Disqus - Latest Comments for andrew_feinberg

Re: 600 Billion Data Points Per Day? It’s Time to Restore the Fourth Amendment

andrew_feinberg — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 18:28:52 -0000

What about the car you drive? I purposefully have avoided driving a car with OnStar built in. Why? I don't want a GPS and a built in microphone that can be remotely activated and/or monitored without my knowledge. I can take the battery out of my BlackBerry (but not if I had an iPhone -- food for thought) but I can't exactly rip apart my car's electrical system.

It's great that OnStar can call 911 for you and send an ambulance and rescue squad to cut you out if your airbag goes off following a catastrophic collision. But it's downright frightening that the sort of tracking and remote monitoring that OnStar touts as a feature is being marketed to Americans without so much as an eyebrow being raised as to the frightening aspects of a tracking device and microphone built into your car.

I'll probably drive "used" cars sans built in navigation as long as I can find them. Heck, eventually it'll make me a collector of "classics!"

Re: If NCMEC’s Going to Regulate the Internet for Child Porn, It Should At Least Be Subject to FOIA

andrew_feinberg — Sun, 09 Aug 2009 18:01:58 -0000

Excellent post, Berin.

I might add that it's extremely important to consider the history of and evolution of NCMEC -- which despite its' noble goals, is at its' core an organization created largely by outrage and powered by the same sort of political dynamic that fuels things like the War on Drugs. It's hard to criticize NCMEC because everyone is in favor of helping children -- and people like Ernie Allen have made opposing funding increases, transfers of power, or even criticizing his organization the equivalent of publicly declaring opposition to the protection of children.

NCMEC was created to facilitate cooperation across state lines between the FBI and state/local law enforcement for the purpose of stopping kidnappings and finding runaways. Remember, it's the National Center for MISSING and Exploited Children. Putting pictures on milk cartons...that sort of thing.

And that mission was certainly worthy of a 501(c)(3) charity -- and still is. But the "Exploited" side of the building is where things go truly wacko.

Think about this: Not only does NCMEC receive an obscene amount of money from the federal government, but the feds have actually outsourced the identification, storage and tracking of evidence in child pornography cases to NCMEC. Read that sentence again.

A 501(c)(3) charity is the sole organization in the United States entrusted with collecting evidence, maintaining chain of custody, and cataloging that evidence for prosecutions in child pornography cases. Not the FBI, not the Secret Service, but NCMEC. And it's a black box.

Let me be clear: Child Pornography is a revolting thing, and adults who abuse children to create and possess it should be thrown into a deep, dark hole. But doesn't it trouble anyone that the evidence and investigatory processes used to try these people is not done with the same kind of transparency used in any other criminal case?

If I took a handgun, walked into a building and shot someone, the gun, bullets, shell casings, and other evidence would be held by police with a chain of custody. This is to ensure that I get convicted, because without those kinds of procedures, I can claim the gun wasn't mine, or my fingerprints were planted, or the bullet in the person I shot doesn't match.

But I can't make those claims, because each piece of evidence against me was logged in, processed, and any time it was examined by either my attorneys or the state, was signed for and returned.

So why do we need to outsource this important function to NCMEC, which doesn't disclose it's sources, methods, or even allow defense access to evidence during trial? It hurts the integrity of the criminal justice system.

I'm worried about backdoor regulation. But I'm even more terrified that the right defense attorney will use NCMEC's lack of transparency to convince a jury that evidence held by NCMEC is unreliable, and set off a wave of acquittals and retrials.

Why is the system we use to investigate and catalog evidence against murderers not good enough for online child exploitation? If the DOJ and FBI can take down mobsters and drug dealers, why can't it go after the "worst of the worst" using the same kinds of methods?

Re: Some Random Thoughts on “Sponsored Blogging”

andrew_feinberg — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 22:08:45 -0000

Just saw this reply, John. I think Kara and Walt are the models for the future of journalism online, and communities like SiliconAngle (of which I am proud contribute) would do well to at least adopt some aspects of their news operations in order to give context to the expert opinion and commentary that make the community special. If not by hiring professional journalists (disclosure: I have been accused of being a journalist before) than by syndicating "straight news" content from other "wire" services, whether AP, AFP (my favorite) or some specialized tech wire news service (someone should start this).

