Now is not the time to abandon America. Stay here and fight for it; Quartz, 11/9/16

Sarah Todd, Quartz; Now is not the time to abandon America. Stay here and fight for it:

"After last night’s presidential election, many Americans woke up this morning feeling lost and betrayed. Some are talking about moving to Canada. Others are wondering if things would be better in Europe, or Australia. Believe me, I get it.

The reality of president-elect Donald Trump means a majority of US voters were willing to endorse, or at least dismiss, the Republican candidate’s blatant misogyny, xenophobia, and racism. It means that a man who can’t even control himself on Twitter will now have access to the nuclear arsenal.

Under these circumstances, it’s understandable that some Americans are thinking of fleeing the country. But many of the people who would likely be most vulnerable during a Trump presidency—refugees, immigrants, the poor—have nowhere to go. For their sake, and for the future of our country, those of us who have a choice shouldn’t give in to the impulse to flee. We should stay here and fight...

As a woman who believes in the equality of all people in this country, the results of this election have shocked and saddened me. I feel like I don’t understand my fellow citizens. I don’t want to live in a place where so many of them could vote against my best interests, and against the best interests of the people I care about. I’m scared for what the next four years may bring.

But I also know that, whatever happens under president Trump, we will need voices of dissent. We will need people who advocate for women’s equality, and teach the next generation that we deserve to be treated with respect. We’ll need people who will fight for the rights of immigrants and their children. We’ll need people who believe in a legal system that protects the rights of all Americans. And we will need people who can work to cultivate a society united not by fear and anger, but by love and acceptance...

The next four years will likely bring injustice and grief. We may see families separated; people in need abandoned; futures destroyed. Many of us will feel that America is not a place where we belong.

But we are not powerless under a Trump presidency. We can make our voices heard on the public and political stage. We can show ourselves, and the world, that we will not allow Trump and his supporters to make us feel unwelcome in our own home."

New York Today: 104 Years Old, and Still Voting; New York Times, 11/8/16

Alexandra S. Levine, New York Times; New York Today: 104 Years Old, and Still Voting:

"On this Election Day, as the presidential campaigns of two New York residents come to an end, another New Yorker — Rose Orbach — plans to do her civic duty and vote — again.

The resident of Bayside, Queens, is 104. She’s voting in her 16th presidential election.

(Stevenson. Kennedy. Johnson. Humphrey. McGovern. Carter, twice. Mondale. Dukakis. Clinton, twice. Gore. Kerry. Obama, twice. You may spot a trend.)

Born in 1911, Mrs. Orbach emigrated from Poland shortly after World War II. She became an American citizen by 1955, and voted in her first presidential election here the following year.

The idea of having and using her voice, without facing persecution, was novel.

“In Poland, it was a whole different system,” she said. “Especially for Jewish people, who weren’t treated like everybody; they were always beneath.”

When she stepped behind the curtain to vote in the 1956 race, things felt different.

“I was one with the people: I was different, I was Jewish, but I pushed the button,” she said. “I had my idea, and I was treated nice no matter what. You had your privacy and you were allowed to think what you wanted to think.”

In her nearly 60 years of living in New York, she has not missed a single presidential election — that’s at a time when more than 100 million Americans who can vote don’t vote.

So exercise your right — it’s one that many people in this world do not have."

Want Your Marijuana Startup to Succeed? Study Patent Law; Wired, 11/5/16

Mason Marks, Wired; Want Your Marijuana Startup to Succeed? Study Patent Law:

"...[M]any players in the legal marijuana industry are skeptical of the patent system. Some view patents as an ugly instrument of big business linked to over-priced drugs and other abuses. At a recent event for cannabis entrepreneurs in San Francisco, marijuana growers, manufacturers, and retailers gathered to discuss the current state of their industry. At one point the conversation turned to patent law. Many participants expressed anger and disbelief at the notion of patenting cannabis technology. One attendee stood up and exclaimed, “At least you can’t patent plants! They are part of nature!” But her assertion was incorrect. There is no prohibition against patenting plants and other living organisms. In fact, nearly any invention can be patented as long as it meets a few basic requirements—and surprisingly, being legal under federal law is not one of them...

Whether you approve of cannabis patents or not, they are taking root in this multi-billion dollar industry. The upcoming votes and changing regulatory landscape will likely help them grow. To be fully prepared, anyone entering the cannabis industry should learn the fundamentals of patent law."

New Era for Disability Rights; Inside Higher Ed, 11/7/16

Carl Straumsheim, Inside Higher Ed; New Era for Disability Rights:

"Disability studies scholars and legal experts say lawsuits like Dudley’s against Miami represent a shift in activism, where high-profile cases help raise awareness about the challenges facing students in an increasingly digital world. More than two decades after the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 was signed into law, advocacy groups are pushing to clarify how it and other laws that prohibit discrimination against people with disabilities apply to technology that at the time seemed like science fiction but now has become reality. At the same time, those and other groups are pushing for new legislation, keeping one eye on the upcoming process to rewrite the Higher Education Act...

Jonathan S. Fansmith, who works in government relations for ACE [American Council on Education], said in an interview that the associations are looking for a middle ground with regulations that ensure core university functions -- registering for classes, paying tuition and so on -- are accessible to anyone but don’t stifle university research output.

“We want to do the right thing here,” Fansmith said. “We want to do it the right way. We want to have cognizance of a process that’s thoughtful, deliberate and can actually be achieved so you don’t get schools that say, ‘Look, this is going to be so costly, so burdensome.’”"

CMU lands $10M gift to study ethical issues in robotics, technology; Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 11/7/16

David Templeton, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette; CMU lands $10M gift to study ethical issues in robotics, technology:

"Current law doesn’t yet specify who’s at fault should a driverless car crash cause human injury. Ethical issues, for now, also remain unresolved over the use and consequences of smart weaponry...

