Why the rise of authoritarianism is a global catastrophe; Washington Post, February 13, 2017

Garry Kasparov and Thor Halvorssen, Washington Post; Why the rise of authoritarianism is a global catastrophe

[Kip Currier: A must-read ethical-call-to-action by two people who have directly suffered under authoritarianism and are expending their energies and voices toward raising awareness and taking civil liberties-based action on behalf of humanity, against abject moral bankruptcy and appalling abuses of power by authoritarian regimes.]

"If authoritarianism and dictatorship are to be properly challenged — and if so many resulting crises, including military conflict, poverty and extremism, are to be addressed at their root cause — such dissidents need funding, strategic advice, technical training, attention and solidarity. To turn the tide against repression, people across all industries need to join the movement. Artists, entrepreneurs, technologists, investors, diplomats, students — no matter who you are, you can reach out to a civil society organization at risk and ask how you can help by using your knowledge, resources or skills.

Today, authoritarians rule an increasingly large part of the globe, but the leaders of the free world lack the motivation and gumption to create a new U.N.-style League of Democracies. In the meantime, as individuals living in a free society, we believe it is our moral obligation to take action to expose human rights violations and to use our freedom to help others achieve theirs."

Raucous Town Hall In Utah Blasts GOP Rep. Chaffetz Over Trump; Huffington Post, February 10, 2017

Mary Papenfuss, Huffington Post; 

Raucous Town Hall In Utah Blasts GOP Rep. Chaffetz Over Trump

[Kip Currier: Even if the U.S. President is exempt from conflict of interest laws, as Rep. Jason Chaffetz asserts below, he ignores a fundamental underpinning of democracy, the rule of law, and good governance: the need for the public's belief in the integrity of such systems. 

To avoid an "air of impropriety" (i.e. perception that a particular action doesn't look "right" or fair)--to promote the U.S. electorate's faith in the integrity of elected officials to not unduly profit from public service--a U.S. President should voluntarily abide by conflict of interest laws and strive for the highest level of ethical conduct.

A related aside about the Judicial Branch, on the "air of impropriety" rationale for voluntary ethical compliance, transparency, and accountability: conflict of interest arguments have been made about the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court, who have continually avoided being bound by a formal ethics code and the Code of Conduct for federal judges that applies to every other federal judge. As Lincoln Caplan's 2015 New Yorker article "DOES THE SUPREME COURT NEED A CODE OF CONDUCT?" persuasively posits:

Impartiality is an essential requirement for a judge. But, as Charles Geyh, the legal scholar who directed the A.B.A. study, wrote, “It is not enough that judges be impartial; the public must perceive them to be so.” Whether a judge is on the highest court in the land or on one of the many others, we are much more likely, in a case where his impartiality has been questioned, to view him as impartial if another judge concludes so after conducting an independent appraisal. That’s crucial to the effectiveness of this country’s courts, which makes it crucial to the soundness of American democracy.]

"“Where do you draw a line in the sand?” asked one woman in the audience regarding Trump’s potential conflicts of interest.

“Everyone has to comply with the law,” Chaffetz responded. “You’re really not going to like this part,” again to boos. “The president, under the law, is exempt from the conflict-of-interest laws.”"

Did Kellyanne Conway's plug for Ivanka Trump violate ethics rules? Lawmakers seek ethics probe; ABA Journal, February 9, 2017

Debra Cassens Weiss, ABA Journal; 

Did Kellyanne Conway's plug for Ivanka Trump violate ethics rules? Lawmakers seek ethics probe

"Don Fox, a former general counsel and acting director for the ethics office, called Conway’s statement “jaw-dropping.”

“Conway’s encouragement to buy Ivanka’s stuff would seem to be a clear violation of rules prohibiting misuse of public office for anyone’s private gain,” he told the Washington Post.

Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe agreed with that assessment. “You couldn’t think of a clearer example of violating the ban of using your government position as kind of a walking billboard for products or services offered by a private individual,” he told the New York Times."

Kellyanne Conway's ethics scandal is blatant. Can't Jason Chaffetz see that?; Guardian, February 10, 2017

Lucia Graves, Guardian; 

Kellyanne Conway's ethics scandal is blatant. Can't Jason Chaffetz see that?