Re: Inside the Beltway: Why the FTC is Absolutely, 100 Percent Right on ‘Sponsored Blogging’

andrew_feinberg — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 22:14:09 -0000

Why? It's an extension of the underlying conduct.

I'm not buying this "oh no the Feds are going to investigate me if I post a blog comment" line of argument.

Ok, so let's say, arguendo, that the FTC examples are poor ones. Come up with better ones. The rules are going to be the same. How about we, as experts, provide some guidance that can minimize unintended consequences.

The marketplace of ideas and the commercial marketplace are both vibrant ecosystems that tend to thrive in the absence of too much regulation. Respect and admiration for the power of new media should not be mistaken for blind faith.

Re: Inside the Beltway: Why the FTC is Absolutely, 100 Percent Right on ‘Sponsored Blogging’

andrew_feinberg — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 16:33:20 -0000

I think we need to remember the difference between speech and conduct.

Commenting and whatnot are speech. Giving and receiving in exchange for speech is conduct.

Problem solved.

Re: Some Random Thoughts on “Sponsored Blogging”

andrew_feinberg — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 15:58:36 -0000

Adam -- I am well aware of the difference between journalistic ethical traditions and issues of interstate commerce that are appropriate for some sort of regulatory regime.

You ask why we must "federalize" the process of transparency. I would respond that we already have.

While you could say this is a first amendment issue, I would argue that giving and receiving compensation for advertising, advertorials and sponsored posts is CONDUCT, not speech. And this conduct clearly can give rise to deceptive and unfair trade practices -- practices that are clearly under the purview of the FTC.

At what point will regulatory involvement become "wise?" I know you'd say very seldom. And I tend to agree. But we already have a regulatory scheme in place, and it only makes sense that we use the same tools against deceptive and predatory marketing online that we do offline.

Cheers

Re: studio.rizzn == new.media: /socnets: A Nuanced Look at the FTC’s New Retarded Blogging Guidelines

andrew_feinberg — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 02:47:19 -0000

Just a nitpick, Mark. The proposed rule -- even if finalized and published in the Federal Register -- isn't *law*. The law in question is the Federal Trade Commission Act (as amended), which gives the FTC the power to, among other things, "prevent... unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce" and "prescribe trade regulation rules defining with specificity acts or practices that are unfair or deceptive, and establishing requirements designed to prevent such acts or practices."

Don't worry, I'll get into boring, mundane, beltway-speak detail on this later, but you have to keep in mind that the FTC is only doing its job. Independent regulatory agencies (FTC, FDA, FCC) exist because the legislative branch can delegate to bodies that can either move more swiftly (within the bounds of the Administrative Procedures Act) or can retain a continuing core of subject matter experts in order to best carry out the intent of Congress.

In the Act, Congress has told the FTC it must prevent unfair or deceptive practices. And because a definition in statute is difficult to change (see Telecommunications Act of 1996, the) is up to the Commission to continually determine what that means. You'll always be free to ruin your reputation. It's O.K. to play the flute and try and be the pied piper. But the role of the FTC is to stop you from leading all the snakes over a cliff on their way out of town.

Re: Why Kara Swisher and Walt Mossberg are wrong about Web 3.0 (and a bunch of Google and Microsoft stuff)

andrew_feinberg — Sun, 31 May 2009 04:51:46 -0000

No, no, NO.

Wrong.

Kara (and Walt even more so) are known for being ahead of the curve. A good review from Walt can put your product over the top.

And few reporters covering tech industry and policy are as serious as Kara. I wish I had more like her alongside me in the Capitol. Her visits to DC always produce interesting insights on the things I see every day.

BUT -- as much as I respect Kara and Walt (and they know this), I think it's disingenuous to dismiss technology you don't even use. I use Twitter every day. I've used it to work on stories. I' have a friend who's the lead Congressional writer for a major wire service -- he uses Twitter and has broken MAJOR news by watching.

Kara and Walt are failing by looking only at the tech vs other tech POV. In the "big picture," journalists need to adapt to what's out there to break news. If they don't, they die.