Moral principles long have guided interactions and behavior on multiple human levels and those ethics have extended to animals, nature and the entire planet. But a modern-day moral quandary involves human interaction with machines — and particularly the smart ones.

Those issues, known as robo-ethics and artificial-intelligence ethics, will command even greater attention at Carnegie Mellon University with a $10 million gift from K&L Gates LLP, a global law firm based in Pittsburgh, to establish the K&L Gates Endowment for Ethics and Computational Technologies at the university."

False Equivalences; Wiley Miller, Go Comics, 11/7/16

Wiley Miller, Non Sequitur, Go Comics; False Equivalences

The Giddy Cosmic Spectacle of “Doctor Strange”; New Yorker, 11/4/16

Richard Brody, New Yorker; The Giddy Cosmic Spectacle of “Doctor Strange” :

"If I were an activist looking for a meme to mock the denial of free expression in China, I’d have found a potent one in “Doctor Strange”—a shot of Wong (played by Benedict Wong), fierce keeper of the great library of mystical knowledge, putting a book in chains and hoisting it onto a high shelf, out of reach. I don’t at all suspect the movie’s director, Scott Derrickson—even less, its producer, Disney—of having had such pointed intentions while making the film, but the beauty of movies is the free-floating power of moments that burst the bonds of dramatic intent, and “Doctor Strange” is full of them."

Clinton v. Trump on copyrights and patents: Reading the platform and the tea leaves; Ars Technica, 11/6/16

Joe Mullin, Ars Technica; Clinton v. Trump on copyrights and patents: Reading the platform and the tea leaves:

"The hot-button issues this election can be counted on one's fingers—and for most voters, things like copyright and patent policy don't make the list. Assigned to a wonkish zone far from the Sunday morning talk shows, intellectual property issues aren't near the heart of our deeply polarized political discourse.

Of the two major party candidates in 2016, only the Democratic candidate has a platform that even addresses copyright and patent policies. So today, let's look at what we know about Hillary Clinton's plan, and make some informed speculation about what could happen to these areas under a Donald Trump presidency."

How the Internet Is Loosening Our Grip on the Truth; New York Times, 11/2/16

Farhad Manjoo, New York Times; How the Internet Is Loosening Our Grip on the Truth:

"Next week, if all goes well, someone will win the presidency. What happens after that is anyone’s guess. Will the losing side believe the results? Will the bulk of Americans recognize the legitimacy of the new president? And will we all be able to clean up the piles of lies, hoaxes and other dung that have been hurled so freely in this hyper-charged, fact-free election?

Much of that remains unclear, because the internet is distorting our collective grasp on the truth. Polls show that many of us have burrowed into our own echo chambers of information. In a recent Pew Research Center survey, 81 percent of respondents said that partisans not only differed about policies, but also about “basic facts.”

For years, technologists and other utopians have argued that online news would be a boon to democracy. That has not been the case...

“There’s always more work to be done,” said Brooke Binkowski, the managing editor of Snopes.com, one of the internet’s oldest rumor-checking sites. “There’s always more. It’s Sisyphean — we’re all pushing that boulder up the hill, only to see it roll back down.”"

WikiLeaks Isn’t Whistleblowing; New York Times, 11/4/16

Zeynep Tufekci, New York Times; WikiLeaks Isn’t Whistleblowing:

"Demanding transparency from the powerful is not a right to see every single private email anyone in a position of power ever sent or received. WikiLeaks, for example, gleefully tweeted to its millions of followers that a Clinton Foundation employee had attempted suicide; news outlets repeated the report.

Wanton destruction of the personal privacy of any person who has ever come near a political organization is a vicious but effective means to smother dissent. This method is so common in Russia and the former Soviet states that it has a name: “kompromat,” releasing compromising material against political opponents. Emails of dissidents are hacked, their houses bugged, the activities in their bedrooms videotaped, and the material made public to embarrass and intimidate people whose politics displeases the powerful. Kompromat does not have to go after every single dissident to work: If you know that getting near politics means that your personal privacy may be destroyed, you will understandably stay away.

Data dumps by WikiLeaks have outed rape victims and gay people in Saudi Arabia, private citizens’ emails and personal information in Turkey, and the voice mail messages of Democratic National Committee staff members. Dissent requires the right to privacy: to be let alone in our vulnerabilities and the ability to form our thoughts and share them when we choose. These hacks undermine that crucial right."

Pittsburgh City Council pushes forward on confidentiality measure; Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 11/3/16

Adam Smeltz, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette; Pittsburgh City Council pushes forward on confidentiality measure:

"Pittsburgh City Council forged ahead Wednesday with plans that could cost members triple-digit fines for leaking confidential details from closed-door meetings.

Council members voted 7-1 to advance comprehensive revisions for their own operating rules, setting up the 15-page proposal for a final vote Monday. Dissenting Councilwoman Darlene Harris lashed out against potential fines that could reach $500 for members who breach attorney-client privilege, saying the idea amounts to “a gag order.”"

Very Polite; Marmaduke, GoComics.com, 11/3/16

Brad Anderson, Marmaduke, GoComics.com; Very Polite

United Nations Secretary-General's High-Level Panel on Access to Medicines Report: Promoting Innovation and Access to Health Technologies; United Nations Secretary-General's High-Level Panel on Access to Medicines, 9/14/16

United Nations Secretary-General's High-Level Panel on Access to Medicines; United Nations Secretary-General's High-Level Panel on Access to Medicines Report: Promoting Innovation and Access to Health Technologies:

"Whether it’s the rising price of the EpiPen, or new outbreaks of diseases, like Ebola, Zika and yellow fever, the rising costs of health technologies and the lack of new tools to tackle health problems, like antimicrobial resistance, is a problem in rich and poor countries alike.

According to a High-Level Panel convened to advise the UN Secretary-General on improving access to medicines, the world must take bold new approaches to both health technology innovation and ensuring access so that all people can benefit from the medical advances that have dramatically improved the lives of millions around the world in the last century.