 "In making noise but doing nothing, Schweizer and Chaffetz and even the president’s press secretary, Sean Spicer, who said Conway had been “counseled” but refused elaborate at all on what that entailed, are all doing the same thing. They’re doing the minimal amount in hopes the public will forget, as quickly as possible, about what has every appearance of being a gross abuse of the power of political office."

What Would Michelle Obama Do?; Politico, February 11, 2017

Sarah Hurwitz, Politico; What Would Michelle Obama Do?

"We cannot know for sure what is going through the minds of those who have been silent or have responded meekly to such appalling words and actions from the president who is now the standard-bearer for their party. Some might agree with him, but for those who don’t, we can guess it may be something like this: A number of my constituents like Trump, so I better keep my mouth shut. I don’t want to anger the president because he could make my life difficult. Hardly anyone else in the party is sticking their neck out about any of this, so that must mean it’s OK to stay quiet. This is just the price we have to pay to move our agenda forward.

Such words are cyanide for moral courage. They are the enemy of integrity, compassion and common sense. When we say “never again” this is precisely what we mean—that we must never again talk over or talk away the truths we need to speak to, and about, those who misuse power.

During her time as first lady, whether reacting to videotaped boasts about sexual assault—“It is cruel. It’s frightening. And the truth is, it hurts”—or urging us to go high when they go low, Michelle Obama showed us what it means to speak such truths. She verbalized her moral impulses—period."

State-sponsored hackers targeting prominent journalists, Google warns; Politico, February 10, 2017

Daniel Lippman, Politico; 

State-sponsored hackers targeting prominent journalists, Google warns

"Google has warned a number of prominent journalists that state-sponsored hackers are attempting to steal their passwords and break into their inboxes, the journalists tell POLITICO...

Some journalists getting the warnings say they suspect the hackers could be Russians looking to find incriminating emails they could leak to embarrass journalists, either by revealing alleged liberal bias or to expose the sausage-making of D.C. journalism."

Am I Imagining This?; New York Times, February 10, 2017

Roger Cohen, New York Times; 

Am I Imagining This?

"Simon Schama, the British historian, recently tweeted: “Indifference about the distinction between truth and lies is the precondition of fascism. When truth perishes so does freedom.”...

Facts matter. The federal judiciary is pushing back. The administration is leaking. Journalism (no qualifier needed) has never been more important. Truth has not yet perished, but to deny that it is under siege would be to invite disaster."

Shutting down fake news could move us closer to a modern-day ‘1984’; Washington Post, February 10, 2017

Fleming Rose and Jacob Mchangama, Washington Post; Shutting down fake news could move us closer to a modern-day ‘1984’

"It is understandable that liberal democracies are deeply worried about disinformation, which tears at the fabric of pluralistic democratic societies. John Stuart Mill famously argued that free speech would help exchange “error for truth” and create “the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.” Yet this justification weakens considerably if lies and disinformation become indistinguishable from truth. In such an environment, “Democracy will not survive a lack of belief in the possibility of impartial institutions,” political scientist Francis Fukuyama recently wrote.

“Instead, partisan political combat will come to pervade every aspect of life.”

That is indeed a nightmare scenario to be avoided. But using legal measures to counter disinformation is likely to be a cure worse than the disease. One does not need to go back to the Cold War to worry about what happens when governments become the arbiters of truth."

Fake news is 'killing people's minds', says Apple boss Tim Cook; Guardian, February 10, 2017

Kevin Rawlinson, Guardian; 

Fake news is 'killing people's minds', says Apple boss Tim Cook

"Fake news is “killing people’s minds”, Tim Cook, the head of Apple, has said. The technology boss said firms such as his own needed to create tools that would help stem the spread of falsehoods, without impinging on freedom of speech.

Cook also called for governments to lead information campaigns to crack down on fake news in an interview with a British national newspaper. The scourge of falsehoods in mainstream political discourse came to the fore during recent campaigns, during which supporters of each side were accused of promoting misinformation for political gain.

“We are going through this period of time right here where unfortunately some of the people that are winning are the people that spend their time trying to get the most clicks, not tell the most truth,” Cook told the Daily Telegraph. “It’s killing people’s minds, in a way.”

He said: “All of us technology companies need to create some tools that help diminish the volume of fake news. We must try to squeeze this without stepping on freedom of speech and of the press, but we must also help the reader. Too many of us are just in the ‘complain’ category right now and haven’t figured out what to do.”"

