Media and Journalism

Understand the Internet Strike: SOPA, PIPA and a Free Internet

Julie Ross Godar — Thu, 19 Jan 2012 00:01:37 +0000

Today, January 18, 2012, a number of web sites are going dark to protest two bills currently before Congress that, if passed, could have a chilling effect on freedom of the intenet. The bill in the House is H.R. 3261: The Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), while the Senate bill, S.968: PROTECT-IP Act of 2011, is commonly known as PIPA. Both bills address the crime of Internet piracy by proposing to allow the Department of Justice more authority to order internet service providers to block access to domain names that infringe copyright; to order search engines, blogs, and other sites to remove links to infringing content; and to allow individuals and companies to sue when they believe their copyright is infringed.

The New York Times reports that supporters of the legislation include lobbying group The Motion Picture Association of America, Rupert Murdoch, and music companies, while opponents include the founders of Google, Twitter, and YouTube.

Stating, "While we believe that online piracy by foreign websites is a serious problem that requires a serious legislative response, we will not support legislation that reduces freedom of expression, increases cybersecurity risk, or undermines the dynamic, innovative global Internet," the Obama administration came out strongly against the legislation this past weekend.

Also this weekend, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) promised he would not bring SOPA to the floor; however, the bill's author, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Tex.), announced today he expects the committee to continue work on SOPA in February. The Senate is still on track to vote on PIPA as soon as January 24.

UPDATE 1:15 PST: The New York Times reports that a number of the bill's cosponsors have withdrawn support today for PIPA as written, including Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.) and Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), who took to Twitter to call the legislation "simply not ready for prime time." On Facebook, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) posted that he has withdrawn his support.

Many web sites have announced their intention to go dark, or restrict the display of content, on January 18 to protest these two bills. Most site owners who have specified a timeline say they'll be down from 8AM to 8PM EST, though some went dark at midnight EST. BlogHer is following this as a news story, since so many of our members depend on the internet for its livelihood and more. We will be posting updates as news breaks throughout the day, as we have been doing since the story starting building.

Some of the Sites Going Dark Jan. 18

The English version of Wikipedia will be blacked out worldwide for 24 hours starting at 05:00 UTC.
The WordPress.org blackout should not affect your WordPress blog -- but you can install plugins to join the strike.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation
Reddit
Craigslist
The Cheezburger Network
The Oatmeal (with a hysterical explanation)
BoingBoing
Cake Wrecks
Creative Commons
Smart Bitches Trashy Books
Regretsy

In addition, Google has blacked out its logo and is pointing to SOPA resources on its home page all day today. The homepage of the Huffington Post also features a prominently blacked-out area. See a more complete list of site owners who have pledged to go dark at SOPAstrike.com, AmericanCensorship.org, and Mashable.

Coverage and Analysis

Read danah boyd's take on SOPA: Piracy is a problem; this legislation is a bigger one.
This Blog Has Been [Redacted] on Gigabiting
SOPA Blackout Aims to Block Internet Censorship Bill on the Huffington Post
Everything You Need to Know About Congress's Online Piracy Bills, in One Post on the Washington Post
Mom in a Million: On Copyright, SOPA and Pipa
Tumblr's Stand Against Censorship
The Author of SOPA Is a Copyright Violator on Vice.com
Reports of Wikipedia-dependent kids desperately tweeting for an extension on their homework.
Twitter users have been posting made-up #factswithoutwikipedia to demonstrate the site's importance.

If You Want to Take Action:

SopaStrike and Stop American Censorship have lists of actions to take to get involved, including ways to black out your blog.
WordPress bloggers can install blackout plugins.
BlackoutSopa allows you to change your Twitter icon in support.
ProPublica.org has a page called SOPA Opera, which lists which members of Congress support SOPA and PIPA (you may be surprised) -- and contact information.
Read the text of SOPA on Open Congress
Read the text of PIPA on Open Congress

If you're participating in the SOPA strike today—or if you've got an opinion on it—let us know in the comments! We'll be updating this story throughout the day, and we stand in support of both copyright protection and the right for a free internet.

Did A Fox Pundit Really Say Women Soldiers Should Expect to be Raped?