For decades, many international treaties and national constitutions have enshrined the fundamental right to health and the right to share in the benefits of scientific advancements. Yet, while the world is witnessing the immense potential of science and technology to advance health care, gaps and failures in addressing disease burdens and emerging diseases in many countries and communities remain. The misalignment between the right to health on the one hand and intellectual property and trade on the other, fuel this tension.

The UN Secretary-General established the High-Level Panel to propose solutions for addressing the incoherencies between international human rights, trade, intellectual property rights and public health objectives. The report recommendations come at the end of a ten-month process for the Panel under the leadership of Ruth Dreifuss and the former President of the Swiss Confederation and Festus Mogae, the former President of the Republic of Botswana."

Patent rights key to ensuring access to medication; Trib Live, 10/24/16

Robert A. Freeman, Trib Live; Patent rights key to ensuring access to medication:

" A United Nations panel recently released disastrous policy recommendations designed to increase access to medicines in developing countries. The panel ignored obvious solutions.

Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon originally tasked the UN High-Level Panel on Access to Medicines with remedying the “policy incoherence” between intellectual property rights and drug access. The panel predictably — and wrongly — viewed IP protections as a barrier to access rather than a bridge to medical innovation.

Undermining IP rights will not help patients in developing countries access medicines.

A 2016 Foreign Affairs study sought to determine whether strong patent protections increase the prices of drugs to developing countries. It found that patents were not key drivers of higher expenditures."

The Real Reason Drugs Cost Too Much; Bloomberg View, 8/23/16

Editorial Board, Bloomberg View; The Real Reason Drugs Cost Too Much:

"The problem would not be nearly so severe if the drugs' government-granted monopolies were shorter. Once generic versions are allowed to compete, a medicine's price often drops by almost half, sometimes more than 85 percent, if enough competitors jump into the market.

Yet the government tends to do the opposite, the Brigham and Women's researchers found, by extending market exclusivity via additional patents for trivial alterations -- a new coating on a pill, for example. This is nonsensical: Unless a drug is transformed in a way that affects its therapeutic value, it should not qualify for an extended patent.

Drug makers often stretch their own market exclusivity by paying generics companies to delay introducing competitive medicines.

The government, which is protecting these companies' monopoly rights, should demand an end to this tactic."

New Research Center to Explore Ethics of Artificial Intelligence; New York Times, 11/1/16

John Markoff, New York Times; New Research Center to Explore Ethics of Artificial Intelligence:

"Carnegie Mellon University plans to announce on Wednesday that it will create a research center that focuses on the ethics of artificial intelligence.

The ethics center, called the K&L Gates Endowment for Ethics and Computational Technologies, is being established at a time of growing international concern about the impact of A.I. technologies. That has already led to an array of academic, governmental and private efforts to explore a technology that until recently was largely the stuff of science fiction...

Earlier this year, the White House held a series of workshops around the country to discuss the impact of A.I., and in October the Obama administration released a report on its possible consequences. And in September, five large technology firms — Amazon, Facebook, Google, IBM and Microsoft — created a partnership to help establish ethical guidelines for the design and deployment of A.I. systems."

In Washington’s Drug Price Fight, Plenty of Blame to Go Around; Bloomberg, 10/27/16

Anna Edney, Robert Langreth, Bloomberg; In Washington’s Drug Price Fight, Plenty of Blame to Go Around:

"AARP, which represents seniors, is part of the Campaign for Sustainable Rx Pricing, along with Anthem Inc., one of the U.S.’s biggest health insurers, Wal-Mart Stores Inc. and the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association. The coalition has proposed having drugmakers submit for government review any price increases over 10 percent, and making it easier for generics to come to market.

Health insurers, who just six years ago were painted as villains during the passage of Obamacare, are relishing the turnabout now that drugmakers are the focus.

“These increases have got to stop,” said John Bennett, chief executive officer of Capital District Physicians’ Health Plan Inc., or CDPHP, a not-for-profit health insurer in Albany, New York. Last year, 22 percent of the premiums Capital took in for its commercial plans was spent on drugs.

“They are unsustainable for us as a society and they are morally wrong,” Bennett said in a telephone interview. “They are extracting profit out of a scarce resource that people need to survive.”

The ‘Internet of Things’ Faces Practical and Ethical Challenges; Chronicle of Higher Education, 10/23/16

Sarah Brown, Chronicle of Higher Education; The ‘Internet of Things’ Faces Practical and Ethical Challenges

Would You Want To Know The Secrets Hidden In Your Baby's Genes?; NPR, 10/31/16

[Podcast] Mary Harris, NPR; Would You Want To Know The Secrets Hidden In Your Baby's Genes? :

"Lauren and Ian Patrick, the parents of baby Finn, are a good case study.

Initially, they were convinced they wanted the screening. But after an hour talking to a genetic counselor about all the ways this sequencing could go wrong, they decided against it.

They learned that any genetic sequencing would go in their son's medical record, and it wouldn't be able to be removed. And while federal law prohibits genetic discrimination by health care providers and in the workplace, life insurers can still use genetic information to pick and choose whom they'll sell policies to. By the time the meeting was over, the Patricks' excitement had been replaced with concern."

CNN Parts Ways With Donna Brazile, a Hillary Clinton Supporter; New York Times, 10/31/16

Michael M. Grynbaum, New York Times; CNN Parts Ways With Donna Brazile, a Hillary Clinton Supporter:

"The episode has cast a harsh spotlight on the cable news practice of paying partisan political operatives to appear as on-air commentators. Like Ms. Brazile, these guests can offer a plugged-in viewpoint on the day’s events, but they often also parrot campaign talking points and, as in this case, create potential ethical conflicts.

CNN has already faced criticism over its hiring of Corey Lewandowski, Donald J. Trump’s former campaign manager, as a paid contributor, even as he remains an informal adviser to the candidate.