Oracle refuses to accept pro-Google “fair use” verdict in API battle; Ars Technica, 2/11/17

David Kravets, Ars Technica; 

Oracle refuses to accept pro-Google “fair use” verdict in API battle

"Google successfully made its case to a jury last year that its use of Java APIs in Android was "fair use." A San Francisco federal jury rejected Oracle's claim that the mobile system infringed Oracle's copyrights.

But Oracle isn't backing down. Late Friday, the company appealed the high-profile verdict to a federal appeals court."

Long Overdue: Why public libraries are finally eliminating the late-return fine.; Slate, 2/6/17

Ruth Graham, Slate;

Long Overdue: Why public libraries are finally eliminating the late-return fine.

"Free public libraries are so interwoven into American life that it can be hard to appreciate their radical premise: Anyone in town can take home any book, for free. Overdue fines have always operated as a hedge on that communal trust, the nagging little stick that comes with the big, beautiful carrot. Fines imply that a library’s mission is not only to encourage reading but to perform a kind of moral instruction. But does it make sense for libraries to perform both of those jobs? “We’ve had 150 years to try to teach customers timeliness or responsibility, and I don’t know that that’s our greatest success story,” said Losinski, a few days after his library system abandoned late fees. Reid put it more simply when she explained the message she wanted residents of High Plains to take away: “We trust you.”"

Losing a Library: A Community That Gives Up its Library Gives Up On Itself; Library Journal, 2/3/17

Rebecca T. Miller, Library Journal; 

Losing a Library: A Community That Gives Up its Library Gives Up On Itself 

"On April 1, the people of Oregon’s Douglas County will see ten of their 11 libraries close. The last, the main, will soon follow. This decision by the county Board of Commissioners, announced January 9, is a sad outcome to a long battle to keep the system open. For those who live there, it will mean a devastating loss of a key cultural hub along with the access to information, expertise, technology, stories, voices from around the world, a book-rich environment, and all the skill development, inspiration, and aspiration these resources offer. It’s a loss the community at large should not take lightly.

This closure comes in spite of a relatively strong outlook for U.S. libraries."

Donald Trump thinks he’s a strong leader. But that’s an illusion.; Washington Post, 2/7/17

Archie Brown, Washington Post; Donald Trump thinks he’s a strong leader. But that’s an illusion.

"Nothing is more important than that an administration should contain people of independent political standing, of great and varied experience, and that within the government they should not engage in self-censorship, adjusting their advice to the perceived predilections of the top leader. They should be prepared to subject his conclusions to serious scrutiny and to provide counter-arguments. No president or prime minister in a democracy was ever selected because he or she was believed to have a monopoly of wisdom. A democracy worthy of the name has many leaders, not one.

A leader — in a democracy as well as an authoritarian regime — who tries to monopolize power will certainly do more harm than good. Far more valuable qualities of a head of government than “strength” in that sense include integrity, intelligence, collegiality, a questioning mind, willingness to seek disparate views, ability to absorb information, empathy, good memory, flexibility, courage, and (if we are lucky) vision. Those who possess that last quality eschew chauvinistic bravado and never confuse the long-term interests of their country with what may play well in the media (social and not) today."

Penn State joining Open Textbook Network to support affordable course content; Penn State News, 1/31/17

Penn State News; 

Penn State joining Open Textbook Network to support affordable course content

"Penn State University Libraries is joining the Open Textbook Network to help support Penn State faculty’s use of and students’ availability to free, openly licensed academic course content.

“Penn State’s membership in the Open Textbook Network supports faculty and students’ access to a large volume of free, openly licensed course content, available online, to help reduce students’ overall cost of attendance,” Joe Salem, the University Libraries’ associate dean for Learning, Undergraduate Services, and Commonwealth Campus Libraries, said. “Joining the Open Textbook Network was one of the recommendations of the University’s Open Educational Resources Task Force as part of a multi-faceted approach to supporting open and affordable course content throughout the curriculum.”

The Open Textbook Network (OTN) helps support colleges and universities’ instructional use of open textbooks and practices. Its Open Textbook Library is the premiere resource for peer-reviewed academic textbooks, all of which are free, openly licensed and complete, according to its website...

Penn State is among the largest universities to join OTN, which was established in fall 2015, and an early supporter among its peer institutions. Other Big Ten Academic Alliance members participating in OTN include the University of Iowa, the University of Minnesota, Ohio State, Purdue, Rutgers, and the Milwaukee and Stout campuses of the University of Wisconsin system."

