program designed to house, mentor and fund startups focused on using technology to improve government efficiency.

Mayor Ed Lee announced the initiative, highlighting a San Francisco partnership aimed at streamlining government processes, such as small-business applications or locating property records. The details are still being worked out, but Code for America will work with the city to identify departments in particular need of new online tools. Code for America will sponsor so-called hackathons this spring and summer to find and fund entrepreneurs building the most promising solutions.

Forget wireless bandwidth hogs, let’s talk solutions

News about wireless bandwidth hogs, new session-based pricing from Leap Wireless and the appearance of a new web site aimed at helping consumers understand their data caps and the limits those impose, all point to a growing problem in the wireless industry. And that problem isn’t congestion. Rather, unless the industry figures out how to give people connectivity at a reasonable costs, wireless will always be luxury access technology and ubiquitous connectivity will be a pipe dream.

And the tension between what consumers want from their wireless networks and what operators want to give them is leading to stories that harp on congestion, new pricing models and consumer advocacy around high-priced plans. But it’s time to stop trying to address that tension solely with new types of rate plans, and customer education. If we want wireless data to become ubiquitous and deliver on the promise of connectivity, the industry needs to address its costs and educate consumers on those costs in a transparent way.

Internet Activism Increases in Russia

The recent opposition rallies in Moscow, like their counterparts in the Arab world last year, grew suddenly and unexpectedly from chatter over social networks. But they also showed the power of the Internet to raise money for anti-Kremlin causes.

Four days after an appeal went out on Facebook and other networks, organizers had raised four million rubles, about $129,000, through a Russian online-payment system. Not much by Western standards, it was a princely sum for Russia, more than enough to finance what on Dec. 24 became the country's largest antigovernment demonstration in two decades. The money paid for a stage, a sound system, video screens and portable toilets, leaving a one-million-ruble surplus to spend on the next challenge to Prime Minister Vladimir Putin -- a planned march in Moscow on Feb. 4, a month before he runs in presidential elections.

Study Challenges Supreme Court’s Image as Defender of Free Speech

The Supreme Court led by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., the conventional wisdom goes, is exceptionally supportive of free speech. Leading scholars and practitioners have called the Roberts court the most pro-First Amendment court in American history. A recent study challenges that conclusion.

It says that a comprehensive look at data from 1953 to 2011 tells a different story, one showing that the court is hearing fewer First Amendment cases and is ruling in favor of free speech at a lower rate than any of the courts led by the three previous chief justices. The study arrives as the Supreme Court prepares to consider two major First Amendment cases. On Jan 10, the court will hear arguments in Federal Communications Commission v. Fox Television Stations, No. 10-1293, which asks whether the First Amendment allows the government to regulate vulgarity in broadcast programming. Next month, the court will consider United States v. Alvarez, No. 11-210, which asks whether the government can make it a crime to lie about receiving military decorations. In neither case is a ruling in favor of the free speech argument assured. Indeed, how the court decides the cases will help determine whether the court’s reputation as a fierce protector of the First Amendment is deserved.

Privacy group calls for federal investigation of Facebook's Timeline

The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) is urging the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to investigate whether Facebook's new "Timeline" feature is legal.

"With Timeline, Facebook has once again taken control over the user's data from the user and has now made information that was essentially archived and inaccessible widely available without the consent of the user," EPIC wrote in a letter to the FTC, dated Dec. 27. Facebook's Timeline feature, which launched last month, replaces users' profiles with a log of information dating back to their birth. Users can still control what information they share, but Timeline makes it much easier to access even long-forgotten posts.

EPIC says Timeline might violate a settlement that Facebook reached with the FTC last year. "With Timeline, Facebook is increasing the exposure of users' personal information without seeking their consent," EPIC wrote. But a Facebook spokesman argued Timeline does not change any privacy settings.

Democratic governors launch new media attack ads

A super PAC aligned with Democratic governors leapt into the fray this week with a series of online attack ads hitting GOP presidential candidates.