Ms. Brazile’s infraction, however, may be more damaging. Her sharing of questions with a candidate would seem to undercut the impartiality of the event and, as a CNN contributor, potentially reflect poorly on the network, which received big ratings, and thus profits, from primary debates and town halls."

University of Pittsburgh Nondiscrimination Policy Statement, 10/31/16

University of Pittsburgh Nondiscrimination Policy Statement:

[Kip Currier: Noteworthy to see "genetic information" included in Pitt's 10/31/16 Nondiscrimination Policy Statement, copied below. With advances in genome sequencing and the proliferation of DNA testing services for consumers, it makes sense that this would be included in organizational policies like Pitt's.]

"The University of Pittsburgh, as an educational institution and as an employer, values equality of opportunity, human dignity, and racial/ethnic and cultural diversity and inclusion. Accordingly,as explained in Policy 07-0l-03, the University prohibits and will not engage in discrimination or harassment on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, ancestry, sex, age, marital status, familial status, sexual orientation, gender identity and expression, genetic information, disability, or status as a veteran.

The University also prohibits and will not engage in retaliation against any person who makes a claim of discrimination or harassment or who provides information in such an investigation.

Further, the University will continue to take affirmative steps to support and advance these values consistent with the University’s mission.

This policy applies to admissions, employment, access to and treatment in University programs and activities.

This is a commitment made by the University and is in accordance with federal, state, and/or local laws and regulations."

Why do we still accept that governments collect and snoop on our data?; Guardian, 10/30/16

Ashley Gorski and Scarlet Kim, Guardian; Why do we still accept that governments collect and snoop on our data? :

"Although the debate in the US has led to some piecemeal reforms – including the USA Freedom Act and modest policy changes – many of the most intrusive government surveillance programs remain largely intact. These include programs conducted not just by the NSA, but also by its close partner in the United Kingdom, called the Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ), with whom the NSA swaps vast sets of private data.

This bulk surveillance violates rights to privacy and freedom of expression – rights that are guaranteed not only under US domestic law, but also under international human rights law. That latter legal framework speaks a universal language, enumerating fundamental rights that every person enjoys by virtue of our common humanity...

Just as human rights law requires that surveillance be prescribed by law, targeted, and proportionate, government information-sharing should adhere to the same standard. Outsourcing surveillance hardly lessens the intrusion. Therefore, whether the UK or US intercepts the information itself or obtains the same flow of data from another intelligence agency, the same protections should apply.

As the debate over mass surveillance continues, it is vital that we consider the ways in which this spying violates the fundamental rights of millions of individuals throughout the world. Should the European court of human rights rule against mass surveillance, its decision will have far-reaching implications for the rights of Americans and non-Americans alike."

Former Bush Ethics Lawyer Files Complaint Against FBI Director for Email Disclosures; Slate, 10/30/16

Daniel Politi, Slate; Former Bush Ethics Lawyer Files Complaint Against FBI Director for Email Disclosures:

"The former chief ethics lawyer at the White House during George W. Bush’s presidency has filed an ethics complaint against FBI Director James Comey. In an op-ed published in the New York Times on Sunday, Richard W. Painter writes that he filed a complaint against the FBI for violating the Hatch Act, "which bars the use of an official position to influence an election." He filed the complaint with both the Office of Special Counsel and the Office of Government Ethics.

Painter, who was the head White House ethics lawyer between 2005 and 2007 and now supports Hillary Clinton, says Comey violated the Hatch Act when he sent the letter to lawmakers on Friday informing them of the newly discovered emails."

The Ethics of Hunting Down ‘Patient Zero’; New York Times, 10/29/16

Donald G. McNeil Jr., New York Times; The Ethics of Hunting Down ‘Patient Zero’ :

"The alleged “Patient Zero” of the American AIDS epidemic — a French Canadian flight attendant named Gaétan Dugas, who died of AIDS in 1984 — was exonerated last week.

Genetic sequencing of blood samples stored since the 1970s showed that the strain infecting him had circulated among gay men in New York for several years before he arrived here in 1974...

Decisions about whether to find index patients, to release details like age or race or sexual or hygiene habits, and ultimately whether to name them, “are all about the need to know,” Dr. Darrow said. “You weigh the potential harm against the potential benefit.”"

Freedom of expression under worldwide attack, UN rights expert warns in new report; UN Human Rights, Office of the High Commissioner, 10/20/16

UN Human Rights, Office of the High Commissioner; Freedom of expression under worldwide attack, UN rights expert warns in new report:

"“There is no question that governments worldwide are wielding the tools of censorship,” warns the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the freedom of opinion and expression, David Kaye, in a report on the widespread global assault on the freedom of expression to be presented to the UN General Assembly tomorrow.

“Governments are treating words as weapons, adopting vague laws that give officials massive discretion to undermine speech and opinion,” Mr. Kaye says. “They are punishing journalists for their reporting, silencing individuals for posting opinions on social media, shutting down debate and the flow of information on grounds of counter-terrorism, protecting public order, sheltering people from offense.”

“Censorship in all its forms reflects official fear of ideas and information,” the expert noted. “And it not only harms the speaker or reporter or broadcaster, it undermines everyone’s right to information, to public participation, to open and democratic governance.”

The report involved a survey of hundreds of official communications the rapporteur has issued to governments, which resulted from allegations of violations of well-established international human rights law received from individuals and non-governmental organizations worldwide. The trend lines are stark, Mr. Kaye said.

“I am especially concerned that many governments assert legitimate grounds for restriction, such as protection of national security or public order or the rights of others, as fig leaves to attack unpopular opinion or criticism of government and government officials,” he stated. “Many times governments provide not even the barest demonstration that such restrictions meet the legal tests of necessity and proportionality.”

The Special Rapporteur drew attention to increasing instances where governments assert rationales having no basis in human rights law. “For example,” he said, “it has become routine for governments to explicitly target political criticism, journalism, and the expression of singled-out groups such as LGBTI communities and artists.”

