Category Archives: tech

"Blogwars" at the Internet Advocacy Roundtable

Alan Rosenblatt (aka Dr. Digipol) is the founder of the Internet Advocacy Center and the Associate Director of the Center for American Progress Action Fund’s Associate Director of Online Advocacy. The Internet Advocacy Roundtable is usually held on the 3rd Thursday of the month, and that schedule resumes in September. (Videos of past roundtables are here).

Last week, David Perlmutter spoke about political blogs, bloggers and blogging based on the findings he wrote about in his book, Blogwars.

Here’s Professor Perlmutter on the daily Show on May 8th, if you’d like the capsule version of the book:

Perlmutter readily admits that writing a book about Internet activity is a risk proposition because of the speed of change, the whims of readers, and the evolving circumstances that can lead to an application flourishing or dying in what seems like the blink of an eye.

My primary complaint with Blogwars is that it lacks depth of analysis in most of it’s examples. But, as a textbook, that could also be one of it’s strengths. If I were teaching Cyberculture this semester, I wouldn’t hesitate to adopt this book. I’d probably assign it along with Neil Postman’s Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Showbusiness, because I think the pairing could promote interesting classroom discussion. I think I’d identify 3-5 of Perlmutter’s case studies, such as Memogate, and put a group of students in charge of leading a discussion.

Yes, I would assign two books in one week. If you’ve been one of the fortunate, enlightened souls who’ve taken a class from me, you know I assign at least 10 – 15 books a semester, plus related articles, depending on whether you’re registered as an undergrad or grad student in the seminar. Neither of these are lengthy tomes, I don’t think it would be unreasonable to assign them either back to back or together.

The echo chamber of ideologically-homogenous blogs is the thing that I find most troubling about political blogs. Perlmutter seems optimistic that people will seek out opinions and perspectives outside their own biases or their own social or cultural comfort zones. I’m not so sure. Next time you’re in a gathering of conservatives, say loudly, “I read a thought-provoking piece on Daily Kos…” or, in a gathering of progressives, say, “This morning I was catching up at Little Green Footballs…” Everyone will stare at you as they wait for the punchline, growing increasingly uncomfortable as they realize you aren’t kidding. I don’t understand how anyone can believe that intelligent discourse can take place in the public sphere if each individual’s knowledge is so fragmented and people stubbornly remain ignorant of the reasoning behind other points of view.

If I wasn’t so tired, I’d save a little space here for a tantrum about the idea that blogs are better than higher education – particularly training in writing or reading skills, research, journalism, and the social sciences. Oh, if you insist – how about a mini-tantrum?

Running your mouth isn’t journalism. Sure, some bloggers do use the tools and skills of journalism. More of them don’t. At the same time, the same can be said of a growing number of journalists and media outlets. [insert hackneyed “fair and balanced” joke here] I’m not advocating barriers for entry to blogging. The more sources and voices and perspectives there are in the public sphere, the better, of course. But to my thinking, that means that media literacy, critical thinking and listening skills, not to mention the ability to write lucidly, are more important than ever.

not to be a telecomm nerd or anything…

[This might possibly contain Eureka season 3 spoilers, I’m not sure]

I love the show Eureka, which means Husband is now required by law to love the show Eureka. I think one of the shows charms is that any type of technology is possible in the universe of Eureka, and they never bother to pause and awkwardly offer an explanation. We’ve all agreed to suspend our disbelief and we all live happily ever after.

We just started watching season 3, and at the end of the second episode a character is watching an old filmstrip of an A-Bomb test in Eureka. She does a doubletake as she reads the label on the film canister. The date is 1936 (or maybe 1938 – the image was a little grainy). The first A-Bomb test at Alamogordo, New Mexico was in 1945 so this is a big discovery for this character. But she’s missing the big picture – that’s obviously not the only secret advanced technology they had in Eureka in the 1930s. The label instructed anyone finding the canister to contact the Department of War is the seal was broken, because the film was top secret. The phone number was a 202 number, which is authentic as far as it goes, being the current area code for Washington, DC. The area code system wasn’t developed until 1947 and it wasn’t implemented until 1951.

I’ve got to get out more, I think, because I knew that right off the top of my head. That can’t possibly be healthy.

Prescription Drug Management

Although I’ve been on what amounts to the injured-reserve list for Serious Academic Researchers, I follow developments in my fields, particularly medical ethics and technology. While the August 4th Washington Post article, “Prescription Data Used To Assess Consumers – Records Aid Insurers but Prompt Privacy Concerns” contained no new information for me, it reminded me I just got another idiotic letter from the prescription drug managers for our health insurance plan. I get these letters every couple of months. You probably do, too, if you fill prescriptions at a brick and mortar pharmacy.