(disclaimer: I'm an actual journalist)

Re: Opening the newsroom, Step 1 (Scripting News)

andrew_feinberg — Sun, 22 Feb 2009 15:38:29 -0000

I'm not so sure I'm "lamenting" anything as questioning your definition of how "experts" should be used as a best practice in journalism.

Spend enough time reporting on a subject and you become pretty expert. But that doesn't make it OK to offer an opinion. It just makes you more aware of what is important and what is not.

The problem with news isn't the stories that get told, it's the stories that get missed because reporters don't know what to look for because they haven't invested enough time in the subject. Bringing in subject matter experts won't fill the cracks, because the people who go after the news are generally of an entirely different breed than the people who become part of the news themselves.

Re: Opening the newsroom, Step 1 (Scripting News)

andrew_feinberg — Sun, 22 Feb 2009 15:08:57 -0000

Dave,

You are halfway there. But you're not seeing the true problem that plagues so many of today's news outlets -- the death of the "beat reporter" -- the guy (or gal) who knows who to call, who to quote, and how to tell the story in a succinct, accurate way without making the news organization part of the story. The metaphorical fly on the wall.

Take, for instance, David Simon's book on the year he spent with the Baltimore Police Department's homicide unit. Yes, the one that inspired not one -- but two -- t.v. shows. In describing the process he used in writing the book, he says he became "part of the furniture."

Not only did Simon become part of the furniture, he also became an expert on his assigned beat. And when things happened, he knew how to write it in a disinterested manner, and to get enough from the "real" experts to give the story context from all sides. That's the job. To be part of the furniture. If you do it right, you don't get noticed. And because you don't get noticed, you get trusted. Because it's not about you, if you do it right. Circular, I know. But that's how it is.

I think you are confusing the "news organization" with the phenomenon of the "celebrity reporters" you mostly see as talking heads on cable news. They work for the Times, or the Post, or (here in DC) Politico or Roll Call or Congressional Quarterly. They're good at their jobs. And until recently, you would probably pass them on the street and have no clue as to their identity or profession.

But the 24/7 Cable News Beast needs talking heads, and the people who know the most about things are generally either the "experts" or the print reporters who have managed to not lose their jobs. And once they go on T.V. and start talking about the story, in your mind they've become part of the story. That's not their fault, and it's not your fault, either.

You've offered an interesting solution to something. But what problem does your solution solve? What does breaking "as many of the rules of the news business without breaking the one sacred rule..." have to do with seeing "the news organizations as part of the story with a critical eye?"

What don't you trust, and how can "experts" make you trust it more?

Re: Who Will Protect the Children?

andrew_feinberg — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 09:57:41 -0000

NYT is late to the game on this. ISTTF is, to put it bluntly, a load of crap cooked up to satisfy the State AG's.

If you really want to talk to someone with a clue, go to the Family Online Safety Institute's conference on December 11th.

Re: Twitter API Lead Changes Priorities With New Book

andrew_feinberg — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 02:58:09 -0000

Your point is perfectly valid. But it should come in a straightforward criticism of management -- not the coder who was offered a good opportunity to do something interesting. If management is running too loose a ship you should attack management, not the coders. And the management might need attacking. But the way you raised it made it seem to be focused more on one person than the company he works for. I'm going to bed. Not because I don't want to keep defending my friend, but because it's 3am on the east coast. Still, go after the management, not the coders if you think they're running a loose ship.

Re: Twitter API Lead Changes Priorities With New Book

andrew_feinberg — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 02:42:11 -0000

Not to be a jerk, but things are never "in order" the way one would like.

Maybe, just maybe, (and I haven't asked, because it's not my place) it is possible that he'd want to do something in addition to working on the Twitter API. He's done quite a bit and maybe would like a diversion. Maybe he'd like a more normal lifestyle. Again, I haven't talked to him. Maybe I'll ask. But really, it's none of my damn business.

Single-mindedness on projects is commendable. But you have to remember he doesn't work for you. He works for Twitter. And if Twitter had any problem with this, it wouldn't be happening.

I see nothing about this but unneeded criticism. If you see the API go completely to hell, then raise the issue. But don't complain because he has an opportunity to do something he'll obviously enjoy.

