Tonight, the American people elected the first African-American male to the Presidency.
I'm watching the live stream of the Grant Park rally on the Obama website, which has the feel of being at a rock concert. Music is playing in the background, like they do before the warm up band appears, and again before the headliner band comes out. Just goes to show how much the Internet has played a role in this election. I agree with other opinions that have compared this election, and the use of the Internet, to the TV in the 1960 election. But the similarities do not stop there.
Kennedy was young and vibrant, Nixon was old and set in his ways. Kennedy was a dynamic speaker, Nixon less so.
It's amazing, really, what America did tonight. Clearly America believes Obama is the man to bring about change, and set this country a new course. The question now is, can he deliver?
McCain deserves some props as well. He fought a long, hard campaign. He hung in there. For a 73-year-old man, he has quite a bit of energy! He's a believer, a man who takes action. He put himself out there, twice, and though defeat both times now, he has shown grace and civility; qualities that should be associated with being American.
And Bush, well, he destroyed his party. He let Cheney run the show, and Cheney ran it into the ground. The Republicans will have to sit out for the next 4 years, and attempt to rebuild. I think the events beyond their control cost them this election, but some of those events slipped form their control because of Bush. America tonight did not forgive and forget, and the Republicans will have a long battle ahead of them.
Obama is about to speak...
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Helping My Brother Out
My brother started posting video commentary on the financial crisis. He is a banker, and very knowledgeable on the subject. He's a great story teller, and since he's just getting started with the whole blogging thing, I'm helping him out.
You can view his video commentary at his blog, Wall St. WTF.
The financial crisis is taking a toll on everyone, but few seem to be able to explain it. He does a pretty good job of putting the whole mess in terms normal, non-Wall Street people can understand, and he spices it up with a bit of humor.
So check it out!
You can view his video commentary at his blog, Wall St. WTF.
The financial crisis is taking a toll on everyone, but few seem to be able to explain it. He does a pretty good job of putting the whole mess in terms normal, non-Wall Street people can understand, and he spices it up with a bit of humor.
So check it out!
Friday, September 26, 2008
Brief Update
Things have been quite crazy so I haven't blogged in awhile. Summer school, job hunting, final semester, moving...oh yes, and the financial turmoil.
I've joined Twitter (http://twitter.com/econwriter5) and am exploring SecondLife. Joining Twitter is more to satisfy my curiosity. SecondLife, on the other hand, is school related.
Online dispute resolutions have come up in both my Cyberlaw class and my Technology and the Ethical Practice of Law class.
Larry Lessig, in his book "Code: And Other Laws of Cyberspace, Version 2.0," raises the issue of online disputes in virtual worlds like SecondLife. And there is the National Center for Technology and Dispute Resolution.
The subject requires more investigation...so stay tuned.
I've joined Twitter (http://twitter.com/econwriter5) and am exploring SecondLife. Joining Twitter is more to satisfy my curiosity. SecondLife, on the other hand, is school related.
Online dispute resolutions have come up in both my Cyberlaw class and my Technology and the Ethical Practice of Law class.
Larry Lessig, in his book "Code: And Other Laws of Cyberspace, Version 2.0," raises the issue of online disputes in virtual worlds like SecondLife. And there is the National Center for Technology and Dispute Resolution.
The subject requires more investigation...so stay tuned.
Thursday, July 17, 2008
Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog
It is wonderful to see Joss Whedon embracing technology and having the balls to release it to the masses...for free. Though you can download it from iTunes, and it is completely worth it.
It's smart, creative, witty, and the whole cast can sing! Watch it. You'll enjoy it.
Another bonus point to Hulu, too. I am more and more a fan.
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Internet For Everyone? You Mean Every American
On its Public Policy blog, Google talks about joining the "The Internet for Everyone," campaign, which, just from the title, I took to mean the whole world. Since the announcement was coming from Google, it didn't strike me as that outlandish. What better company to strive for bringing Internet access to everyone? We live in the age of globalization, so naturally we think outside our own borders, or so we like to believe.
Then I read the first paragraph, which says:
Notice how the title says "Internet for Everyone" but that "everyone" is narrowed down to "every American." So the rest of the world is going to be left out? Perhaps there was a three word limit in naming the campaign, so "Internet for Everyone" was more logical, and gave a sense of something greater than "Internet for Americans" or "Internet for America" or "Internet for All Americans" if there was no three word limit.
Maybe, one day when "every American" has Internet access, the campaign will expand beyond US borders and fully embrace its title, actually bringing Internet access to everyone.
Then I read the first paragraph, which says:
Today Google joined a national initiative of public interest, civic and industry groups to help launch the Internet for Everyone campaign, whose goal is to make ubiquitous and open broadband access for every American a priority in the next administration.
Notice how the title says "Internet for Everyone" but that "everyone" is narrowed down to "every American." So the rest of the world is going to be left out? Perhaps there was a three word limit in naming the campaign, so "Internet for Everyone" was more logical, and gave a sense of something greater than "Internet for Americans" or "Internet for America" or "Internet for All Americans" if there was no three word limit.
