http://www.itworld.com/government/63666/us-lawmakers-take-another-shot-patent-reform
Also within the last week was the return to congress of last year’s failed patent reform plans. Though far from what we ultimately (desperately!) need (ie: ending software patents and liberalizing pharmaceutical ones), this bill would greatly reduce the ridiculous sums of money one can be charged with for violating a patent troll’s patent. (Though the actions of 1-clicking Amazon.com and Linux-FUDing Microsoft are equally as parasitic to innovation as are patent trolls).

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/03/study-questions-whether-cameras-cut-crime/?hp
More good news: a recent an NYU study puts doubts on claim that CCTVs surveillance cameras) reduce crime. That’s not to say that this study claims that CCTVs are definitively not affective at reducing crime; we can, however, confidently state that there is no significant evidence to prove CCTVs are affective uses of public money. No longer will privacy advocates, have to start their arguments about CCTVs with a concession statement (“yes, surveillance may reduce crimes but … “).

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/02/17/met_cctv/

Now for the bad news in the past week. (well some of these stories may be 2 or 3 weeks old, so I’m using “week” liberally) Police in Airtrip 1 (ie: London) want to install CCTV cameras in private pubs. Well, they tried to at least, and though they failed at doing it, its still disturbing that it was even attempted by the police. There’s no denying that at current Orwellianization (registered trademark of Volt4ire) rates this will soon be considered normal.

http://www.goodgearguide.com.au/article/277460/skype_calls_immunity_police_phone_tapping_threatened
As for my neighbors across the channel from our neighbors across the pond, there’s bad news for you as well. The EU has announced their intentions to “crackdown” on Skype’s supposed technical immunity to wiretaps. As proprietary software, though, it’s important to remember that this inability might be a bluff, as there defiantly could have been back-doors in it to give “criminals” (and dissidents, anonymous sources, and other do-gooders that are often ignored in discussions on wiretaps) a false sense of security. This has happened before with other proprietary encryptions services. (I don’t remember their name off-hand but Simon Singh’s The Code Book discusses some software from around 1994 they mention the US gov. decrypting a criminal rings’ files because they were given a back-door by the software producers).

Genachowski’s served as General Counsel to Clinton’s FCC chairman Reed Hundt, then went on to run numerous online companies, including Expedia, Hotels.com and Beliefnet (no it’s not a Christian Right blog, its a website for any type of news relating to religion or lack thereof.) When I first read the AP headline of his announcement, I was terrified when I read “former internet executive”, thinking he was some executive of established ISP interests (read: cable or a telecom company). My fears were removed as soon as I realized it meant web-based companies.  If he’s going to represent some type of corporate interests, I’d much rather it be the large websites’ than the ISPs’:  at least they would support net neutrality. And sure enough, Genachowski drafted Obama’s tech platform to include strong Net Neutrality provisions, as well as policies to expand US broadband penetration (we’re like 18th in the world in terms of broadband availability, which simply sucks!) Hopefully this man will have the common-sense to not believe the Cable and Telecom industries’ promises of “300 gbps by year’s end” in exchange for loosening of regulations, because these were the same people that are trying to stab web-based companies in the back by abolishing net neutrality. Even so, we would get these same good platforms from, say, Larry Paige of Google, who’s business interests are also mutualistic with the general public in terms of supporting Net Neutrality. Nevertheless, Paige would be expected to have horrendous views on issues such as privacy and data protection against corporate negligence. The point is not that Google and Expedia.com have the same corporate interests, but rather that just because they side with consumers on net neutrality does not mean they always share interests with the American people.

Another reason to be skeptical: the guys’ on the board of Common Sense Media, a website that rates movies, TV, etvc. in terms of “family friendly” value. Thankfully, they’re not some crazy “traditional family values” fundemnetalist organization, like Focus on the Family, and their reviews on things like Milk (the film) actually commend the “family value” of the film because it denouces prejudice.  Let’s not kid ourselve, though; this site isn’t out-there to encourage parents to let their kids experience stuff for themeselves. It’s a website whose audience is already commited to censoring their childrens’ viewing habbits. This is not a bad view for parents to have, but it the theme of  “protecting the children” makes it seem likeGenachowski i s the type to favor blanket censorship of “adult” material on the internet. And with the FCC already drafting plans to launch free public internet access (thanks to the spectrum space being freed by the transition to digital cable) within the next 8 years, he will have an extremly strong roll  in deciding just how free that network will be.