The crucial fight that the anti-Trump resistance is forgetting; Washington Post, 2/2/17

Carlos Lozada, Washington Post; The crucial fight that the anti-Trump resistance is forgetting

"In his introduction to “What We Do Now,” co-editor Dennis Johnson writes of the widespread “despair,” “grief” and “disillusionment” that followed the election. There is anger, too. “Stay OUTRAGED,” writes Linda Sarsour, executive director of the Arab American Association of New York. “Perpetual outrage is what’s going to fuel our movement right now.” There is but glancing thought given to the despair, grief, disillusionment and outrage that preceded the vote, that may have compelled people who once (or twice) supported Barack Obama to cast their lot with Trump. If the resistance is to grow beyond the already converted, if it is to engage in that second battle, it will need some of those people, too.

You know, “stronger together” and all that.

Two essays in “What We Do Now,” tucked at the end of the book, take on that challenge. Novelist Dave Eggers shares his post-election travels through Kentucky, Pennsylvania and Michigan, where he talked with voters, students and immigrants about their hopes and motivations. And Nato Thompson, artistic director at Creative Time, calls on artists to “create work that challenges the forces that brought this situation into existence and will continue operating throughout Trump’s presidency.” And to do that, you have to break out beyond those who think or feel like you do.

“The capacity to produce a more nuanced discussion that cuts across ideology, geography, and political party will be as essential as ever,” Thompson writes."

'This is the new reality': Panelists speak for Pitt cyber security institute; Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 2/3/17

Chris Potter, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette; 

'This is the new reality': Panelists speak for Pitt cyber security institute:

[Kip Currier: This was a fascinating and informative panel at the University of Pittsburgh on February 2, 2017, discussing cyberhacking, efforts to identify hackers and hacker-sanctioning actors/nation states, and responses to hacking threats and incidents.

Two comments (which I'll paraphrase below, without benefit of a transcript) by panelist and Russian journalist Andrei Soldatov, stood out for me:

1. Vladimir Putin's Russia has deftly understood and exploited the distinction between "cybersecurity" and "information security" (the West, Soldatov contends, has focused more on the former).

2. Under Stalin, technical training in Soviet universities and technical institutes did not include study of ethics and the humanities (largely relegated to those in medical professions).]

"The precise identity and motivations of the hackers who leaked sensitive Democratic emails during last year’s presidential election may never be known. But they left fingerprints that were familiar to Andrei Soldatov, a journalist who has written about Russia’s security state for the past 20 years.

Like much of the propaganda back home, Mr. Soldatov said at a University of Pittsburgh panel discussion Thursday, “It’s not about building the positive narrative, it’s about building the negative narrative. … To say everyone is corrupt and no one can be trusted — people will accept this.”

Mr. Soldatov was one of four panelists convened by Pitt’s fledgling Institute of Cyber Law, Policy, and Security and its new director, former U.S. Attorney David Hickton. The discussion drew a few hundred people to the first public event for the center, which focuses on cybercrime and cybersecurity."

Trump White House takes down website pages about disabilities; Washington Post, 1/20/17

Emma Brown, Washington Post; Trump White House takes down website pages about disabilities

"From The Post’s Answer Sheet blog by Valerie Strauss:

During the Obama administration, there was a page on the White House website that had information about federal policy regarding people with disabilities. Its URL was https://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/disabilities. Not under the Trump administration. The Trump-run White House website — which went live moments after Friday’s inauguration of President Trump — says: “You are not authorized to access this page.”...

Read the rest of the story here."

The Trump era begins on the web; New York Times, 1/20/17

Nick Corasaniti, Matthew Rosenberg, Jennifer Steinhauer, New York Times; The Trump era begins on the web

"It didn’t take long.

The Department of Labor’s report on lesbians, bisexuals, gays and transsexuals in the workplace? Gone.

The White House’s exposition on the threat of climate change and efforts to combat it? Gone.

In its place, An America First Energy Plan..."

Scientists Needn't Get A Patient's Consent To Study Blood Or DNA; NPR, 1/18/17

Rob Stein, NPR; 

Scientists Needn't Get A Patient's Consent To Study Blood Or DNA

"The Obama administration has dropped a controversial proposal that would have required all federally funded scientists to get permission from patients before using their cells, blood, tissue or DNA for research.

