Google’s Gatekeepers

Sobering piece by Jay Jeffrey Rosen exploring the critical role that Google’s corporate gatekeepers play in deciding what can and cannot be shown to audiences.

“Right now, we’re trusting Google because it’s good, but of course, we run the risk that the day will come when Google goes bad,” [Timothy] Wu told me. In his view, that day might come when Google allowed its automated Web crawlers, or search bots, to be used for law-enforcement and national-security purposes. “Under pressure to fight terrorism or to pacify repressive governments, Google could track everything we’ve searched for, everything we’re writing on gmail, everything we’re writing on Google docs, to figure out who we are and what we do,” he said. “It would make the Internet a much scarier place for free expression.” The question of free speech online isn’t just about what a company like Google lets us read or see; it’s also about what it does with what we write, search and view.

Source: NYTimes.com.

Ed Felten adds this:

Rosen worries that too much power to decide what can be seen is being concentrated in the hands of one company. He acknowledges that Google has behaved reasonably so far, but he worries about what might happen in the future.

I understand his point, but it’s hard to see an alternative that would be better in practice. If Google, as the owner of YouTube, is not going to have this power, then the power will have to be given to somebody else. Any nominations? I don’t have any.

What we’re left with, then, is Google making the decisions. But this doesn’t mean all of us are out in the cold, without influence. As consumers of Google’s services, we have a certain amount of leverage. And this is not just hypothetical — Google’s “don’t be evil” reputation contributes greatly to the value of its brand. The moment people think Google is misbehaving is the moment they’ll consider taking their business elsewhere.

Now that’s what I call a ‘government of all the talents’

The NYT is reporting that Obama will nominate Steven Chu, the director of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, as his energy secretary. What’s interesting about that? Well, Mr Chu has a Nobel Prize for physics. Rather puts Gordon Brown’s feeble efforts to attract talent to his administration in perspective, doesn’t it. Who was it he appointed — a guy called Digby Jones?

Bush’s last days

Many people have been forced into having their own verbal and intellectual lenses for explaining the behaviors of George Bush.

He can’t just be insane, so — what is it? What explains his behavior?

Today, as Congress fished around for money to save the U.S. auto companies, in a pickle because they had not invested earlier in alternative – energy projects, George Bush gave a speech, suggesting that Congress take the money from alternative energy projects to prop up the dying carmakers.

Is he really an idiot?

Some day, in the not so distant future, several things may happen:

1. As laid out in Harper’s this month, the President, the Real President (Cheney) et. al may face domestic or international criminal charges for war crimes.

2. Not that George can not pardon himself or others for international crimes, as in the Nurnburg Trial. Even if he escapes domestic prosecution, he may end up like Pinochet, hounded worldwide by courts elsewhere, kidnapped, dragged around, arrested and jailed elsehwhere, etc.

3. The simplest way to understand the entire Cheney/Bush regime is to assume that family ties to the Saudis were more important than catching bin Laden, that oil in general was more important than anything Bush swore to uphold on that Bible during his inauguration, and that Bush et. al (the heading on future lawsuits, ad infinitum) were embarked on an intentional, planned, consistent program of looting taxpayer monies for their personal and private benefit.

It is impossible to forget: We still have a month and more to go. There are plenty of miscreants on a master scale who would like to have a parting shot at screwing everything up for normal people in return for private gain, at the cost of a single large check to the Bush Library (Bush doesn’t read books; what a joke).

Bend over, and Get ready. George never cared for us then, and he still doesn’t today. He serves only his family, and a few close “friends.”

Source: Mark Anderson.

The Obama rebound?

Sometimes, it’s ifficult to know what to think. This morning the Today programme carried a chilling article about the upsurge in US gun sales since Obama’s election. On the other hand, here’s an interesting reflection Mark Anderson.

The old adage says, The darkest hour is just before the dawn.

It’s hard to be upbeat these days, when every statistic is worse than the last. But the other day, as I was considering predictions for the coming year, a thought occurred to me: we are experiencing the waning days of the administration I have repeatedly called the worst in US history. Of course things look dark.

Is it possible, once the new administration is in place, that hearing daily announcements of LIPs (leadership, ideas and plans) put forward by people who are both smart and qualified, will have the opposite effect on the public from the constant drumming of fear we continue to have today?

Of course.

Is it also the case that markets react more to perception than to ground truth?

Generally, yes.

So I asked myself, what will the state of mind be of the average American, say, three weeks into the next administration – let’s say, by Valentine’s Day, February 14th?