Mona Gable — Mon, 13 Feb 2012 23:16:02 +0000

[Editor's note: Fox News pundit Liz Trotta certainly has a novel idea about the Pentagon's recent announcement about more women serving in combat. It’s so novel, in fact, that even the folks at Fox News were perturbed when she uttered her opinion about it during an appearance on the cable news channel. Ben Armsbruster at Think Progress explains why Trotta doesn't want women on the battlefield.--Mona]

He writes:

She cited a recent Pentagon report that violent sex crimes in the military have increased over the last 6 years and said women should “expect” it, decrying more levels of bureaucracy to support women who have been “raped too much“:

Credit Image: © Xinhua/ZUMAPRESS.com/

Rick Santorum's Winning Ways with Women--Or Not

Mona Gable — Mon, 13 Feb 2012 20:45:10 +0000

[Editor's note: Rick Santorum sure knows how to attract women! First, there was the comment about women being too emotional for combat. Which then turned into some delightful backpedaling on ABC News that what he really meant was that male soldiers were too sensitive and women too weak. And now we have Santorum’s apparent befuddlement over who wrote the passage about “radical feminists” ruining the family in his 2005 book. But as Jon Bershad at Mediaite notes, Barbara Walters stuck up for Santorum on The View--Mona]

He writes:

Now, this defense wasn’t exactly a full voiced endorsement and it certainly didn’t come from the talk show’s full panel with Joy Behar calling Santorum a “coward” and Whoopi Goldberg saying that he’d have a “big ol’ problem” if he brought these views into the White House. Barbara Walters, however, said that she could see what Santorum (Or his wife. He’s since claimed that it was actually she who wrote that part of the book) meant.

Credit Image: © Ron Sachs/DPA/ZUMAPRESS.com/

What do you think about the conservative candidate's views on women?

The Power of Feedback

kario — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 19:04:55 +0000

Galvanized.
Optimistic.
Pleasantly surprised.

That is how I feel today. As I drove around town, dropping kids at carpools and school, picking up a 45 pound bag of dog food, heading to the library, I caught bits and pieces of the morning show on my local NPR station. Generally, it bothers me to just catch snippets of the show, my brain hating the swiss-cheese holes of missing information, not knowing how to complete the picture. But today the guest in the second hour referred back to something I had heard the guest in the first hour say and I felt the synapses connect, the dots turn to a solid line and the line work its way into the shape of an upturned mouth. The light bulb went on.

The first guest was a social media expert who has taken time off of his job with Google to galvanize the pro-democracy movement in Egypt. He talked about using his skills to take advantage of the free, real-time exchange of information on the Internet in order to promote peace and equality in this part of the Middle East.

The second guest was on to talk about how the Susan G. Komen foundation can begin to rebuild its reputation with its supporters as well as those who deplore their acts of the past few weeks. At one point he said (and I'll paraphrase here because I was driving, after all and wasn't able to write down his words) something like the mistake that companies like Komen are making is to think that we are in a technology revolution. We are in a revolution, for sure, just like the Industrial Revolution, for example. But this revolution is not technology, it is information. Technology is simply the oxygen that enables the information to flow.

Oh.

Yeah.

He went on to say that if any organization, governmental, for-profit, non-profit, whatever, fails to recognize this and engage with their supporters and their detractors in dialogue, they are missing the boat. People want information. They want to give it and get it. They want to feel heard and respected. And those companies that are truly listening to their constituents and incorporating their feedback are more successful and engender loyalty.

I was thinking about this concept as I turned on my laptop and logged in to the web. My home page is set to NPR and the headline that jumped out at me was this one. Speaking of feedback.

And when I realized how many significant changes have come about in American society as a result of the free exchange of information in real time, I felt

galvanized.

Optimistic.

Pleasantly surprised.

Kario

http://www.the-writing-life.blogspot.com

Bloggers are Writers (and sometimes journalists)

Post-Super Bowl 46 Notes: Ad Favorites, Puppies and Avoiding Who Actually Won

anotherjennifer — Tue, 07 Feb 2012 02:48:36 +0000

Well, another Super Bowl is done and I can’t say I’m happy with the result.

It was a great game, though, and my husband sure is happy.