Re: Twitter API Lead Changes Priorities With New Book

andrew_feinberg — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 02:29:48 -0000

As someone who has known Alex for just over a decade, I am more than confident that he is up to the challenge. He's not only an able coder but unlike some in his field, has quite a way with words.

I have no doubt that writing about Scala will be an enjoyable side project for him that will let him work the english-language half of his brain.

Leave the man alone.

Re: The Facebook Killer Is Jailed

andrew_feinberg — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 10:04:18 -0000

[deleted]

Re: The Facebook Killer Is Jailed

andrew_feinberg — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 09:54:47 -0000

Nick,

While this is an interesting topic to explore, I would hesitate to call this guy the "Facebook killer."

First, always take UK newspaper headlines with a grain of salt.

"Wayne Forrester, 34, drank alcohol and took cocaine before driving 15 miles to the family home to attack wife Emma as she lay in bed."

So he got hammered, violent, and hacked his wife to pieces.

"The couple had separated four days before the murder in February and Forrester later told police he had been provoked by his wife changing her marital status to "single" on her Facebook entry, the court heard. "

So he had four days to stew, drink, get high and wallow in his anger before he picked up the meat cleaver and a knife (your graphic is a two-bladed axe by the way) and drove to his wife's house with the intention of committing murder.

"The court heard that the Forresters had a "volatile and unstable marriage characterised by periods of separation and reconciliation."

And you really, really believe that a click on a dropdown caused this? Remember, if you read the article he also believed she was having an affair.

I have a friend who recently separated from his spouse. He changed his Facebook status some time ago. To my knowledge neither of them has committed murder.

I believe you are overestimating the importance of the relationship status feature on Facebook in this case, and instead taking what appears to be nothing but a very good effort by defense counsel and the willingness of CPS (the UK equiv. of a District Attorney's office) to accept a plea of "Temporary Mental Impairment," the evidence for which is probably better supported by the defendant's blood-toxicity levels and prior history of the marriage than the "Facebook made me did it" excuse.

For reference under English law, s2(1) of the Homicide Act 1957 states:

Where a person kills or is party to a killing of another, he shall not be convicted of murder if he was suffering from such abnormality of mind (whether arising from a condition of arrested or retarded development of mind or any inherent causes or induced by disease or injury) as substantially impaired his mental responsibility for his acts and omissions in doing or being a party to the killing.

(Caveat: IANAL).

Re: The Apple Stock Drop And The Idiot That Caused It

andrew_feinberg — Sun, 05 Oct 2008 11:19:26 -0000

Steven,

You are absolutely right that "social media is not a bonafide news source." I've been steaming for months about the idea of "crowdsourcing" and "citizen journalism" as umbrellas under which blogging, etc are lumped.

The truth is that gathering and reporting news, like programming, is a craft. You don't need a CS degree to code well, and you don't need a J-school degree to practice good journalism.

But when your programming crashes or you publish lies, you've screwed up in a similar way. If you want to code, learn to write good code. If you want to practice journalism and report news, do it the right way and learn to verify your facts and sources.

Re: louisgray.com: Tech Employees' Political Contributions Dramatically Favor Obama

andrew_feinberg — Sun, 05 Oct 2008 02:12:03 -0000

Louis -- I'll forgive you for not knowing the ins and outs of the campaign finance system. To get a better picture, you need to look at the PACs run by the companies and the trade associations that represent the established tech industry and telecoms. Those PACs donate to "leadership PACs" associated with members, in addition to the members' campaigns. For tech, I would suggest looking at contributions to Rep. Dingell (House Energy and Commerce chair), Ed. Markey (telecom subcommttee), Dan Inoyue (Senate Commerce), etc. If you're a chairman, you've got a pretty good chance of raking in the cash. If you're on appropriations...well, there is a reason the chairmen of the House Appropriations subcommittees have been called the "College of Cardinals."

Dig deeper.

Re: Bloggers Need To Learn To Respect Some Traditions

andrew_feinberg — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 11:28:17 -0000

Steven,

You raise an excellent point.

In my work as a blogger and as a "legitimate" journalist (I see no distinction the way I work), I will -always- honor requests for information off-the-record, on background, or otherwise. Off the record means off the record. It's a truism that you don't quote people "off the record," but you can use what you learn to go after the story a different way.