If their house has just been foreclosed and their car repossessed, we know what they’ll be thinking. But otherwise, I expect it will be radically more optimistic than it is today.

Is that enough to provide a market rebound? It could be.

Those Obama appointments

From David Brooks

Jan. 20, 2009, will be a historic day. Barack Obama (Columbia, Harvard Law) will take the oath of office as his wife, Michelle (Princeton, Harvard Law), looks on proudly. Nearby, his foreign policy advisers will stand beaming, including perhaps Hillary Clinton (Wellesley, Yale Law), Jim Steinberg (Harvard, Yale Law) and Susan Rice (Stanford, Oxford D. Phil.).

The domestic policy team will be there, too, including Jason Furman (Harvard, Harvard Ph.D.), Austan Goolsbee (Yale, M.I.T. Ph.D.), Blair Levin (Yale, Yale Law), Peter Orszag (Princeton, London School of Economics Ph.D.) and, of course, the White House Counsel Greg Craig (Harvard, Yale Law).

This truly will be an administration that looks like America, or at least that slice of America that got double 800s on their SATs. Even more than past administrations, this will be a valedictocracy — rule by those who graduate first in their high school classes. If a foreign enemy attacks the United States during the Harvard-Yale game any time over the next four years, we’re screwed.

Already the culture of the Obama administration is coming into focus. Its members are twice as smart as the poor reporters who have to cover them, three times if you include the columnists. They typically served in the Clinton administration and then, like Cincinnatus, retreated to the comforts of private life — that is, if Cincinnatus had worked at Goldman Sachs, Williams & Connolly or the Brookings Institution. So many of them send their kids to Georgetown Day School, the posh leftish private school in D.C., that they’ll be able to hold White House staff meetings in the carpool line…

Lovely piece which, in the end, is not quite as cynical as its opening paras might suggest.

Obama’s energy plan

From the Obama/Biden site

# Provide short-term relief to American families facing pain at the pump
# Help create five million new jobs by strategically investing $150 billion over the next ten years to catalyze private efforts to build a clean energy future.
# Within 10 years save more oil than we currently import from the Middle East and Venezuela combined.
# Put 1 million Plug-In Hybrid cars — cars that can get up to 150 miles per gallon — on the road by 2015, cars that we will work to make sure are built here in America.
# Ensure 10 percent of our electricity comes from renewable sources by 2012, and 25 percent by 2025.
# Implement an economy-wide cap-and-trade program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 80 percent by 2050.

Thanks to Brian for the link.

The defining speech

In retrospect, this was the defining moment of the campaign. It’s the speech that Obama gave on March 18, just as the media frenzy about his former pastor, Jeremiah Wright, was reaching a peak. And it’s an astonishingly grown-up speech. I had hitherto only read second-hand reports of it. I can’t remember when we last had a major politician as sophisticated as this man.

Bailing out Motown?

Common sense from Dave Winer

Reading the news it’s not clear if we’re going to give Detroit the money to keep them going for a while longer. Pretty sure we can’t afford not to, and of course they’ll be coming back for more next year, and that’s probably a good thing, cause it’s time to make some changes. We need to own them for a while so they start working for us not continuing to feed our oil habit and keeping their buddies at Exxon-Mobil’s profits high.

And they have to retire their fleet of corporate jets. And all their execs take pay cuts down to less than $1 million per year. If they choose to quit, so be it and good riddance. And since we’re going to own them, a new rule — no more commuting from Seattle to work in Detroit for the CEOs. We’re bailing them out not because we think they’ve done anything remotely like a good job, we’re doing it so that we don’t have to feed and house their remaining employees and bail out their suppliers when they go bankrupt. We’re doing it to save our country, not to save the auto industry as its currently configured, which is rotten and dangerously short-sighted.

I just got a briefing from Frontline, a show that aired just before the election called Heat, about global warming. Lots of interesting stuff in there, all of which must be taken, of course, with a grain of salt. But if you believe them, Detroit had a Prius before Toyota, funded by the government, but it never went into production. The Prius was a response by Toyota to a US initiative to increase gas mileage. Detroit took our money but never shipped the damn car. Now they’re rebooting their effort to produce a hybrid, and get this — they’re starting from scratch. The bastards threw away the R&D we paid for. So much for trusting them with our money. Can’t do it.