If only Wes Welker caught that pass. If only Tom Brady didn’t start the game off with an intentional grounding/safety. If only…

Before the game, we watched some of the Puppy Bowl. My 3 year old asked when the puppies would be playing again during the first 5 minutes of the football game.

During the game, I ate lots of food, Facebooked, tweeted, texted and took a few notes on my iPad.

Being an advertising junkie, I noted which ads I liked the best. (Because, let’s face it, as a Pats fan I’m trying to focus on something other than the game right now.) Here are the top 5 ads that stood out for me:

Suzuki “Sled” - The Suzuki commercial features Siberian huskies jamming out in a 2012 Suzuki Kizashi, presumably somewhere in Alaska. The driver apparently traded the dog sled in for the car. It has huskies in it, so we loved it.
M&M’S “Just My Shell” – A couple of men giggle because they think a brown M&M showed up to a party naked, as a red M&M takes off his red “shell” and starts dancing to “Sexy and I know it.” Dancing M&M’s are funny. That is all.
Doritos® – Man’s Best Friend – The Doritos commercial that starts with a Great Dane hiding tags to a cat collar and ends with him bribing his “Dad” with a bag of Doritos and a note that says “You didn’t see nuthin” was a big hit in our house.
The Dog Strikes Back: 2012 Volkswagen Game Day Commercial – The sporty new 2012 Volkswagen Beetle inspires Bolt the dog to get into shape. Another animal-themed ad that made us laugh.
A Dream Car. For Real Life.” — 2012 Kia Optima – This commercial features Motley Crue. That’s about all you need to know. It made everyone in my house laugh out loud. Or, kickstart my heart, if you will.

Read the full post at another jennifer

Breaking Down Proposed Don't Track Kids Online Bill

Rita Arens — Thu, 02 Feb 2012 21:36:44 +0000

This afternoon I sat in on a conference call for bloggers hosted by Common Sense Media and attended by Reps. Ed Markey (D-MA) and Joe Barton (R-TX), the co-sponsors of the bill H.R. 1895, Do Not Track Kids Online. I admit to not understanding exactly what was involved, so this call was really helpful. I remember living through the changes brought about by the Children’s Online Privacy Protect Act of 1998 (COPPA), which went into effect as I worked at my first Internet start-up job. As such, I face all online regulation suggestions with hope and concern -- the nature of the Internet can make even the smallest changes operational nightmares, even when we all agree they're a good idea.

Credit Image: Thijs Knapp on Flickr

I didn't take notes words for word, so here is a short list in my words of what I think was said:

Kids are kids and not adults. They do things in the real world and online that their parents wish they wouldn't have done and which could haunt them later.
Teens are different than kids. Teens need a little ownership in their actions separate from their parents and shouldn't be treated like ten-year-olds when it comes to blanket policy for minors.
The Internet is oxygen to kids and teens, so let's not fight that. Let's make it safer for them.
If you're a parent in 2012, understanding how social media -- and in particular, Facebook -- works is part of your job.
For as long as your kid is a kid, you still need to be in charge, even online.
Parents are there to help kids understand their choices and decisions and the ramifications those decisions could have.
Social media sites that allow kids need an eraser button that works within that social media entity -- even if it can't erase everything, everywhere.
Parents should have access to that eraser and should be able to give consent physically in a way the child can't fake because it's too easy to just lie about your age on Facebook.
When you put a photo on Facebook or many other social media sites, you're co-licensing it to the site. Kids shouldn't be able to give that consent.

Enacting this legislation would be operationally difficult and the bill is intended to enact broad principles, not work out all the details.

Companies need to provide a succinct summary of how information is used in addition to a lengthy legal Terms of Service statement.

The right to be forgotten isn't a new idea -- there are private companies out there now doing it for profit.

Companies are well positioned to find solutions to privacy protection and are focusing instead on data collection.

Kids shouldn't be targeted for advertising.

Again -- that was my rapid-fire note-taking, so if any of my statements are incorrect, I hope the speakers will comment so I can adjust. The callers had good points -- one woman said if you require a credit card number or a scanned or faxed signature for parental consent, the kids whose parents can't afford that technology and are already on the other side of the digital divide are out of luck. A fine point, I think. That can't be the way to do it. This legislation can't protect only the children of those wealthy enough to own their own computer or credit card.