Maybe, one day when "every American" has Internet access, the campaign will expand beyond US borders and fully embrace its title, actually bringing Internet access to everyone.
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Google Tentacles Grad Hold of Healthcare
Ars Technica formally announced it's acquisition by Conde Nast, which seems to tilt it more in favor of Ars Technica staying as is, only with deeper pockets. A hint of hiring, too, perhaps...
But the big news today is the public (beta) launch of Google Health, which, you can imagine, has added more fuel to the privacy fire. There are posts from the usual suspects, the Official Google Blog, Tech Crunch, Ars Technica, NYT, Tribune via AP...list goes on. Google Health was being tested by the Cleveland Clinic, and not surprisingly, there was a waiting list for the limited number of open slots for the test. The thinking seems to be that Google has built a strong brand, a trusted brand, so people will flock to the service without giving it a second thought. Those who do stop and think for a second ask: what about HIPPA?
Most people have heard of HIPPA, or the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act; it's impossible to see a doctor without signing something about it, but few understand exactly what it does. In a nutshell, it protects your health care information by setting standards for electronic transmission or exchange of data, it protects your health insurance coverage if you find yourself out of work or change jobs and has various other rules, such as privacy, transaction and code sets, etc. You can read a simplified version from Wikipedia, or the whole statute. There is also a section on the HHS Office of Civil Rights website.
HIPPA, you'll notice, is mysteriously, or perhaps purposefully, missing from Google Health. Actually, you can't even access Google Health without a Google Account, which makes sense after you've read the first point of their Privacy Policy:
So unless you have my login information, you can't access my health information, or any other Google service normally accessed through a Google Account. Makes me feel slightly more secure, but then there is point two:
That makes me nervous. Having studied Google's Privacy Policy as part of my grad school education, I'm leary about Google products that store rather personal information. Yes, I use Blogger, I use Gmail, I use Google Docs, but not for anything I consider to be sensitive information. I don't, for example, keep track of my expenses through Google Docs. I don't do more than share and collaborate on documents that have little or no value if my account were to be compromised.
So its privacy policy is a little too open-ended for me. I like how it explicitly states that it will notify users of acquisitions, mergers and the like that may involve the transfer of personal information, but it says nothing about notifying users if the government, or some legal entity requests user information. I also find the wording of the "consent" phrase interesting:
It says "we have your consent" and then says opt-in is required. Not that opt-in is required and therefore, once you have opted-in, you have granted consent. Just the first phrase implies that once you create a Google Account, you have given them consent. How's that for being blunt.
Anyway, back to Google Health. The Privacy Policy for Google Health lists out the ways in which you, the user, control your information. You can delete information, and grant access, which basically means you open the flood gates. Surprise surprise. It expands on this, stating that if a website makes a copy of your information and stores it, then your information is now subject to that website's privacy policy, including HIPPA if the site owners must abide by HIPAA. Sounds as if you might be safer going with those that must abide by HIPPA. And, naturally, Google has its disclaimer about third-parties and not being liable..blah blah blah. I'd be curious to see how well that holds up if a site is infiltrated, and that infiltration leads to the hacking of Google Health. Imagine the treasure trove of information available. Yikes! Only need to think about the banking system to see how one might position oneself into such a situation.
It does seem as if Google Health is positioning itself as nothing more than a platform, but I'd wager this is only the start. It's too early to see what will really happen with Google Health. The privacy issues are expected, but people seem rather willing to trust Google, to a point. And there is something attractive about being able to access your health information from a central location.
And it may stay that way, for awhile, until a breach occurs or something happens that requires legal action but, alas, there is no legal recourse. Some creative lawyering may be needed.
The more I think about it, the more Google seems like the online equivalent of the Walt Disney Corporation: a country unto itself.
But the big news today is the public (beta) launch of Google Health, which, you can imagine, has added more fuel to the privacy fire. There are posts from the usual suspects, the Official Google Blog, Tech Crunch, Ars Technica, NYT, Tribune via AP...list goes on. Google Health was being tested by the Cleveland Clinic, and not surprisingly, there was a waiting list for the limited number of open slots for the test. The thinking seems to be that Google has built a strong brand, a trusted brand, so people will flock to the service without giving it a second thought. Those who do stop and think for a second ask: what about HIPPA?
Most people have heard of HIPPA, or the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act; it's impossible to see a doctor without signing something about it, but few understand exactly what it does. In a nutshell, it protects your health care information by setting standards for electronic transmission or exchange of data, it protects your health insurance coverage if you find yourself out of work or change jobs and has various other rules, such as privacy, transaction and code sets, etc. You can read a simplified version from Wikipedia, or the whole statute. There is also a section on the HHS Office of Civil Rights website.
HIPPA, you'll notice, is mysteriously, or perhaps purposefully, missing from Google Health. Actually, you can't even access Google Health without a Google Account, which makes sense after you've read the first point of their Privacy Policy:
You control who can access your personal health information. By default, you are the only user who can view and edit your information. If you choose to, you can share your information with others.
