The NIH public-access policy has substantially increased public access to research results with benefits as described below that far outweigh the costs. Similar benefits can be expected from extending such a public access policy to other major federal funders.
from Committee for Economic Development, The Future of Taxpayer-Funded Research: Who Will Control Access to the Results? issued last week.
Eben Moglen has the bon mot (or is mot juste the better term?) — Moglen: Facebook Is a Man-In-The-Middle Attack
John Battelle:
The web as we know it is rather like our polar ice caps: under severe, long-term attack by forces of our own creation.
– It’s Not Whether Google’s Threatened. It’s Asking Ourselves: What Commons Do We Wish For?.
What really bugs me about this is that I pretty much agree with him.
(Vocabulary reminder for those needing it.)
I thought this post on the Google privacy changes by the uber libertarian technophile Technology Liberation Front was interesting, given that so much of what one reads is of the TIME TO FREAK OUT variety.
Key bits:
Although we have yet to see it play out in practice, this likely means that if you use Google services, the videos you play on YouTube may automatically be posted to your Google+ page. If you’ve logged an appointment in your Google calendar, Google may correlate the appointment time with your current location and local traffic conditions and send you an email advising you that you risk being late.
At the same time, if you’ve called in sick with the intention of going fishing, that visit to the nearby state park might show up your Google+ page, too.
The policy, however, will not include Google’s search engine, Google’s Chrome web browser, Google Wallet or Google Books.
…
… arguable is the operative word. There indeed may be enough significant user backlash that Google backs off. In the last six months we’ve seen at least two instances of rapid market correction–Netflix’s decision not to go through with structurally separating mail and online video rental accounts and Bank of America’s reversal of its plan to charge online banking fees. Both occurred before the government could step in a provide its own (and no doubt clumsy) remedy.
Then again, there’s a significant body of research that suggests that, in spite of their own complaints, users may opt to accept greater benefits and convenience in exchange for more disclosure about their habits. With this mind, it will serve consumers best if companies like Google are allowed to experiment with the privacy paradox to find where actual boundaries are, rather than hamstringing potential innovation by pre-emptively and blindly setting them.
I found John Battelle’s astute analysis of Google’s earnings call pretty depressing:
The lead quote had to do with Google+, pretty much, not the company’s earnings, which ended up being a miss (Google is blaming fluctuations in foreign currency for much of that, and I have no idea whether that’s true, false, or silly).
But here’s my question: When is Google going to release actual engagement numbers for Google+? Because in the end, that’s all that really matters. As I have written in the past, it’s pretty easy to get a lot of people signing up for Google+ if you integrate it into everything Google does (particularly if you do it the way they’ve done it with search).
But can you get those folks to engage, deeply? That’d be a real win, and one I’d give full credit to Google for executing. After all, it’s one thing to get the horse to water…another to have it pull up a chair and share a few stories with friends.
Battelle's Search Blog is a prime source for thoughtful analysis of what Google is doing, and there’s more in the post, Google+: Now Serving 90 Million. But…Where’s the Engagement Data!.
I found it depressing not because Google missed its earnings numbers and the stock sank 9% overnight (I don’t own any, perhaps to my detriment), nor because they are playing fast and loose with business disclosures (hardly a surprise), but because it signals to me that Google’s push to force users into Google+ will only intensify.
And I don’t like that at all.
It seems the bad guys who infect Macs think it’s worth the trouble to plant Trojans to mine Bitcoins. They’re pretty smart, so I guess this counts as one vote of confidence.
(Thanks to WG for the tip, although probably she won’t approve of the spin.)
Today’s Miami Herald presents a fun legal puzzle for the morning in You may be able to buy Powerball tickets online: Have the purveyors of LottoGopher managed to find a loophole in Champion v. Ames (“The Lottery Case”), 188 U. S. 321 (1903)? Champion famously held that Congress had the power to ban the sale of lottery tickets across state lines under the Commerce power. And the statute is still on the books. (Plus, most states ban online sales of their lottery tickets.)