DGA Action, a super PAC formed by the Democratic Governors Association, began running its first presidential ads earlier this week on Facebook, Twitter and Google against Republicans Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum and Ron Paul. The low-budget online ads — which cost just under $1,800 — link to three petitions on the DGA’s website that call for voters to stand against the candidates’ “extreme” views and agendas. The petitions blast the candidates’ stances on Social Security, Medicare and education.

Appellate Court Upholds AdWords Settlement

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld a $20 million settlement of a class-action lawsuit against Google by AdWords marketers. The settlement requires Google to give some search marketers credits that can be applied to their ad campaigns.

The lawyers who brought the suit behalf of search marketers will receive up to $5 million. The long-running lawsuit, which dates to 2005, centered on allegations that Google served more ads than marketers had agreed to pay for. Two advertisers -- Minnesota printing company CLRB Hanson Industries and New Jersey resident Howard Stern (no relation to the radio personality) -- alleged in the lawsuit that Google violated the AdWords agreement by charging marketers up to 120% of their maximum daily budget. Before settling the case, Google filed court papers stating that it sometimes charged up to 120% of the daily budgets, but only to make up for days when it under-delivered ads. After a settlement was announced, the law firm Weiss & Associates -- which also used AdWords -- challenged the deal. The firm, which alleged that it was overcharged $135,000 by Google, argued that the settlement wasn't fair or reasonable. The law firm argued to the 9th Circuit that $20 million was inadequate because that figure “appears to be significantly less than the potential recovery from litigation.” But the 9th Circuit rejected those arguments this week. “The district court did not clearly abuse its discretion in approving the settlement,” the 9th Circuit said in its two-page order.

Sprint Re-Org A Nod To Bring-Your-Own-Device And Piles Of Red Ink

Sprint is retrenching a bit following an exhausting year for the company, combining its consumer and business divisions in a move designed to save cash that also recognizes the nature of the modern smartphone buyer.

Four executives—Bob Johnson, president of the Consumer Services Group; Danny Bowman, president of integrated solutions; John Carney, senior vice president, consumer marketing; and Chris Rogers, senior vice president for corporate development and spectrum -- will be leaving the company as Sprint’s sales and marketing groups contract. There’s definitely some logic behind the reorganization, and Sprint’s welcome page for its Web site shows why. An awful lot of smartphone buyers are making personal purchases of smartphones that they also want to use for work, and businesses simply don’t provision mobile devices the way they used to before the “bring-your-own-device” policy became the standard (especially as the BlackBerry has waned).

Will Congress hold 'em or fold 'em on Net gambling?

The gambling lobby has a message for Congress as states line up to cash in on a White House ruling that in-state online lotteries and poker won’t violate a federal Internet betting ban: Deal now or get stuck with a bad hand.

A Justice Department opinion issued before Christmas has created a now-or-never dynamic on the Hill for lawmakers and lobbyists pushing for a federal Internet poker law as state and regional officials move ahead with online gambling plans. Come April, DC plans to offer online poker and blackjack. Illinois intends to be selling lottery tickets on the Web by then, too. Meanwhile, Gov. Chris Christie (R-NJ) was quoted this week saying his state could be the “epicenter” of Internet betting. “The writing is on the wall. The states are going to do this,” said John Pappas, executive director of the Poker Players Alliance. “The first three or four months of the year is going to be pretty important for Congress to act.” All bets are on some key lawmakers — some backed by Las Vegas casinos — trying to do an end-run around the DOJ opinion by pre-empting it with a federal law. That could set up a showdown pitting states vs. the feds.

Rep. Barton cheers DOJ online gambling ruling

A recent ruling from the Justice Department that could pave the way for states to allow online gambling was praised by a House lawmaker pushing to legalize online poker.

“I am glad the Department of Justice finally recognized what millions of poker players already knew: Internet poker isn’t a crime, it is a game of skill and it shouldn’t be outlawed by the Wire Act,” said Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX), who has pushed for the legalization and regulation of online poker. “While the ruling clears up some confusion about the Wire Act and how it applies to online gaming, it also opens the door for more complications,” Rep Barton added. “If Congress doesn’t act soon we could end up with fractured rules and regulations that vary state to state, leaving more opportunity for fraud and fewer safeguards for players.”

Benton

Search