Otherwise, you're just a liar and people won't trust you with information.

Re: Tech Policy is the new Economic Policy.

andrew_feinberg — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 16:22:12 -0000

That's fine. Notice I left it open who pays. It'd be nice to see some kind of incentive for broadband investment by private business and removal of restrictions that prevent expansion of service, for example I can't get FiOS in DC because Verizon's Cable TV franchise hasn't been approved by the city's Office of Cable Television.

I'd also like to see government money go into R&D. The Internet began as a defense project, but you knew that. Where's the next big thing coming from? Could be H-P, but it would be nice if it was something dreamed up by DARPA or through some NSF grant. We need more ideas. More information. More knowledge. Not less.

And government isn't using private networks for their own purposes? AT&T let NSA install a splitter in their own network for their surveillance. I think the government is going to get theirs one way or another. Maybe I'm cynical. I just want to see someone do something about our information infrastructure.

Re: The Rise and Fall of Friends

andrew_feinberg — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 12:48:13 -0000

Call me a doomsayer (hell, I've been called worse) but I think the real peril in *chokegag*social media (I still hate that term) is the redefinition of "friendship" as some sort of socio-economic-political capital. People will go out of their way and work hard to build relationships, real life ones on top of the online ones (the people I have worked with in "meatspace" are the ones I find I can converse with best on social platforms).

But there is an asymmetry at work, because even if you are "friends" with someone and have worked with them, they still may have more capital than you, and it becomes hard for the karma that exists in real life relationships to work itself out. This isn't because people are egotistical or evil or jerks (well, some are, but they will flame out and die), but because the sprawling nature of communications doesn't let them have time or resources.

And some people just aren't good at keeping up with the volume of individual correspondence from "friends," either, no matter who they are.

Bottom line is, you're right about one-to-one relationships being the important ones. But it needs to be emphasized that when they become inherently unequal or don't allow for reciprocity, one should step back and evaluate the strength of "social media" for relationship building, and as you have, maybe use their email and phone more than their friendfeed.

It's one thing to be "fed" your "friends." It's another to have to proactively maintain your relationships,

Re: Tech Policy is the new Economic Policy.

andrew_feinberg — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 23:31:56 -0000

You mean e-rate or the schools and libraries program that the FCC implemented after the 1996 Telecommunications act? That was a circus with the best intentions, but another example of why we need to pay more attention to our infrastructure, especially with schools. Why did elementary schools need so much cisco gear?

Ideas are fine. People, however, can be stupid.

Re: Portions For Foxes

andrew_feinberg — Sun, 31 Aug 2008 23:47:06 -0000

Grabbing your arm is just a bad idea in general ;-)

Re: Portions For Foxes

andrew_feinberg — Sun, 31 Aug 2008 22:47:15 -0000

I asked when I first met you because it was so unusual, unique, and my hebrew is awful so I couldn't read it myself.

People ask because when so visible and unique, tattoos are often seen as a public statement. A name is easily understood. Symbols are...simple. I see a co-worker with the Black Flag bars and I know he's into 80's hardcore.

But a gigantic tattoo in a foreign language on one's forearm is a statement, and I would take each opportunity to explain as an opportunity to do what you just did, and teach someone something knew.

Re: Be Available

andrew_feinberg — Fri, 29 Aug 2008 02:44:48 -0000

What, no link to me? Bah!

In all seriousness, this being available thing...it's nothing new. But it's new to people who grew up on the idea of being an avatar/screen name/handle/identity other than their own. Blame AOL. Blame the movie Hackers.

I'm being serious.

Most of the successful people in Internet-land have been "available" and operating under their real names for years, because that's...what you do. I "grew up" in the Linux/Free Software/Open Source culture where your real name was essential to being part of the "web of trust." My PGP key is out there somewhere, signed by people I've met in real life, albeit years ago.

Putting your phone number out there is nothing new. Search for my name and you'll find phone numbers and pager numbers that would have reached me as far back as 1999.

I used to be the top google hit for Andrew Feinberg. I haven't been for a few years now since there are a few doctors and CEOs who share the name, but I'm pretty high up.

And I did it without SEO, and have been available the entire time.