“But”, he goes on,

But we also can’t jump off the cliff. We’ll have Hoovervilles in every shopping mall. When you go to the supermarket the shelves will be empty. It’s already happening at some local retailers. When the economy fails, distributors go out of business, then the manufacturers the distributors stiffed, and all of a sudden even if you have money in the bank you can’t find food to buy. You turn up the thermostat and there’s no heat. Old people and children and people with chronic diseases die when we get there. Perhaps you have some people like that in your family. Perhaps you’re one of those people?

If you’ve ever been to the Third World, or parts of the US that are the Third World like the South Bronx and New Orleans and (I’m told) parts of Detroit — you owe it to yourself to find out what that’s like. Because if you’re stupid enough to think that letting Detroit fall off the cliff somehow won’t take you and your family with it, you need to get educated, fast.

Hmmm… Makes me wonder why people want to be President. Same thought occured to me when I read this piece in the Economist about what to do about Guantanamo. The magazine imagines what an email to the president-elect might be saying to him:

“Then there are those 80 or so really hard men. President Bush wanted to try them, and could never get the law right. So now you have to deal with them. Khalid Sheikh Mohammad has “confessed” he was the brains behind 9/11. God knows what the Pakistanis or the Agency did to him in prison. But we can’t just let him go, and we can’t just let him rot, so you have to give him and his accomplices their day in court. The first big question for you is: what kind of court? You don’t like Bush’s military commissions. But if you set up special security courts with special, meaning laxer, standards of procedure and evidence, they will be called kangaroo courts too. And if you opt for regular criminal trials or courts-martial you run the risk that they will throw out evidence extracted by waterboard. Dare you let a 9/11 mastermind walk free?

Worse yet, there’s a group the Agency is sure are dedicated terrorists but on whom we have nothing that can stand up in any sort of court. The human-rights purists say you must bite the bullet and set these unconvictables free in America. But if you follow their advice it won’t just be Republicans who will say you are putting the republic in danger. You’d theoretically have a let-out if you could let these guys go and keep them under surveillance. But the Feds claim they can’t guarantee fail-safe, indefinite 24-hour monitoring of a group this size. Can we afford to take that risk?

Safer would be to move them to the mainland, where they would be held under some kind of preventive detention devised by your legal team. We can call this “temporary”, but our base will bleat that you have closed Guantánamo only by creating a new prison where America continues to detain people convicted of no crime. And they’ll have a point. Over to you.”

Obama and technology

Because the Obama campaign made such astute use of the Net, there are high expectations on how his administration might use the Net to govern.

From social networking sites to blogs and from iPhone applications to text messaging, President elect Obama used the power of these hi-tech tools to get his message out, raise money, galvanise voters and get him elected.

Now some in the industry think it could be “pay-back time” as they looks to the country’s first tech savvy President to do his bit to push technology into a new era.

“He is the first real president who seems to understand technology and the needs of the industry,” said Tim O’Reilly, the man credited with coining the term ‘web 2.0’ and who is generally regarded as one of the industry’s visionaries.

Already there are some interesting developments — for example The White House 2, and Obamacto.org, both of which are Digg-type sites for policy ideas.

Meanwhile the BBC (and a host of other sources) are predicting that Obama will have to give up his BlackBerry when he becomes president — for security and legal reasons. Well, at least that means he won’t be upgrading to a G-phone. (I’m sure that his commitment to openness would preclude an iPhone!)

Politics, Obama and the Chicago school

In the UK we are contemplating the possibility that we might eventually be ruled by the Bullingdon (aka Bollinger) Club. But a conversation at lunch in college today made me realise that Obama’s administration is likely to be critically affected by a more cerebral outfit, namely the Chicago law school, where Obama once taught constitutional law. One of his buddies is Cass Sunstein, for example, a legal scholar who has written in recent years about the Internet as an echo chamber, the deficiencies of deliberative democracy and — most recently — about how discreet ‘nudges’ can effect social change. Then there’s Jack Goldsmith, who was from the outset of the Net a sceptic about the extent to which the technology was genuinely transformative (in the sense of being able to slip the surly bounds of territorial jurisdictions) — views which later found expression in the book he co-authored with Timothy Wu: Who Controls the Internet? And of course there’s Richard Posner, a senior judge who is also a polymath, an academic and one of America’s most prolific public intellectuals (and indeed the author of a study of public intellectuals). Posner also co-maintains a highly cerebral blog with another Chicago academic, the Nobel laureate Gary Becker.

Rather puts Dave Cameron, George Osborne and the rest of the Bullingdons into perspective, doesn’t it?