The letter cheerfully tells me how much I can save my using mail-order instead of my local pharmacy, and then it usually lists the 4 or 5 drugs I take according to their records. Usually between 1 and 3 of the drugs listed are correct. These drugs also aren’t available through their mailorder service, which I know because I always call about the letter and they tell me I can’t mailorder, as if it were my idiotic idea to try to order them in the first place. The other drugs on the list are usually ones I’ve never even heard of, let alone taken.

I’m sure I’m not the only one this happens to. It isn’t just irritating, it could have a profound impact on our lives, particularly since this data is increasingly available to prospective insurers, life insurers, prospective employers, and the Federal Government. Additionally, a person’s access to health insurance or life insurance or whole fields of employment doesn’t just impact them, it impacts their entire family.

I’m reminded of a lunch at a conference a few years ago. One of the (European) participants at the table mentioned what a vital tool it would be to compile a list of all individuals in the E.U. with “Arab-sounding” names who take anti-depressants (which are, incidentally, described for a wide range of conditions). Presto! Instant watch-list of potential suicide bombers. Chilling. The Americans at the table seemed to feel that this would never happen in the U.S. because of our privacy rules. The sad part was, these were people who should know better, which makes me feel rather hopeless about whether the average person will understand the path we’re on before it’s too late.

In February, the Federal Trade Commission issued an order saying that MedPoint and IntelliScript are consumer reports under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, so the companies must notify insurers that consumers denied insurance on the basis of these reports have the right to request a copy of the report and that errors be corrected. The FTC’s order followed a settlement of allegations that the companies violated the credit-reporting law by failing to provide such notice to insurers.

Bob Gellman, an independent privacy consultant in Washington, said the FTC’s decision not to fine the companies sends “the message that it is okay to ignore the law.” That, he said, “is absolutely outrageous.”

As more health records become electronic, he said, more parties will compete to sell more comprehensive patient data to insurers, driving down data prices. “It will all likely be lawful,” Gellman said, “but consumers will likely continue to have no real meaningful choices if they want insurance.”

Consumer groups have got to speak up and speak up soon about creating a mechanism to audit and correct this kind of data. The unfortunate thing is that, in order to correct an insurance record, the pharmacy needs to be contacted and the doctor or doctors needs to be contacted to confirm a drug was or wasn’t prescribed. Many doctors will find a way to bill this, probably to the insurance company, who will find some way to hold the consumer accountable for the charge for an action that is necessary to clean up their data in the first place.

Someone needs to put this issue into plain language and start a serious national conversation. It’s ever-so-slightly heartening to see articles on the front page of the Post, but that’s not enough to effect change.

FCC decision regarding Comcast and Net Neutrality

Today FCC Commissioner Kevin Martin climbed out of Comcast’s colon long enough to cast the tie-breaking vote in a complaint by users of Comcast’s high speed service who have had their Internet access blocked or otherwise interfered with based on their usage of file-sharing services:

Kevin J. Martin, the commission’s chairman, said the order was meant to set a precedent that Internet providers, and indeed all communications companies, could not keep customers from using their networks the way they see fit unless there is a good reason.

“We are preserving the open character of the Internet,” Mr. Martin said in an interview after the 3-to-2 vote. “We are saying that network operators can’t block people from getting access to any content and any applications.”

The case also highlights the broader issue of whether new legislation is needed to force Internet providers to treat all uses of their networks equally, a concept called network neutrality. Some have urged legislation to make sure that big Internet companies do not discriminate against small companies or those that compete with their video or telephone services.

[read the whole article in the New York Times]

You can read much, much more at the Save the Internet website maintained by the Free Press Action Fund

Wednesday, wherein I deftly combine the Obama New Yorker cover and iphone references into one handy post, just to get it all over with

Granted, I hadn’t had any coffee yet when I saw this headline, but I don’t think that’s a particularly good excuse. My thoughts were, in this order, although not actually enumerated as such in my head:

1. “I can’t believe they used such a derogatory term in this headline.”
2. “Using the word “claimed” casts doubt, like they couldn’t believe a bunch of Southerners could do such a thing.”
3. “Oh. Wait.”
4. “I have just relinquished all right to ever teach courses on the history of computing or cyberculture ever again, at any level.”

The headline? “Crackers claim iPhone 3G hack.”

I know. I know. This is the kind of thing one should just keep to oneself, but it made me laugh.

I don’t have anything else about the Obama New Yorker cover that hasn’t already been said – and said much better – on the Daily Show: