With that goal in mind, Microsoft has launched a Facebook page called “Microsoft in Washington State.” The purpose of the page is to “provide updates and information about Microsoft’s engagement with public policy issues in Washington State.”

The page is broken down into four subsections, outlining the four areas that Microsoft is focusing on in the state. This includes Transportation, K-12 Education, Higher Education, and a program called Benchmarks for a Better Washington.

Our top four priority areas are:

Improving public education so that families can send their kids to great public schools, colleges and universities and the higher education sector can continue to be an engine of local economic growth.

Improving transportation infrastructure so all Washingtonians have a safe, reliable, efficient, and sustainable way of getting from place to place.

Promoting a healthy business climate including a sustainable state budget, so that Microsoft and other Washington employers remain competitive in the global information economy.

Advancing the quality of life so current and future citizens will live in healthy and vibrant communities enriched by arts, culture, natural outdoor resources, a human services safety net, and lifelong learning.

Simply Like the page to participate in discussions surrounding these core issues.

Microsoft is not shy about getting involved in governmental issues. Earlier this month, they came out strongly in support of marriage equality in Washington State.

[Via Redmond Reporter]

On that note, let’s say that you are having a Sunday afternoon picnic with your child. The weather’s good, you’ve been running around and playing – but now it’s time for lunch. You open up the cooler, only to discover that you’ve left a couple of the sandwiches in the car. The car’s just a few yards away, so you quickly run to grab the sandwiches.

And in a split second, you look back to see that your child is gone. You catch a black sedan speeding away and you are barely able to catch the license plate. Because you caught that license plate, police are able to search a giant database of plate captures and track the movements of the kidnapper.

A classic question: What is more important, public safety or personal freedom? What are you willing to sacrifice? Let us know in the comments.

Ok, I know this whole scenario seems a little bit Without A Trace or Lifetime movie-esque, but the point is that police were able to use an ever-expanding database of data culled from license plate snapshots in order to generate real-time location information. That’s a reality, and it’s happening in our nation’s capital, among other places.

The Washington Post is reporting that police in D.C. are beefing up the area covered by license plate cameras. More than 250 cameras in D.C. and its suburbs are constantly hard at work, grabbing license plate numbers and sticking them into databases. The police aren’t exactly doing this quietly, but it’s being done with “virtually no public debate.”

The highest concentration of these plate readers in the entire nation exists in D.C. (one reader per square mile), so that means that District police are building the biggest location database based on license plates in the whole country.

Let’s take a brief look at these license plate readers.

First, these are apparently different types of cameras than the cameras cities have been affixing near stoplights and other places to catch people running red lights or speeding – the “here’s a ticket 2 weeks later in the mail” cameras.

These plate readers cost about $20,000 each and can snatch images of numbers and letters on cars traveling nearly 150 mph and across four lanes of traffic. These plate readers in D.C. take 1,800 images per minute, every one of which is stored in a database.

Basically, these plate readers have made it possible for police to track everyone’s movements as they move across the city.

These plate readers and the subsequent database of image captures has tipped the privacy concerns of some – notably the American Civil Liberties Union. One of their main concerns is naturally the privacy implications.

In the District, laws are in place that limit the amount of time that surveillance camera footage can be kept. The images must be dumped after 10 days, unless there is an actual investigatory reason to keep them. But right now, there is nothing keeping data from the plate readers from being stored for years.

The ACLU says that this database is storing the location data of innocent people. And they are right. The plate readers are casting an all-inclusive net, grabbing license plate numbers indiscriminately.

Clearly this technology is rapidly approaching the point where it could be used to reconstruct the entire movements of any individual vehicle. As we have argued in the context of GPS tracking that level of intrusion on private life is something that the police should not be able to engage in without a warrant.

Let’s think back to the slightly-stylized child abduction scene from the beginning of this article. Maybe that seems a bit far-fetched, but the reality of the situation is that the plate reader database has helped police. According to the D.C. police department, they make an arrest a day with the help of the plate readers. In a four month period this year, they also found 51 stolen cars.

And although our child abduction story above might seem unrealistic, the possibilities are there for the plate readers to help in truly significant ways. Police could track cars to and from murder scenes or use it to identify players in organized crime circles like sex trafficking – by logging which cars travel between certain locations.

But the fact that the technology is beneficial or could be beneficial in terms of law enforcement does not assuage concerns of a “surveillance society” becoming the norm in the U.S. It’s a classic argument that pits personal liberties against security and safety. Just how much of your freedom are you able to give up to feel safer? This is a crucial debate that we’ve seen play out most recently after 9/11 with the Patriot Act.