The proposal was eliminated from the final revision of the Common Rule, which was published in the Federal Register Wednesday. The rule is a complex set of regulations designed to make sure federally funded research on human subjects is conducted ethically. The revision to the regulations, set to go into effect in 2018, marks the first time the rule has been updated in 26 years.

The initial proposal that researchers be required to get permission before using a patient's tissue sample for research came out of the desire to avoid repeating what happened to Henrietta Lacks, an American who died of cervical cancer in 1951. Some of the cells from Lacks' cancer were kept alive for decades, used in research and for commercial purposes without her consent or her family's knowledge.

But scientists have argued that the mandate for consent in the initial Obama proposal was unnecessary and would hinder crucial research...

The final decision was welcomed by scientists and universities."

How statistics lost their power – and why we should fear what comes next; Guardian, 1/19/17

William Davies, Guardian; How statistics lost their power – and why we should fear what comes next

"The question to be taken more seriously, now that numbers are being constantly generated behind our backs and beyond our knowledge, is where the crisis of statistics leaves representative democracy.

On the one hand, it is worth recognising the capacity of long-standing political institutions to fight back. Just as “sharing economy” platforms such as Uber and Airbnb have recently been thwarted by legal rulings (Uber being compelled to recognise drivers as employees, Airbnb being banned altogether by some municipal authorities), privacy and human rights law represents a potential obstacle to the extension of data analytics. What is less clear is how the benefits of digital analytics might ever be offered to the public, in the way that many statistical data sets are. Bodies such as the Open Data Institute, co-founded by Tim Berners-Lee, campaign to make data publicly available, but have little leverage over the corporations where so much of our data now accumulates. Statistics began life as a tool through which the state could view society, but gradually developed into something that academics, civic reformers and businesses had a stake in. But for many data analytics firms, secrecy surrounding methods and sources of data is a competitive advantage that they will not give up voluntarily.

A post-statistical society is a potentially frightening proposition, not because it would lack any forms of truth or expertise altogether, but because it would drastically privatise them. Statistics are one of many pillars of liberalism, indeed of Enlightenment. The experts who produce and use them have become painted as arrogant and oblivious to the emotional and local dimensions of politics. No doubt there are ways in which data collection could be adapted to reflect lived experiences better. But the battle that will need to be waged in the long term is not between an elite-led politics of facts versus a populist politics of feeling. It is between those still committed to public knowledge and public argument and those who profit from the ongoing disintegration of those things."

Elizabeth Warren: Trump’s nominees are putting us all at risk by ignoring ethics laws; Washington Post, 1/19/17

Elizabeth Warren, Washington Post; Elizabeth Warren: Trump’s nominees are putting us all at risk by ignoring ethics laws

"Congress must take these ethical requirements seriously. No Cabinet member should receive a hearing before his or her background checks, financial disclosures and ethics agreements are finished and senators have had time to review them. Nominees should be forthcoming and transparent. If those hearings have occurred, nominees who have not completed their ethics reviews should return for another round of questions after that information is made available. Senators should be thorough in their assessment and questioning of nominees. And financial conflicts with official duties must be eliminated.

I recently introduced legislation that would protect the president and vice president from financial conflicts and constitutional violations by requiring them to fully disclose and divest themselves of all personal financial interests. No such law is necessary for Cabinet officials because the laws on the books are perfectly clear.

If Congress ignores these basic ethics requirements today, the American people and the nominees themselves likely will pay the price tomorrow."

At Trump Hotel in Washington, Champagne Toasts in an Ethical ‘Minefield’; New York Times; 1/19/17

Eric Lipton and Susanne Craig, New York Times; 

At Trump Hotel in Washington, Champagne Toasts in an Ethical ‘Minefield’

"The lease between the General Services Administration and the Trump company includes a clause — “no member or delegate to Congress, or elected official of the government of the United States or the government of the District of Columbia, shall be admitted to any share or part of this lease, or to any benefit that may arise therefrom” — that federal contract experts say makes clear that Mr. Trump will be in violation of the deal as soon as he is sworn in.

“The basic integrity and credibility of the president of the United States of the federal procurement and contracting regime is at risk,” said Steven L. Schooner, a professor specializing in government procurement law at George Washington University. “We are about to have a legitimate scandal on our hands.”"