Enter the intermediary. LottoGopher‘s pitch is that although you engage them to buy a ticket for you, the tickets stay in the state of origin. They don’t issue the ticket — they send someone to buy it from a licensed issuer. Plus, they say, they only sell tickets to people resident in the ticket’s state of origin. Thus, this, from the FAQ:
Is this legal?
Yes. We abide by all lottery commission regulations in each state. We are not engaged in the business of betting or wagering, and members of LottoGopher do not participate in unlawful Internet gambling. 28 U.S.C. 301 legally prohibits LottoGopher from offering its services to individuals and entities outside of the state of origin of the lottery game. The federal statute is aimed to curb that type of interstate activity, and we abide strictly by this interpretation. LottoGopher is registered to do business in every state we operate in. We follow all city, state and federal business registration and tax requirements. LottoGopher is not directly or indirectly, affiliated with any state lottery. We do not “sell” lottery tickets or participate in the earnings of any winnings nor do we receive any commissions from a lottery organization for rendering this service. In compliance with the state lottery we do not charge the consumer more or less than the $1 cost of each lottery ticket.
Indeed, LottoGopher’s description of its services seems drafted to route around Champion v. Ames:
LottoGopher is a messenger service that provides storage and handling of lottery tickets that our subscribers legally own. We are not affiliated with any state lottery and we do not participate in, nor offer, any type of lottery or gambling.
We abide by all lottery commission regulations in each state. LottoGopher is not engaged in the business of betting or wagering, and subscribers to LottoGopher do not participate in unlawful Internet gambling. 18 USC 1301 legally prohibits LottoGopher from offering its services to individuals and entities outside of the state of origin of the lottery game. The federal statute is aimed to curb that type of interstate activity, and LottoGopher abides strictly by this interpretation.
Our policy is to offer a cancellation at any time for any unused tickets up to 4 hours prior to the drawing. (Of course, there are no refunds for tickets in drawings that have already occurred). We are available by phone or email to answer any of your questions. You always have access to all of your account information online, and we strive to provide you with the most convenient customer service experience available.
Our headquarters are in Los Angeles, CA and we have representatives located across the U.S. to fulfill orders on behalf of our users in all the states that we offer our service. LottoGopher is registered to do business in every state we operate in. We follow all city, state and federal business registration and tax requirements. All of our transactions are reviewed by a Certified Public Accountant, and our secure credit card processing is provided by a domestic bank.
The messengers who purchase lottery tickets from official state lottery resellers are selected after a rigorous interview and background check process. They are insured and bonded before given extensive training to ensure the security of your tickets.
We guarantee in our Terms & Services that you are the legal owner of any lottery tickets you have requested. We maintain a sophisticated system that tracks your orders, ticket transportation and a secure storage method. We internally audit all procedures and follow Best Practices in all of our website functions, including:
- Appropriate Safeguards to ensure age verification
- Ensure user are physically located in a jurisdiction where lottery play is legal
- Ensure all taxes due are collected
- Safeguards to combat excessive or compulsive play
- Privacy safeguards for subscribers
Our site does not provide any form of online gambling. We are a messenger and storage service for in-state residents only. LottoGopher has never broken Internet gaming laws and prohibits any version of online gambling or sports betting.
We never send unsolicited emails or advertisements targeted to minors or problem gamblers. We do not advertise in any way towards minors. LottoGopher is domestically owned, managed and registered in Los Angeles, CA, and has no affiliation with onshore or offshore sites that have illegally done business in the U.S.
All of our facilities are located in the US, and users must be at least 18 years of age (21 in certain states) as required by law. We verify the age and residence of all users of LottoGopher.com and post online the odds of winning at each lottery game as provided by the state lottery websites.
We also provide loss limits for each user who orders tickets for us to store on their behalf. We encourage our users to order services with prepaid cards and debit cards rather than credit cards, and discourage people who are delinquent on child support from using LottoGopher.com.
Looks like they may have a winning strategy — if they can police the state-by-state sales restrictions. What will happen, though, when a person falsely gives a local address? Or moves out state but doesn’t update the address? Or uses a friend as a mail drop? Or buys tickets while on vacation out of state?
Sounds like a student note topic, or at least a good Con Law I exam question.
Jotwell