I myself brought up the operational issues, which were acknowledged. Someone brought up this week's Facebook IPO as a point about social media business models and how important data collection is to a company like Facebook, though no one disagreed that children should be protected at a higher level than anyone else when it comes to data collection and targeting.

Here are some of the reactions I saw on Twitter with the hashtag #kidsprivacy. What do you think about the proposed legislation? Better or worse? Indifferent?

BlogHer is expressly an 18+ site. BlogHer deactivates accounts from known minors.

Rita Arens authors Surrender Dorothy and is the editor of Sleep is for the Weak. She is BlogHer's assignment and syndication editor.

We Need a President that fits a Country Song!

Lucy's Reality — Wed, 01 Feb 2012 18:34:58 +0000

Sometimes I wish I could stand up AND scream “So what do you want?”

Many Americans Baffle me?

I don’t like to discuss politics. I like to study it. I like to read all the different sides. I love to hear the passionate people BUT at some point even I get frustrated. I consider myself a Conservative Moderate BUT even that is hard for me to say at times. Why? Well, at times I see or dare I say it, I even agree with a LIBERAL. I know, I know, some of you are shaking your head in disgust, oh well! BUT I would wage a bet that a Moderate Liberal has felt the same at times. Typically, it is your diehards, those people on the extreme end of the spectrum that won’t budge AND typically those are the people you DON’T want in office BECAUSE they won’t get anything accomplished. Why? Because they won’t compromise and you need people who will compromise and who work well with others and diehards don’t. NOPE. Now, you need your diehards! Oh, they have a purpose but they just should not be in office or not at the very top LOL. See, diehards are good for rallying the troops!!

“So what do you want?”

See, when all the debating and arguing gets into high gear it gets UGLY. I think, “Don’t we just want a better place to live?” Don’t we realize in the end we have to compromise to get there?” Oh, and my head SPINS with all the SPINNING!

Right now you have many of the conservatives or Republicans whatever you want to label people claiming all our problems are President Obama’s fault. You have the liberals or Democrats claiming, “no, Oh no it ain’t so he inherited all of the mess from George W. Bush and he hasn’t had enough time to fix Bush’s mess.” Then, statistics start flying between the two sides! Oh, goodness the statistic throwing!! One side claims unemployment is rising or the other side claims it is actually starting to go down compared to when it started under Bush and people are not examining the data correctly. Then, the other side will say, no look at Food Stamps and then the other side will say, well, no you can’t use food stamps because President Obama has finally included more which is the right thing to do and you shouldn’t hold that against him, worse Bush left so many people out and blah, blah. Then when the fighting gets ugly they start to go way back in history and one side will argue that even when we were prospering under Reagan we now are paying for it and vice vesrsa with Clinton UGH!!!! You know the saying, YOU CAN’T WIN!! So, let me get this straight, when many Americans were doing pretty well under Reagan AND Clinton, well, things still SUCKED? Of course, because we are NOT a PERFECT SOCIETY and we will NEVER BE a perfect society. Oh, and here is another thing, you can throw out all the statistics and say it started under Bush and blah, blah,blah and you might even be right BUT here is the problem. AMERICANS ARE HURTING NOW and they want to see or HEAR SOLUTIONS. Not how it happened or why it happened they just want it FIXED!! Or tell them how they can HELP TO FIX IT!!

If you look back in history and I will even argue RIGHT NOW a lot of the problem is a President will fail when he loses his ability to LEAD and GOVERN. And you know what is the TOP QUALITY to do this? Not his IDEOLOGY, as much as Americans want to believe that and as much as they fall for it during elections, nope. The Best leaders are the ones that have the ability to work out a COMPROMISE. Now, don’t get me wrong,Clinton and Reagan both knew how to schmooze the public. They COULD SPIN a great tale. They could make it look like they were holding their own. They both knew how to make a compromise END UP LOOKING LIKE IT WAS THEIR OWN IDEA but make no mistake those two Presidents knew the art of working the system and getting it done AND THEY KNEW that was how you kept America WORKING and you did that by COMPROMISING and working with BOTH SIDES. You know the Kenny Rogers song, ‘The Gambler’, “You gotta know when to hold ‘em and know when to fold ‘em.” Pretty sad but our best Presidents can be summed up in a Country song! That says it all!!