So unless you have my login information, you can't access my health information, or any other Google service normally accessed through a Google Account. Makes me feel slightly more secure, but then there is point two:
Google will not sell, rent, or share your information (identified or de-identified) without your explicit consent, except in the limited situations described in the Google Privacy Policy, such as when Google believes it is required to do so by law.
That makes me nervous. Having studied Google's Privacy Policy as part of my grad school education, I'm leary about Google products that store rather personal information. Yes, I use Blogger, I use Gmail, I use Google Docs, but not for anything I consider to be sensitive information. I don't, for example, keep track of my expenses through Google Docs. I don't do more than share and collaborate on documents that have little or no value if my account were to be compromised.
So its privacy policy is a little too open-ended for me. I like how it explicitly states that it will notify users of acquisitions, mergers and the like that may involve the transfer of personal information, but it says nothing about notifying users if the government, or some legal entity requests user information. I also find the wording of the "consent" phrase interesting:
We have your consent. We require opt-in consent for the sharing of any sensitive personal information.
It says "we have your consent" and then says opt-in is required. Not that opt-in is required and therefore, once you have opted-in, you have granted consent. Just the first phrase implies that once you create a Google Account, you have given them consent. How's that for being blunt.
Anyway, back to Google Health. The Privacy Policy for Google Health lists out the ways in which you, the user, control your information. You can delete information, and grant access, which basically means you open the flood gates. Surprise surprise. It expands on this, stating that if a website makes a copy of your information and stores it, then your information is now subject to that website's privacy policy, including HIPPA if the site owners must abide by HIPAA. Sounds as if you might be safer going with those that must abide by HIPPA. And, naturally, Google has its disclaimer about third-parties and not being liable..blah blah blah. I'd be curious to see how well that holds up if a site is infiltrated, and that infiltration leads to the hacking of Google Health. Imagine the treasure trove of information available. Yikes! Only need to think about the banking system to see how one might position oneself into such a situation.
It does seem as if Google Health is positioning itself as nothing more than a platform, but I'd wager this is only the start. It's too early to see what will really happen with Google Health. The privacy issues are expected, but people seem rather willing to trust Google, to a point. And there is something attractive about being able to access your health information from a central location.
And it may stay that way, for awhile, until a breach occurs or something happens that requires legal action but, alas, there is no legal recourse. Some creative lawyering may be needed.
The more I think about it, the more Google seems like the online equivalent of the Walt Disney Corporation: a country unto itself.
Friday, May 16, 2008
Ars Technica Has Been Acquired
I've been a fan of Ars Technica since I started studying IT and Privacy Law. The website has some excellent in-depth articles on current legal tech issues, as well as some really in-depth technical articles. I always learn something new when I visit the website, or gain a deeper understanding of something I already know.
There were a few moments when I caught myself wondering how Ars Technica can stay independent. It's a treasure trove of information, who wouldn't want to acquire it? But there was solace in the fact that it was independent, free from the corporate media tentacles that have acquired a taste for sucking the life out of free speech. There seems to be an agenda, and it is sold to the highest bidder.
So imagine my surprise when I saw this article on TechCrunch discussing the acquition of Ars Technica by Conde Nast/Wired. When the shock passed, and I read the post, it does make some sense. I've always thought Ars Technica the more...how should I put it...smarter version of Wired. Nothing against Wired, I read that too, there was just something more inviting, less busy, about Ars Technica. I'd read it first before Wired.
It's too early to do anything more than speculate, and speculating wouldn't do Ars Technica, or Conde Nast, justice. It will be interesting to see, however, what happens. It's possible there is now more fuel to add to the argument of media no longer being independent, even with the advent of the Internet.
But who knows. Perhaps Ars Technica will remain as is, just with deeper pockets which will allow it to improve and expand its offerings. So where do I send in my application for employment?
There were a few moments when I caught myself wondering how Ars Technica can stay independent. It's a treasure trove of information, who wouldn't want to acquire it? But there was solace in the fact that it was independent, free from the corporate media tentacles that have acquired a taste for sucking the life out of free speech. There seems to be an agenda, and it is sold to the highest bidder.
So imagine my surprise when I saw this article on TechCrunch discussing the acquition of Ars Technica by Conde Nast/Wired. When the shock passed, and I read the post, it does make some sense. I've always thought Ars Technica the more...how should I put it...smarter version of Wired. Nothing against Wired, I read that too, there was just something more inviting, less busy, about Ars Technica. I'd read it first before Wired.
It's too early to do anything more than speculate, and speculating wouldn't do Ars Technica, or Conde Nast, justice. It will be interesting to see, however, what happens. It's possible there is now more fuel to add to the argument of media no longer being independent, even with the advent of the Internet.
But who knows. Perhaps Ars Technica will remain as is, just with deeper pockets which will allow it to improve and expand its offerings. So where do I send in my application for employment?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)