“Those who carry out physical threats, particularly to journalists and writers and bloggers, are rarely held accountable,” Mr. Kaye added. “Online, threats to expression are getting worse. Advances in technology have triggered new forms of repression and censorship that undermine everyone’s ability to hold opinions or seek, receive and impart information and ideas.”

One of the biggest threats to online expression is the use of Internet ‘kill switches.’ More than a dozen network shutdowns have been recorded in the last year. Internet shutdowns are just one form of digital censorship among many adopted by governments today.

The report notes areas of positive developments as well. The Special Rapporteur welcomes, for instance, examples where governments, legislatures, and domestic and international courts have taken strong steps to promote freedom of expression or carefully evaluate restrictions.

In his study, the human rights expert urges all governments to review their national laws to ensure strong protection and promotion of the freedom of expression, in particular to limit the discretion officials may enjoy to restrict the flow of information.

“The approach that many governments adopt towards freedom of expression today is abusive and unsustainable,” Mr. Kaye stressed. “Governments must not only reverse course, but also take the lead in ensuring its protection.”"

Freedom Of Expression Under Attack, Says UN Special Rapporteur; Intellectual Property Watch, 10/21/16

Intellectual Property Watch; Freedom Of Expression Under Attack, Says UN Special Rapporteur:

"Governments worldwide are engaging in censorship and punishing those who report or post opinions, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the freedom of opinion and expression, David Kaye, says in a report on the widespread global assault on the freedom of expression to be presented to the UN General Assembly today.

The full press, available here, is reprinted below."

Patent Trolls Undermine Open Access; Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), 10/28/16

Elliot Harmon, Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF); Patent Trolls Undermine Open Access:

"...[E]ven as university research becomes accessible to a wider public, some of that same research is falling into the hands of patent trolls, companies that serve no purpose but to amass patents and sue innovators who independently created similar inventions. When universities file patents on inventions that arise from scientific research and then sell those patents to trolls, it puts a strain on innovation. That’s why EFF recently launched Reclaim Invention, a campaign to encourage universities to adopt policies not to sell or license patents to trolls...

As the open access movement continues to grow and mature, we hope to see open access allies on campus begin to take on their institutions’ patenting policies. University patenting and licensing policies directly affect how researchers’ outputs will be used in the field. The same arguments that have given way to the explosion of open access publishing also apply to patents—just as researchers shouldn’t trust their work with publishers that don’t have the public’s interest at heart, their institutions shouldn’t sell patents to trolls out for nothing but a quick buck. Instead, they should partner with companies that will bring their inventions to the public.

After all, the public paid for it."

Amazon nets patent for mini police drones; SeattlePI.com, 10/28/16

Daniel Demay, SeattlePI.com; Amazon nets patent for mini police drones:

"Amazon Technologies, Inc. was granted a patent Oct. 18 for a device it called an “unmanned aerial vehicle assistant,” aimed at use by police for everything from monitoring situations to finding lost children at the fair...

The devices, if put into wide use, would no doubt raise new questions about police use of technology, said Shankar Narayan, technology and liberty project director for the America Civil Liberties Union in Seattle. Because the drones would be so small, they might be able to operate in discreet ways, collecting information without the subjects ever being aware, he noted.

In a traffic stop, for example, such a drone could fly around the vehicle conducting a search of the inside of the car without an officer ever establishing the required probable cause for such a search, Narayan said.

"That's just one of the ways you could try to make an end-run around the constitutional protections," he said.

Civil rights advocates would look to regulate such devices before they ever went into use.

"We want to make sure the use of this technology doesn't turn into an open fishing expedition" just because newer technology allows it, Narayan said."

RUCKA ON WHAT MAKES WONDER WOMAN SPECIAL: ‘ONE OF HER POWERS IS LOVE’; Comic Book Resources, 10/26/16

Albert Ching, Comic Book Resources; RUCKA ON WHAT MAKES WONDER WOMAN SPECIAL: ‘ONE OF HER POWERS IS LOVE’ :

"CBR: Greg, late last month, an interview you did with Comicosity that discussed Wonder Woman’s sexuality generated a lot of subsequent coverage. I don’t want to make this interview about another interview you did, but what was your take on how that story took a life on its own, and the reaction to your comments?

Greg Rucka: I think we saw the reaction of a lot of people who don’t know anything about the character, and are deciding this is yet another hill that they’re going to stand their ground on. I rate this in the same place as saying, “You did a Ghostbusters movie, and they’re all women! You ruined it!” Really? I mean, really?

I was asked a specific question at point blank. DC would not want me to lie, or prevaricate, and I am not serving the character well or doing my job if I lie or prevaricate. Representation matters enormously.

I honestly think, if we really want to drill down on this, at the heart of the negative response — and the negative response has been loud and vocal, but from a minority, and a very small minority — you’re seeing the response of people going, “I didn’t want to have to talk about that!” OK, but the people out there who need to hear it, I care far more about them. I guarantee you, if we lost readers over this, we gained more.

For people to go, “It’s a publicity stunt” — no, it’s not. You’ll see it’s just another element of the character. It’s like when we were talking about Kate way back in the day, and I was writing Batwoman. Yeah, she’s queer. She’s also got red hair and is Jewish. These are elements of character. These are not the definition of character."

DC superhero punching for gender equality to be honoured at her 75th birthday party, attended by Ban Ki-moon and ‘surprise guests’; Guardian, 10/12/16

Alison Flood, Guardian; DC superhero punching for gender equality to be honoured at her 75th birthday party, attended by Ban Ki-moon and ‘surprise guests’ :

"The United Nations is due to welcome a new honorary ambassador for the empowerment of women and girls: Wonder Woman.