The ACLU channels Minority Report to discuss preemptive law enforcement:

Of course, if the police track all of us all the time, there is no doubt that will help to solve some crimes — just as it would no doubt help solve some crimes if they could read everybody’s e-mail and install cameras in everybody’s homes. But in a free society, we don’t let the police watch over us just because we might do something wrong. That is not the balance struck by our Constitution and is not the balance we should strike in our policymaking.

Obviously, the plate readers are a valuable tool for the police, and there are an abundance of situations where one could imagine the searchable database of plate captures to be extremely useful. But are those plate readers building up a database that’s just a little too full of innocent people’s location information for your liking?

If this kind of thing is to proliferate (both in D.C. and across the country), it is argued that it needs to see the light of day. Basically, society should have time to debate its merits and discuss their concerns. “The police should not be able to run out and buy a new technology and put it in place before anybody realizes what’s going on,” says Jay Stanley of the ACLU’s Privacy and Technology Program.

What do you think about the expansion of the plate reader technology? Do the benefits outweigh the privacy and personal freedom concerns? Or is this an example of big brother yielding too much power with the ability to catalog this data without warrants? Let us know in the comments.

That was my reaction to a Reuters article that I came across. I am still a little taken aback, as they say, about the even the threat of the US government looking into ways to bailout the struggling newspaper / old school media industry. Right now it’s more talk than anything else but if someone said it in a public forum then you know there are greater rumblings going through Washington with a similar stink on them. I guess you can guess where I stand on this one, huh?

The Reuters article starts off

A top Democratic lawmaker predicted on Wednesday that the government will be involved in shaping the future for struggling U.S. media organizations.

House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman, saying quality journalism was essential to U.S. democracy, said eventually government would have to help resolve the problems caused by a failing business model.

Waxman, other U.S. lawmakers and regulators are looking into various options to help a newspaper industry hurt by the shift in advertising revenues to online platforms.

Can you see me shaking my head now? Did the government bailout the horse and buggy industry when the automobile was invented? Did the government bailout the radio industry when TV came along? Did anyone bailout the transcribers of the world when the Gutenberg press started producing the printed word?

If journalism is essential to the US democracy then let the free market system that has built this democracy into one of the greatest powers of the modern age (at least until recently that is) take care of how this plays out! The last thing we need is the government handing tax benefits and even worse, more deficit funded handouts to the likes of the Washington Post, New York Times and anything that Rupert Murdoch is whining about these days.

So who will profit from this concept more: our democracy or the likes of Rupert Murdoch? Hey let’s just go out and figure out which failing business model victim looks the most like AIG, Bank of America or Government General Motors and throw money at their executives business and see just how much better it gets. WTF!

This is not a government issue for goodness sake. This is a paradigm shift issue. The world is changing and not everything survives change. Why are we so obsessed with keeping something alive that may not have a place in the new world media order? And if it does have a place let the free market principles that allowed it to thrive for so long determine what piece or pieces will move forward as we boldly go further in the digital age.

Of course there is some press constituency that thinks this a great idea. Wonder who pays their bills?

Free Press, a public interest group, said the search for solutions to the crisis in journalism should be premised on the idea that news-gathering is a public service, not a commodity.

Waxman’s “indication that government has a role to play is both bold and soberly sensible,” said Free Press Policy Director Ben Scott on the sidelines of the FTC conference.

I call BS on this one. Honestly, if the newspapers were truly a public service shouldn’t they have acted more responsibly to the change that very public is undergoing in how it consumes news? Business change is not always about failure; it’s usually more about progress and smarts or lack thereof. If the newspapers have ignored the myriad tell tale signs that have been written on the wall for years now why should MY TAX dollars save them from their own arrogance and stupidity? What have they done for me and my business?

Geesh, just the rumor of this happening really ticks me off! Hey, Senator Waxman and anyone else who thinks this is a good idea! Shut up and go read your Washington Post while it’s still here!

Phew! That felt great because I am part of the new free press and I plan on being around in the digital age as long as I can identify what people really want. Will it last forever? Probably not but if I am not smart enough to get on board the next train that is heading for the future don’t bail me out. That’ll be my problem not yours.

UPDATE: Google CEO Eric Schmidt gives the WSJ his ideas for fixing the “crisis” in the newspaper industry.