We focus so much on the personal that deep down we have no clue about their stand on our government. The issues. And folks, here is the deal them going to church or cheating on their spouse doesn’t affect us nearly as much as how they vote on issues and how well they work with others. Start paying attention to THEIR WORK and not the tabloid issues!! We should talk to their staff, other politicians and lobbyists. Do they WORK WELL WITH OTHERS?? You know, like a performance review? Geez, that would have helped us with George W. Bush and Obama, hell even Carter. These guys lack a leadership quality. All those men are intelligent men. But, there is a reason they have trouble at the top.

They lack The Gambler Spirit!

Americans I ask, “What do you want?”

Hell, “Do you really even know?”

The Advice Column of Shame: On Perpetuating Rape Culture

parentwin — Wed, 01 Feb 2012 16:34:31 +0000

Dear Emily Yoffe,

If a woman does not consent to having sex and has sex, she is a victim of rape. It does not matter if she was biting, kicking and screaming, or if she was too drunk. It's really quite simple. A woman giving consent equals consensual sex. A woman not giving consent equals non-consensual sex. Non-consensual sex equals rape. That's it.

...

You all know Dear Prudence. What would you think the advice given on this question would be?

"Friend Has Revised One-Night Stand Story:A friend recently called me and said she had a one-night stand after drinking too much. She was beating herself up over drinking too much and going home with a guy she met at a bar. I reassured her that everyone makes mistakes and didn't think much more of the account. However, since then, she has told many people that she was a victim of date-rape—that the guy must have put something into her drink . She spoke to a rape crisis line, and they said even if she was drunk, she couldn't have given consent so she was a victim of rape. She now wants to press charges—she has the guy's business card. I have seen her very intoxicated on previous occasions, to the point she doesn't remember anything the next day. I'm not sure on what my response should be at this point. Pretend she never told me the original story?"

I know that I expected Yoffe to tell this reader to support her friend, listen, offer sympathy and help where she could, and let her false, and frankly catty, assumptions go. I expected a litany of reasons why alcohol should not be used as a way to force shame upon anyone. I thought Yoffe, acting as Prudence, would soothe the friend while setting her straight about what rape really is and offer words of wisdom to help buoy women up. I thought she'd tell the reader that it's not her friend's fault and that the friend had every right to proceed as she felt best.

Wrong.

Instead, she starts like this:

"Trying to ruin someone else's life is a poor way to address one's alcohol and self-control problems."

I admit, that's as far as I got last night. I had to stop so I wouldn't throw my computer across the room. (I would then, of course, blame the computer for breaking itself, since the computer was the reason I saw such angering content. That's how this works, right, Prudence?)

"Trying to ruin someone else's life..."

First, why should this woman care about this man's life? He raped her. Secondly, he ruined his own life when he took advantage of her. So, what Yoffe is basically saying here is that not only is it the woman's fault she had sex without giving consent, the blame will also fall on her shoulders should something bad befall this man due to his actions toward her. That's a lot of blame. I guess it's not enough to be "asking for it," anymore, huh? Now, as victims, we also have to be wary of inconveniencing our aggressors due to our piddly trauma over the event. We need to be sensitive to aggressors' needs. After all, they didn't ask to be prosecuted. We wouldn't want to do anything without their consent, now, would we?

"a poor way to address one's alcohol and self-control problems."

If she only had some self-control, none of this would be an issue. If she'd only had some self-control, she wouldn't have gotten raped. Obviously. Her alcohol problems are the reason she was raped and now she's going to vindictively ruin some poor innocent man's life just because she likes whiskey and can't keep her legs shut.

You asshole.

Why don't we correct this a bit? If he only had some self-control, none of this would be an issue. It is not the woman's fault that someone raped her. I don't care if she's "knee-walking drunk." I don't care if she's blacked out. It's not her fault.

Then, Yoffe manages to get even more insulting.

"Since her first version of the story is that she was ashamed of her behavior, and since you have seen her knee-walking drunk on other occasions, it sounds as if she wants to punish the guy at the bar for her own poor choices."