Trump Talks Up His Luxury Hotel; Ethics Expert Pounces; NPR, 1/19/17

Jackie Northam, NPR; 

Trump Talks Up His Luxury Hotel; Ethics Expert Pounces

"Incoming White House spokesman Sean Spicer told reporters Thursday Trump's use of the hotel for a reception shouldn't come as a "shocker" to anyone, and he even gave his boss's hotel a plug.

"It's an absolutely stunning hotel; I encourage you to go there if you haven't been by," he told the press briefing.

Norm Eisen, former special counsel to President Obama for ethics and government reform, quickly tweeted that Spicer's statement would be considered an ethics violation once Trump is in the White House."

Why We Shouldn’t Mourn The Obamas’ Departure From The White House; Huffington Post, 1/19/17

Zeba Blay, Huffington Post; 

Why We Shouldn’t Mourn The Obamas’ Departure From The White House

"The Obamas meant many things to many people. To some they meant the fruition of the American Dream. To others they meant the destruction of it. There are millions of Americans who are emphatically glad to see Obama go, who are blissfully excited about a Trump presidency and its vague promise to “make America great again.” 

And there are millions of Americans who feel as if a loved one has just died. But no one has died. If we should take anything away from the legacy of these last eight years, it’s that there is no president who can save us from our collective demons. Only we can do that.

For those whose hearts are breaking, it may seem pithy and banal to use the quote: “Don’t cry because it’s over, smile because it happened.”

But really. Don’t cry. Because the Obamas get to be citizens again, for one thing. They get to move out of the line of fire of an almost constant, condensed stream of racial hate. But also ― we got to witness this. For better or worse. We witnessed a black president. And for centuries to come, children of all races and backgrounds will see his face looking up at them from their history textbooks, and they will take for granted the profundity of it.  

There’s actually a streak of that intangible thing called “hope” to be found in the Obama’s departure. For many of us, the prospect of the next four years seems bleak. But if Barack Obama could get through eight years as a black president in America with his sanity and his dignity intact, and even effect a little change, perhaps there is room for some cautious optimism. At the very least, we can try."

Will open data survive Trump?; InfoWorld, 1/16/17

Eric Knorr, InfoWorld; 

Will open data survive Trump?

"The incredible quantity of data collected across the federal government is a national treasure. Few other countries on earth apply the same energy, funding, and rigor to assembling such extensive stores. Even if ordinary citizens don't go to Data.gov for entertainment, both policymakers and business leaders need objective data to make sound decisions.

Before joining the Sunlight Foundation, Howard worked at O’Reilly Media, starting there a few years after Tim O’Reilly convened a group of open government advocates to develop the eight principles of open government data in 2007. Howard says the idea of open data really goes back to the Constitution, which stipulates an "Enumeration" (aka, census) be held to apportion Congressional seats -- an indication that "open data is in the DNA of the USA." Even further, open data harkens to the original Enlightenment idea that reason based on fact should govern human action.

We'll see how that quaint notion survives the postfact era. Meanwhile, consider contributing to the Sunlight Foundation and the Electronic Frontier Foundation."

Why Patent Protection In The Drug Industry Is Out Of Control; Forbes, 1/19/17

Robert Pearl, M.D., Forbes; 

Why Patent Protection In The Drug Industry Is Out Of Control

"Patents originated in ancient Greece. This legal protection assumed greater importance in 15th-century Venice as a means to protect the nation-state's glass-blowing industry. The first patent granted in the United States was in 1790.

Across history, governments created patents for two important purposes. The first was to stimulate interest in research and find solutions to problems that vexed the nation and the world. The second was to promote the broader good of the country. The duration of time designated for exclusive use of the new technology or approach was intended to be relatively short, with the public gaining the resulting benefits in perpetuity. As such, the granting of a patent was designed to advance not only the interests of its creator, but also, equally, the economy and well-being of the nation.

The intent of the patent process and the balance between the dual objectives have been warped over the past decade. "

Russia’s radical new strategy for information warfare; Washington Post, 1/18/17

David Ignatius, Washington Post; Russia’s radical new strategy for information warfare

"Krutskikh’s comments may have been a precursor of a new doctrine for information operations announced publicly by the Kremlin in December. The senior administration official described the Russian strategy: “They think of information space as a domain of warfare. In the U.S, we tend to have a binary view of conflict — we’re at peace or at war. The Russian doctrine is more of a continuum. You can be at different levels of conflict, along a sliding scale.”...