Comments

The information that has hit the media stream is the social media guidelines that have been imposed on the staffers of the Washington Post as the newspaper tries to hold on to some shred of integrity in the new world order. paidContent.org has ‘received’ a copy of the entire directive. Some highlights:

When using social networking tools for reporting or for our personal lives, we must remember that Washington Post journalists are always Washington Post journalists. The following guidelines apply to all Post journalists, without limitation to the subject matter of their assignments.

Using Social Networking Tools for Reporting

When using social networks such as Facebook, LinkedIn, My Space or Twitter for reporting, we must protect our professional integrity. Washington Post journalists should identify themselves as such. We must be accurate in our reporting and transparent about our intentions when participating. We must be concise yet clear when describing who we are and what information we seek.

Using Social Networking Tools for Personal Reasons

All Washington Post journalists relinquish some of the personal privileges of private citizens. Post journalists must recognize that any content associated with them in an online social network is, for practical purposes, the equivalent of what appears beneath their bylines in the newspaper or on our website.

So you get the gist from the few snippets above and the rest of the ‘media’, of course, like the folks at TechCrunch, are up in arms. Personally, I see both sides of this one pretty clearly and as it in a world where everything is relative and everyone is right (which is just plain idiotic but that’s for another place and time) this is to be expected.

From the reporter’s point of view I suspect they would feel like they are indentured servant of sorts to the newspaper that pays them to do their jobs on behalf of the newspaper (without which, by the way, most of them would have no voice at all). I get that and I can see where the policy would feel somewhat Draconian. Reporters are people too and deserve a private life. One thing though is that life is full of compromises and this may be one of them in the new media world order.

As for the company, they are on the edge as it is because they probably feel like they have lost control of everything. Advertising is in the crapper and newspapers are the whipping boys of everyone these days. The last thing they need is to have a rogue comment or two show up in the hands of a competitor that paints them as a shill for whatever constituency might benefit from someone’s (i.e. a staffer’s) opinion.

I think this one is a lose / lose. Journalistic integrity is a myth. Everyone has opinions. The idea of fair and balanced and “We report, you decide” is pure marketing BS. It’s how far a publication lets its opinions go that defines who they are and what position they hold in the marketplace.

The Washington Post is just exhibiting the desperate state of media as it goes through the growing pains of once having complete control and ultimate power to being relegated to the sidelines of relevancy because it has abused its position for far too long. People are fed up with the mainstream media controlling the message like these guidelines attempt to do so this will not help their efforts to stay alive.

Oh, as for you reporters who are upset about this, just go out and start a blog! That’s where the real money is anyway! Great benefits too! In other words, relax. You should be happy that you have a job these days.

Comments

The center called reStart is a 45-day program costing $14,500 and is located near Microsoft’s Redmond headquarters. reStart says its program is specifically designed to help Internet and video game addicts overcome their dependence on gaming, gambling, chatting, texting and other aspects of Internet addiction.

The center was co-founded by Cosette Rae, MSW, and Hilarie Cash, PhD.

According to reStart, current research indicates that anywhere from 6-10 percent of the online population is dependent on the Internet. Among gamers, those playing MMOGs (like World of Warcraft) appear to be addicted at much higher levels.

reStart argues that the United States has been slow to recognize the problem of Internet addiction and its program is part of the process of drawing attention to the issue.

The mission of the program is helping people, addicted to video games and the Internet, find balance, and reconnect to the real world. The program includes individual and group therapy, life-skills coaching, cooperative living, physical and nutritional education, mindfulness training, skill building and 12-step meetings. 

The American Psychiatric Association currently does not have a listing for Internet addiction in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. The possibility of Internet addiction making it into the manual will not happen until its next update in 2012.
 

There have been a lot of privacy concerns regarding Google’s Interest-based advertising, which was announced earlier this year. Essentially, this is where Google serves ads based on users’ browsing history. The company does have a video available about privacy in relation to this.

In her testimony, which is available in its entirety in this PDF document, Wong discusses three main topics. These are:

- Google’s main advertising products and the benefits Google believes online advertising brings to advertisers, online publishers, and individual Internet users

- Google’s approach to privacy, specific steps that the company takes to protect users’ privacy, and the release of interest-based advertising

- Ideas and recommendations for how to better protect Internet users’ privacy with respect to advertising, as well as more generally

In the first part,  Wong discusses the benefits of AdWords, AdSense for search, AdSense for Content, the Google Content Network, DoubleClick, etc. "In our experience, users value the advertisements that we deliver along with search results and other web content because the ads help connect them to the information, products, and services they’re looking for," she says.