First of all, her "first" version of the story and her "second" version of the story are the same story. Nothing about her story changed, other than her waking up to the fact that what happened wasn't her fault, a notion her "friend" would do well to keep in mind. I cannot see one bit of difference in the woman's stories. In the first she's ashamed of herself. And that's better, Prudence, somehow? And because she has been brought up in this culture of rape, because she has been brought up to take the blame in a situation as unfortunate as this one, she should be reminded that her first reaction was to blame herself? She should then be blamed by others? Her wrong view of the situation somehow taints the events, making it even more her fault? What if she'd come out the gate not being ashamed? That would have made a difference. That's bullshit.

And what does it matter how often she gets drunk? It still doesn't give any guy at any bar right to have sex with her if she cannot give consent. Would it be better or worse if she never got drunk but had that one night? I don't care if this woman wakes up drunk, takes three shots of vodka for breakfast and drinks nothing but beer for the rest of the day until she wakes up to do it again the next morning. It's still not her fault she was raped.

Her own poor choices? Where did she choose to have sex with this person? Nowhere, that's the point. Choosing to get drunk at a bar is now an offense rightfully punished by rape? Whether or not getting that drunk is a poor choice, it doesn't equal should-be-raped-and-shut-up-about-it. In fact, getting drunk has nothing to do with having sex.

"Yes, I agree that men should not have sex with drunk women they don't know."

Apparently you don't, actually.

"But I think cases like the one you are describing here—in the absence of any evidence she was drugged—where someone voluntarily goes home with a stranger in order to have a sexual encounter makes it that much harder for women who are assaulted to bring charges."

Well, isn't that a pretty load of assumptions. How do you know she was going home with a stranger in order to have a sexual encounter? They could have been going back to his place to bake cookies for all you know. And more importantly, it doesn't matter if she did intend to have sex with him. Here's a novel concept: people can change their minds. Women can decide no at any point, at any time. Ask Herman Cain.

If you decide at 8 p.m. that you want a cookie, then you bake cookies, then when they're done at 9 p.m. you decide you don't want one, you can do that. Minds can change. You do not set your path in stone with just one decision.

"makes it that much harder for women who are assaulted to bring charges."

You know what makes it harder for women who are assaulted to bring charges forward? This column. All the people who think this way. The culture that makes a woman ashamed to begin with. The culture that tells her it's her fault, no matter what the circumstance. People like you telling her she deserved to be raped. That's what makes it hard for people to bring charges forward.

"Talk to your friend. Tell her that she needs to think very long and hard about filing a criminal complaint against this guy if there's any way her behavior could be construed to be consensual. Say you understand her shame, but you're concerned about her drinking, and if she addresses that, she won't find herself in such painful situations."

This paragraph, in fact, is why women find it hard to bring charges forward. Why don't you leave it alone, Prudence, and let the court decide what's consensual and what's not?

And "say you understand her shame?" I'm barely able to type now. She has nothing to be ashamed of. (I'm going to use caps, watch me.)

SHE HAS NOTHING TO BE ASHAMED OF.

(I feel better.)

Her shame is the result of columnists like you, of the world we live in where getting drunk equals deserving rape.

If she addresses her drinking she won't find herself in such painful situations.

If she addresses her drinking she won't find herself in such painful situations.

If she addresses her drinking, she won't deserve to be raped and we can all rally behind her. Is that what I just heard you say?

And how is this parenting related? I have two girls. If anyone ever tells me my kids got raped because of their bad decisions, I will most likely go to jail after my bad decision to beat the shit out of that person. And then I'll tell the person, no, you had it coming. You're not a victim of my fists. When you opened your yap to blame my girls for something that was not their fault, you made a poor choice, and you were punished for that choice. Think very carefully about your actions, and maybe you won't find yourself in such painful situations.

For the full column, visit Slate.