According to website Comic Book Resources, the superhero will officially be given her new title at an event in New York on 21 October – the character’s 75th anniversary – at the United Nations headquarters. The announcement is due to be attended by UN secretary-general Ban Ki-moon, DC Entertainment president Diane Nelson and, said Comic Book Resources, some “surprise guests”, who the comics site speculated would include the actors who have appeared as Wonder Woman over the years, including actor Lynda Carter.

The event will also mark the launch of the UN’s landmark global campaign supporting Sustainable Development Goal #5, which is to “achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls”.

“Gender equality is not only a fundamental human right, but a necessary foundation for a peaceful, prosperous and sustainable world,” says the UN. “Providing women and girls with equal access to education, healthcare, decent work, and representation in political and economic decision-making processes will fuel sustainable economies and benefit societies and humanity at large.”"

The FCC just passed sweeping new rules to protect your online privacy; Washington Post, 10/27/16

Brian Fung, Washington Post; The FCC just passed sweeping new rules to protect your online privacy:

"Federal regulators have approved unprecedented new rules to ensure broadband providers do not abuse their customers' app usage and browsing history, mobile location data and other sensitive personal information generated while using the Internet.

The rules, passed Thursday in a 3-to-2 vote by the Federal Communications Commission, require Internet providers, such as Comcast and Verizon, to obtain their customers' explicit consent before using or sharing that behavioral data with third parties, such as marketing firms.

Also covered by that requirement are health data, financial information, Social Security numbers and the content of emails and other digital messages. The measure allows the FCC to impose the opt-in rule on other types of information in the future, but certain types of data, such as a customer's IP address and device identifier, are not subject to the opt-in requirement. The rules also force service providers to tell consumers clearly what data they collect and why, as well as to take steps to notify customers of data breaches."

Maria Pallante's Departure From the Copyright Office: What It Means, And Why It Matters; Billboard, 10/25/16

Robert Levine, Billboard; Maria Pallante's Departure From the Copyright Office: What It Means, And Why It Matters:

"Although Hayden spoke about the importance of copyright during her confirmation hearings, she is perceived to favor looser copyright laws, since she previously served as president of the American Library Association, an organization that lobbies for greater public access to creative works, sometimes as the expense of creators. The Obama Administration also has close ties to technology companies, which would like to see a Copyright Office that values fair use and other exceptions to copyright over the rights of creators and copyright owners.

Hillary Clinton is thought to be view copyright more favorably, but she hasn’t said much about the topic, and she initially addressed it in her “Initiative on Technology & Innovation” -- not an encouraging sign for creators. Donald Trump doesn’t appear to have said much about the topic."

Poll finds civility is declining in American politics; Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 10/17/16

Chris Potter, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette; Poll finds civility is declining in American politics:

"There’s been a worrisome decline in the civility of American politics, and it may be infecting even those of us who aren’t running for office.

Don’t agree? Then you obviously have no friends and hate our freedoms.

That kind of rhetoric may be where our political discourse is headed, judging from a Zogby Survey on Civility in U.S. Politics, commissioned by Allegheny College in Meadville, Crawford County.

Of 1,286 adults surveyed, 69 percent said that it was not acceptable for a politician to comment on someone’s race or ethnicity — a much smaller majority than the 89 percent who felt that way in a similar survey six years ago. Meanwhile, 65 percent said commenting on someone's sexual orientation was unacceptable, down from 81 percent in 2010."

The survey also found increasing acceptance for acts that have traditionally been defined as rude, like interrupting or shouting over somebody in a public forum, insulting them or questioning their patriotism. In a telephone call with reporters, Allegheny College president James H. Mullen Jr. called the findings “disturbing and in many ways chilling.” Voters, he said, are “expecting less in the political process in terms of civility.” “There seems to be less emphasis on, and a decrease in, acts of civility among adults nationwide,” said Zogby Analytics CEO Jonathan Zogby in a release accompanying the poll. “That might explain the state of politics at the moment.” Or it may be the other way around: The state of politics at the moment could be normalizing once-taboo behaviors. Nearly two-thirds of voters characterized the 2016 election as “extremely or very uncivil.” (An iron-stomached 11 percent found it “extremely or very civil.”) It’s not clear who is to blame.

Eye in the sky: the billionaires funding a surveillance project above Baltimore; Guardian, 10/15/16

Tom Dart, Guardian; Eye in the sky: the billionaires funding a surveillance project above Baltimore:

"From January to August this year, Baltimore police said at a news conference last week, the plane flew over the city for 314 hours, taking more than a million images. The police added that the plane would operate as an anti-terrorism measure during Fleet Week, which started on Monday, and the marathon.

This spurt of transparency was more than a little tardy. Until Bloomberg Businessweek ran a story in August, virtually no one knew about the surveillance programme, not even the mayor. Yet the technology raises obvious civil liberties questions, as does the way the plan was funded: by unaccountable private citizens in Houston whose wealth silently enabled a blanket tracking tool in a large city with notoriously strained relations between police and residents."

"Walden Safe Space"; Doonesbury, GoComics, 10/16/16

Garry Trudeau, Doonesbury, GoComics; "Walden Safe Space"

New U.N. Leader Sets Goals: Humility, Empathy, Empowering Women; NPR, 10/14/16

Malaka Gharib, NPR; New U.N. Leader Sets Goals: Humility, Empathy, Empowering Women:

"On Thursday, the U.N. General Assembly welcomed Antonio Guterres of Portugal as the new secretary-general of the U.N., replacing Ban Ki-moon.

In a short speech expressing his "gratitude and humility" to the assembly for the five-year term, he highlighted his priorities: humility, empathy for the underprivileged and the "empowerment of women and girls."...

What has made us immune to the plight of those most socially and economically underprivileged? All this makes me feel the acute responsibility to make human dignity the core of my work."