With regards to privacy, Wong says the following three fundamentals have to be "at the bedrock of" privacy products and practices:

- Transparency
- Choice
- Security

Wong also notes that innovation is "a critical part" of Google’s approach to privacy. "To best innovate in privacy, we welcome the feedback of privacy advocates, government experts, our users, and other stakeholders," she says. "This feedback, and our own internal discussions about how to protect privacy, has led to several privacy innovations, including our development of new privacy tools for new products and our decision last year to anonymize our server logs after nine months for IP addresses and 18 months for cookies."

If you have any amount of interest in Google and privacy, particularly with its relation to advertising, you should definitely read the entire testimony. What do you think about it? Comment.

She will discuss the ways innovation can help preserve journalism, and how Google is "doing its part by driving significant traffic to online news publishers, by helping them generate revenue through advertising, and by providing tools and platforms that enable them to reach millions of people," as the company describes it on the Google Public Policy Blog.

Google has made Mayer’s entire testimony available for download (pdf). "Every day, millions of people search the web for relevant answers to their questions," says Mayer. "In response, search engines strive to connect each user with the right results, and those results can come in any number of different forms: a web page, an image, a video, a map, or a news story – something of particular relevance to today’s hearing."

"In each of those cases, search engines play the role of connecting users with high-quality content — often journalistic — ultimately sending traffic to the publisher’s website. Google is one such search engine that people use to find answers online," she adds.

The testimony is broken down into three main points – how search acts as a conduit for journalism, creating economic opportunities for publishers, and the structure of the web and its impact on publishers.

Within that last one, Mayer discusses "the atomic unit of consumption," the living story," and "keeping users engaged." Others speaking at the event include Senator Ben Cardin, Alberto Ibargüen, David Simon, Steve Coll, James Moroney, and Ariana Huffington.

Attorney General Rob McKenna reportedly stated that, “When it comes to Internet search results, every small business wants to pull a high ranking. Merchants hoping to increase their online sales paid thousands of dollars to Visible.net and Captures.com but didn’t always receive the top listings and other services they were promised.”

The lawsuit was filed on the 12th of November, 2008, in the King County Superior Court and it accuses of Visible.net, Captures.com and their owner, Gilbert Walker, of violating the state consumer protection and telemarketing laws.

The website, ‘Webmarketingsource.com’, is also owned by the same and the services provided under these banners include Website designing, Search Optimization, E-commerce services and other Internet Marketing services. The defendants promote these services through their above-listed websites and telemarketing. The packages offered by them feature a startup fee ranging from of $3,749.99 to $9,749.99, in addition to a monthly fee ranging from $39.99 $99.99.

Paula Selis, assistant attorney general of the Attorney General’s Consumer Protection High-Tech Unit, was quoted as saying, “The Attorney General’s Office and Better Business Bureau have received nearly 90 complaints about the defendants, showing a pattern of recurring problems since at least 2005.” Among others, the lawsuit accuses the defendants of the following violations:

• Failure to register with the Department of Licensing as a commercial telephone solicitor and also failure to provide a written confirmation of a consumers’ rights under the Act of Commercial Telephone Solicitation.
• Misrepresenting the ability to significantly increase the website traffic to customer Web sites by providing top search-engine rankings and failure to deliver other promised services.
• False claim of an affiliation with other marketers including ‘Specialty Merchandise Company’, reportedly a drop-ship wholesaler.
• False claims that its customer service representatives are reachable at all times when, in fact, customers are frequently unable to reach the representatives and sometimes do not even receive return calls.
• Failure to provide refunds or honor cancellation requests.
• Continuing billing the credit cards of consumers who have attempted to cancel the services and submitting alleged debts to collection agencies.

The state is presently seeking civil penalties, consumer restitution and a court order to halt the deceptive practices of the defendant.

Comments

Starting today Washington joins 18 other states that require some online retailers to collect sales tax. About 1,100 ecommerce retailers have agreed to collect taxes in exchange for the state not going after them for back taxes.

Last year Washington passed the law to require online retailers to collect sales tax. The new law changes the state’s tax system from origin-based to destination-based. Taxes will be collected based on the location of the buyer, not the location of the seller.

"This is a very important step,"Mark Johnson, vice president of government affairs for the Washington Retail Association, told the Seattle Post-Intelligencer. "It’s a major changing of our tax structure."

Brick-and-mortar stores support the online sales tax saying that it allows for fairer competition with ecommerce businesses.

Most smaller businesses do not support the new tax law. They will have to implant new software in order to identify Washington’s 350 taxing districts. They are also concerned about the law becoming national, as they would then be required to sift through thousands of tax codes and file returns throughout the year for each code.