In Russia’s view, America is pushing just as aggressively in the information space, but denies it. “Things we perceive as free speech, they perceive as aggressive behavior from the West,” noted the senior U.S. official."

Aide to Md. lawmaker fabricated article on fraudulent votes for Clinton; Washington Post, 1/18/17

Ovetta Wiggins, Washington Post; Aide to Md. lawmaker fabricated article on fraudulent votes for Clinton

"Harris told the Times that he created fake news to earn money. After investing $5 for the domain name, he earned about $22,000 in online advertising revenue.

In an interview with the Times, Harris expressed guilt for spreading lies but also a sense of pride in doing it so well.

“At first it kind of shocked me — the response I was getting,” he said. “How easily people would believe. It was almost like a sociological experiment.”"

Justin Trudeau’s Family Vacation on Aga Khan’s Island Leads to Ethics Inquiry; New York Times, 1/16/17

Ian Austen, New York Times; 

Justin Trudeau’s Family Vacation on Aga Khan’s Island Leads to Ethics Inquiry

"Canada’s federal conflict-of-interest and ethics office confirmed on Monday that it is investigating the propriety of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his family’s spending part of the Christmas holidays as guests of the Aga Khan, the billionaire philanthropist and spiritual leader of Ismaili Muslims, on a private island in the Bahamas."

On ethics: Obama went high, Trump goes low; Chicago Tribune, 1/18/17

Steve Chapman, Chicago Tribune; On ethics: Obama went high, Trump goes low

"That fall, McCain tried to use the charge against his opponent, but the air had gone out of it. After the March session, the Tribune, which had criticized Obama's handling of the matter, editorialized that he had reaffirmed its confidence in his "professional judgment and personal decency" and set "a standard for candor by which other presidential candidates facing serious inquiries now can be judged."

Trump, on the other hand, has set a standard lower than that of any president in modern times. His business ties will serve as a constant temptation to him and those who want something from him or the U.S. government. And that's fine with him.

On his way to the White House, Obama understood his obligation not only to behave ethically but to be open with the voters. Trump has insisted on doing whatever he pleases while refusing to provide useful information about his activities.

Obama's view was that he should be careful to avoid scandal. Trump's view is that for him, there is no such thing."

Emoluments: Trump's Coming Ethics Trouble; The Atlantic, 1/18/17

• RICHARD W. PAINTER, LAURENCE H. TRIBE, NORMAN L. EISEN, AND JOSHUA MATZ, THE aTLANTIC; 

Emoluments: Trump's Coming Ethics Trouble

"The underlying concern here is that it is precisely Trump’s beneficial government services that foreign powers may hope to purchase for their money whenever they patronize or advantage his businesses. That is, foreign powers (and their agents) may pay Trump, in his capacity as owner of valuable business assets around the world, so that Trump, in his capacity as president, will play in their interest and push U.S. policies in their direction. It may be impossible to prove this on a case-by-case level, given the complex and often hidden motives guiding presidential conduct, but the whole theory of the foreign emoluments clause is to guard against the very possibility of transactions raising this creeping danger.

Trump’s lawyer, Sheri Dillon, has said that “Trump wants there to be no doubt in the minds of the American public that he is completely isolating himself from his business interests.” But if that were actually true, Trump would have done more—much more—to separate himself from his global business empire. Instead, he adopted the mere shell of a plan, utterly inadequate to the demands of the Constitution.

Trump will thus place himself in clear violation of America’s basic charter from the very first instant of his presidency."

Chaffetz to get meeting he demanded with ethics official who criticized Trump; Politico, 1/18/17

Darren Samuelsohn, Politico; 

Chaffetz to get meeting he demanded with ethics official who criticized Trump

"“Allowing the public to attend our meeting — or, at the very least, to view it through live broadcast or the attendance of the news media — would ensure transparency and educate the public about how OGE guards the executive branch against conflicts of interest,” he added, though noting he would agree to a private meeting if Chaffetz again refused to speak in front of an audience.

But on Thursday, Chaffetz office said he and Shaub would meet privately on Monday, Jan. 23.

The request for a public meeting is the latest turn in an escalating feud pitting Shaub against Chaffetz and the Trump administration.

It’s also part of a broader struggle over Shaub’s new order of operation under the Office of Government Ethics. The agency has typically operated in relative obscurity under past directors, but, dealing with a president elect who heads a vast business empire, the director has made a controversial break with precedent by adopting an increasingly public profile."