___
If you like this blog, please vote for it here at Babble's Top 100 Blogs list.

The Do Not Track Kids Act

Rep. Ed Markey — Tue, 31 Jan 2012 20:56:59 +0000

Kids today enjoy unprecedented access to the Internet. In fact, children ages 8 to 18 spend an average of an hour and a half each day using a computer outside of schoolwork. While the Internet remains an incredible tool for learning and communicating, it has also become a way to track and target children’s online behavior. Tracking the online movements of children and teens - and collecting their personal data - has become widespread. In fact, websites directed towards children and teens are more likely to track user activities. Companies that collect information about children and teens can sell this information to advertisers and data brokers, compiling detailed digital dossiers on our nation’s children.

Many parents already see the dangers of these data collection and tracking practices. Studies show that 92% of teens and 94% of parents would like to be allowed to delete their children’s personal information from search engines and social networking sites.

In 1998, Congress passed the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA), which I authored. The law took major steps towards protecting the personal information of children online. However, this law does not reflect what the Internet looks like today. Congress must update COPPA to ensure that children and teens are protected online in the 21st century. That is why, earlier this year I introduced the Do Not Track Kids Act of 2011 (H.R. 1895) along with my co-chair of the Bi-partisan Congressional Privacy Caucus, Rep. Joe Barton from Texas.).

The “Do Not Track Kids Act” would to prohibit Internet companies from collecting personal and location information from children without parental consent, and teens without their consent. The legislation would prohibit online companies from sending targeted advertising to children and minors and require website operators to have an “eraser button” capability that enables parents to delete or eliminate information about children and minors.

Now is the time for new legislation to safeguard our children and teens from online tracking and targeting. We need to ensure their privacy is intact. We need to empower parents with the tools needed to protect their kids online.

Post-SOTU Google+ Hangout and TweetUp Show Why President Obama Should Rely on Social Media in 2012 Campaign

Noor — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 17:03:17 +0000

The White House announced a packed engagement schedule in the lead up to and after Tuesday’s State of the Union Address, including a full week of “Office Hours” with senior officials, a White House TweetUp, and a Google+ hangout with President Barack Obama (on Monday, January 30th). This type of full court press may be new to American politics, but it’s standard for Obama, who made a name for himself as a trailblazer of citizen engagement by using social media. Amidst Republican concerns that the president does not uphold traditional American values, his campaign team would be well-served to highlight his signature contribution of taking the decision-making processes back to the people.

The Obama team wrote the book on social media in politics. Many analysts credit his victory to a skillful use of digital platforms – YouTube, Facebook, LinkedIn and Twitter — which attracted a relatively younger grassroots constituency and led to 66.8 million votes and $500 million in just online donations. To be clear, Obama’s campaign team was not the first to employ social media — Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) raised id="mce_marker" million online in 2000, and Howard Dean mobilized online support through Meetup groups in 2004 — but it was the first to effectively convert online engagement into actual votes. Compared to McCain, Obama’s social media hits in the 2008 election season were four times higher on YouTube and five times higher on Facebook.

But, it’s not just about the numbers. Obama activated a social movement of passionate supporters dedicated to influencing the political decision-making process. Soon after the election, he created “Organizing for America” to maintain his community level engagement by utilizing constituents’ views on key policy issues including health care, the budget, and education reform. In addition, he signed an unprecedented Memorandum on Transparency and Open Government (also known as Gov 2.0), and launched Challenge.gov, a crowdsourcing platform for federal agencies to post challenges to which citizens can respond to with solutions and receive cash prizes.

Federal Chief Information Officer Vivek Kundra describes Gov 2.0 as 'a fundamental shift in power.' “This engages the American people to be co-creators to solve some of the toughest problems America faces,” he said. The cumulative effect of such engagement efforts are tectonic; they are leading government out of the dark age of broadcast democracy — where democracy is a top-down transmittal from elected officials to citizens — into a place where we can perhaps see the light of true collaboration between citizens and the few that govern.

Imprints of Obama’s community organizing bias are visible in his campaigns and the government he runs. In this election year, it’s important for Obama to remind voters of the gated policymaking process of his Republic predecessors, and how he, against several odds, started a movement towards co-ownership of the decision-making processes. This is a vital point to highlight in a political season known more for bi-partisan gridlock than accountability to constituents. Ultimately, it is an improvement to the political system that Americans can enjoy regardless of their party affiliation, one we would continue to depend on during a second term.

Original post at: http://www.policymic.com/article/show/id/3615/new_comment_id/67164#comme...