Donald Trump vs. a Free Press; New York Times, 10/13/16

Editorial Board, New York Times; Donald Trump vs. a Free Press:

"The Times is, of course, very familiar with threats of litigation by government officials and other public figures who oppose the paper’s reporting on them. It was New York Times v. Sullivan, the unanimous 1964 Supreme Court decision, that set forth the principle that promoting speech of public interest is foundational to a democracy, and therefore a newspaper would be protected from libel claims brought by public figures, even if it printed erroneous statements, as long as the newspaper did not know the statement was false, or recklessly disregard its truth or falsity.

In his opinion for the court, Justice William Brennan Jr. wrote that “public discussion is a political duty, and that this should be a fundamental principle of the American government.” Such discussion “may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials.”

In Donald Trump’s view, these principles shouldn’t exist."

Michelle Obama’s epic New Hampshire speech was a master class in speaking from the gut; Washington Post, 10/14/16

Jena McGregor, Washington Post; Michelle Obama’s epic New Hampshire speech was a master class in speaking from the gut:

"Michelle Obama's epic speech Tuesday in New Hampshire should be required viewing for every leader. Not because of its political content. Not for her strongly worded endorsement of Hillary Clinton or her scathing takedown of the Democratic nominee's "opponent" -- the First Lady refused to even say GOP nominee Donald Trump's name -- that has already been called a "defining moment in the presidential campaign."

Rather, it was for the absolute master class she offered in that elusive quality of leadership: "authenticity." It is among the most jargon-laden, vague concepts touted by leadership consultants and coaches, the subject of countless books and training seminars promising yet another elixir to effective speech-making or good leadership.

But on Thursday, Obama provided a stark reminder that this nebulous quality comes not from a book. It comes from the gut. With inclusive and personal stories, emotionally strong yet vulnerable tone and body language, and a passionate appeal rooted in her own experiences, Obama embodied the widely praised but rarely replicated feat of seeming "real" that escapes so many leaders."

Full Transcript: President Obama’s Rally Speech for Hillary Clinton in Cleveland; Newsweek, 10/14/16

[Full Transcript] Michele Gorman, Newsweek; Full Transcript: President Obama’s Rally Speech for Hillary Clinton in Cleveland:

[Pres. Barack Obama] "Donald Trump’s closing argument is “What do you have to lose?” The answer is: Everything. All the progress we’ve made right now is on the ballot. Civility is on the ballot. Tolerance is on the ballot. Courtesy is on the ballot. Honesty is on the ballot. Equality is on the ballot. Kindness is on the ballot. (Applause.) All the progress we made that last eight years is on the ballot. Democracy itself is on the ballot right now.

So if you want to send a message, make it loud. Turn back the voices of cynicism. Turn back the voices of ignorance. Send a message of progress. Send a message of hope. Send a message by voting for Hillary Clinton, and show our kids and the rest of the world we remain the greatest country in the world."

Daughters and Trumps; Frank Bruni, 10/12/16

Frank Bruni, New York Times; Daughters and Trumps:

"There’s something off-key when lawmakers — Republicans or Democrats, in connection with Trump or in other instances — describe the importance of an issue in accordance with its relevance to the people closest to them and its proximity to their doorstep. Or when they present their descendants as the best proof of their investment in the future.

The message of that is antithetical to public service and political leadership, which are ideally about representing kin and strangers alike, casting the widest possible net of compassion and letting common values, not personal interests, be the compass.

My loins are fruitless but my principles are clear: No human being — woman or man — should be regarded as a conquest or an amusement with a will subservient to someone else’s. That’s how Trump seems to treat most of the people in his life, and I object to that not as the brother of three admirable siblings (including a sister), not as the son of two extraordinary parents (including a mother), not as the uncle of many talented nieces and nephews, not as the partner of a wonderful man, and not as a friend to brilliant men and women whose welfare matters greatly to me.

I object to it as the citizen of a civilized society. I object to it because it threatens the people I don’t know as well as the people I do. I object to it because it’s wrong."

Michelle Obama’s Speech: As Personal As Political Gets; BillMoyers.com, 10/14/16

Lynn Sherr, BillMoyers.com; Michelle Obama’s Speech: As Personal As Political Gets:

"Rush Limbaugh noted Trump’s comment that “when you’re a celebrity, they let you do anything,” and said, “How can there be assault if somebody’s granting permission? How can it be assault if they let you do anything?”

Newt Gingrich called the claims “30-year-old gossip,” saying “I don’t think it’s relevant.”

I do. And so does Michelle Obama. In her speech she destroyed the false equivalency of “he said/she said,” using her powerful platform to make it clear that what she said that afternoon was far more relevant than anything he or his cronies either said or could say in defense of such behavior. She didn’t just go high when he went low; she soared. And connected.

“I listen to all of this, and I feel it so personally,” she said, meaning it. “The shameful comments about our bodies. The disrespect of our ambitions and intellect. The belief that you can do anything you want to a woman. It is cruel. It’s frightening. And the truth is, it hurts. It hurts. It’s like that sick, sinking feeling you get when you’re walking down the street, minding your own business, and some guy yells out vulgar words about your body.”"

Two speeches in two hours crystallize the state of Campaign 2016; Washington Post, 10/13/16

Dan Balz, Washington Post; Two speeches in two hours crystallize the state of Campaign 2016:

"In back-to-back appearances, in what might be the two most compelling hours of the entire election, Michelle Obama in New Hampshire and Donald Trump in Florida delivered the fiercest, most provocative and hardest-hitting speeches of an election cycle that has been without precedent in hot rhetoric...

In two hours Thursday, the lines were drawn as never before. Michelle Obama delivered a case against Trump’s personal and moral fitness with a forcefulness that Hillary Clinton cannot match, given the past charges against her husband. Meanwhile, Trump has embraced fully the blow-it-up argument that will rattle Republican leaders but which animates those Americans who are most alienated from the country’s establishment. Those are the parameters of the political debate as it stands today — and the choice that will be settled on Election Day."