Critical, But Overlooked: Ethics Is a Tough Sell to Funders. Is That About to Change?; Inside Philanthropy, 1/17/17

Mike Scutari, Inside Philanthropy; 

Critical, But Overlooked: Ethics Is a Tough Sell to Funders. Is That About to Change?

"Strong ethics may be all important to the healthy functioning of American society, but this is an area that's historically fallen through the cracks of foundation grantmaking programs. Fundraisers for ethics work routinely have to shoehorn their proposals to fit into the issue areas that foundations do care about, like public health or campaign finance reform. Individual donors play a critical role in supporting ethics research, but contributors interested in this area are hardly plentiful. If you search "ethics" in the Lilly School donor base of gifts of a million dollars and up, you'll get a mere five results...

AI is much in the news right now, and ethics giving often follows headlines. A few years back, after the financial crisis, business schools received a string of gifts aimed at teaching ethics to tomorrow's executives and financiers. But as memory of the financial crisis faded, so did this stream of money...

Indeed, if reporting persists out of Trump's Washington regarding conflicts of interest, it seems likely that the ethics field writ large will get a Trump bump when it comes to fundraising."

Free Speech Advocates, Publishers Wrestle With Questions Of Censorship; NPR, 1/12/17

Lynn Neary, NPR; 

Free Speech Advocates, Publishers Wrestle With Questions Of Censorship

"Both the NCAC and PEN America say the best response to hate speech is not more censorship.

"Trying to suppress hateful speech doesn't make it go away," says Bertin. "I mean, I think the whole idea of free speech requires us to be active participants, and when we hear ideas that we think are bad and harmful, it requires us to say 'why,' not just say 'shut up.'"

But publisher Dennis Johnson says another equally important right is at stake here: The right to protest.

"This is not about censoring right wing voices," he says. "This is about combating hate speech and its entry into the mainstream.""

U.S. Supreme Court justices fret over offensive trademarks; Reuters, 1/18/17

Andrew Chung, Reuters; 

U.S. Supreme Court justices fret over offensive trademarks

"The justices during the arguments seemed to agree with the band that the government was favoring some trademarks while disapproving others, a kind of discrimination based on viewpoint traditionally forbidden by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees free speech.

But the justices appeared to struggle over whether banning offensive slurs is reasonable in the trademark system, which is used to promote commerce.

Conservative Justice Anthony Kennedy asked the band's attorney, John Connell, whether a group of non-Asians using the name The Slants to mock Asians could be denied a trademark. Connell said they could not.

Kennedy questioned whether the trademark system should be considered like a public park "where you can say anything you want.

In rejecting The Slants' trademark, government officials relied on a provision of the 1946 Lanham Act that prevents the registration of marks that may disparage certain people."

In Battle Over Band Name, Supreme Court Considers Free Speech And Trademarks; NPR, 1/18/17

Nina Totenberg, NPR; 

In Battle Over Band Name, Supreme Court Considers Free Speech And Trademarks

""Vagueness means that a law doesn't give enough instruction to citizens on how to follow the law," Shapiro says. "What is disparaging? It depends on the particular trademark examiner you get, or the particular judge."

Tushnet replies that in a program with 500,000 applications for trademark registration each year, there will inevitably be some inconsistencies, just as there are in the judgments made under the other parts of the law. In each case, she observes, if you get turned down for a trademark registration, you can appeal within the agency. If you lose there, you can go to court.

But she adds that the trademark registration system has served the nation well.

"It's a complex system, and if you pull out a chunk of it without extreme care, you're going to upset the rest of the system."

And that, she says, could put the whole trademark system in jeopardy."

SCOTUS To Hear From Band The Slants For Right To Trademark Name; Here & Now, WBUR, 1/17/17

Here & Now, WBUR; 

SCOTUS To Hear From Band The Slants For Right To Trademark Name

"The Asian-American band The Slants will appear before the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday to argue for full trademark rights to their name, which is a pejorative.

The Portland band has won its case in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, in which the court ruled that the Patent and Trademark Office and the Department of Justice is infringing on the group's rights to freedom of speech.

Here & Now's Robin Young speaks with Rebecca Tushnet (@rtushnet), professor of law at Georgetown Law School, about the conflict for rights to the name."