Michelle Obama’s speech on Donald Trump was remarkable; Washington Post, 10/13/16

Chris Cillizza, Washington Post; Michelle Obama’s speech on Donald Trump was remarkable:

"This speech, along with her address at the Democratic National Convention, are two of the best speeches — maybe the two best — given by any public figure this year. Both, yes, were made by a partisan in support of a partisan candidate for president. But neither felt like the typical party pap. In that speech in July and again Thursday, Obama was able to tap into something far deeper than “Democrat” or “Republican.” She was, in both instances, speaking to a shared humanity that we could all use more of no matter our political inclinations."

Truth Or Denial; Washington Post, October 2016

Washington Post; Truth Or Denial:

Glenn Beck Says Opposing Trump Is ‘Moral, Ethical’ Even if It Means Clinton Wins; New York Times, 10/11/16

Liam Stack, New York Times; Glenn Beck Says Opposing Trump Is ‘Moral, Ethical’ Even if It Means Clinton Wins:

"Glenn Beck, the fiery conservative media personality and former Fox News host, says that he briefly considered voting for Hillary Clinton and called opposing Donald J. Trump the “moral, ethical choice” — even if doing so leads to Mrs. Clinton winning the presidential election.

His comments were made after the release on Friday of a 2005 recording of Mr. Trump boasting about sexual assault that set off a war between the presidential nominee and a broad swath of the Republican establishment, including Paul D. Ryan, the House speaker.

Reacting to the recording, Mr. Beck wrote over the weekend that each person “must decide what is a bridge too far” and said he supported calls for Mr. Trump to withdraw from the presidential race.

“It is not acceptable to ask a moral, dignified man to cast his vote to help elect an immoral man who is absent decency or dignity,” Mr. Beck wrote on Facebook. “If the consequence of standing against Trump and for principles is indeed the election of Hillary Clinton, so be it. At least it is a moral, ethical choice.”"

Madeleine Thien: ‘In China, you learn a lot from what people don’t tell you’; Guardian, 10/8/16

Claire Armitstead, Guardian; Madeleine Thien: ‘In China, you learn a lot from what people don’t tell you’ :

"Do Not Say We Have Nothing makes the surprising suggestion that part of the solution might lie in the act of copying. The different generations of Marie and Ai-Ming’s families are connected by the manuscript of a novel, “The Book of Records”, chapters of which have been carefully copied out, hidden in walls and beneath floorboards, and passed from hand to hand. “The Book of Records” is precious because it represents a narrative that doesn’t conform to the approved version of Chinese history, Thien explains. “It’s a book with no beginning, no middle and no end, in which the characters are seeing an alternative China where they recognise mirrors of themselves and which they write themselves into.”...

This latest crackdown is yet another variation on the long-running theme of suppression of the individual, making it highly unlikely that either of her mature novels will be published in mainland China, though she hopes they may yet be in Hong Kong. It doesn’t seem too far-fetched to describe them as her own Books of Records, embodying the difficult business of remaining imaginatively free while honouring “contested history”."

If War Can Have Ethics, Wall Street Can, Too; New York Times, 10/3/16

Nathaniel B. Davis, New York Times; If War Can Have Ethics, Wall Street Can, Too:

"To demand moral perfection or to succumb in the face of seeming futility is to turn our backs on what can be achieved by acknowledging both the ideal and the limits of reality. Applied ethics guide our interactions in the world as it exists while nudging us incrementally closer to the normative ideal and the world we seek to create.

War is inherently unjust, but the Just War Ethic has made it more just. The economy is not moral, but a foundational ethics of the economy could make it more moral. The product of such ethics would be decidedly imperfect, but it would be better than no ethics at all."

Fact check: This is not really a post-fact election; Washington Post, 10/7/16

Alexios Mantzarlis, Washington Post; Fact check: This is not really a post-fact election:

"Unique visitors to The Washington Post’s Fact Checker were up 477 percent year-over-year in July, and up again in August. NPR recorded the highest traffic in the history of its website thanks to its live fact-checking of the first presidential debate. At least 6 million people had checked out the annotated transcript by the next morning. PolitiFact racked up 3.5 million page views in the 24 hours after that debate, drawing more traffic in one day than it did in entire months during the 2012 presidential campaign.

So voters want more fact-checking. But is it making any difference? Do people change their minds when faced with a fact check that surprises them, or do they internalize only fact checks that suit their own biases? Our understanding of basic psychology suggests that fact checks are often read with a partisan eye.

Often, but not always. A new working paper by Brendan Nyhan of Dartmouth College and Jason Reifler of Exeter University, who have studied fact-checking extensively, indicates that readers can learn from fact checks."

A generation of GOP stars stands diminished: ‘Everything Trump touches dies’; Washington Post, 10/9/16

Philip Rucker, Washington Post; A generation of GOP stars stands diminished: ‘Everything Trump touches dies’ :

"“There is nobody who holds any position of responsibility who in private conversations views Donald Trump as equipped mentally, morally and intellectually to be the president of the United States,” said Steve Schmidt, a veteran GOP strategist. “But scores of Republican leaders have failed a fundamental test of moral courage and political leadership in not speaking truth to the American people about what is so obvious.”"

Facebook revenge pornography trial 'could open floodgates'; Guardian, 10/9/16

Alexandra Topping, Guardian; Facebook revenge pornography trial 'could open floodgates' :

"The fact that Facebook waits until pictures have been reported, unless they are known child abuse images, before taking action was no longer sufficient, according to John Carr, a leading authority on children and the internet. “Facebook is like a public utility for young people, it plays a massive role in their lives,” he said...

It will take more than one high profile case to remove other barriers to victims of revenge pornography, whatever their age, receiving justice. Although a recent poll revealed that 75% of respondents were in favour of victims receiving anonymity, the government shows no indications of classifying the crime as a sexual offence. This means the vast majority of victims will never seek justice, said Julie Pinborough, director of the legal advice centre at Queen Mary University, which provides pro bono legal advice for victims."