Author Archives: Michael Froomkin

Call For Papers on “Federal Secrecy After September 11 and the Future of the Information Society”

This sounds interesting — and important.

I/S: A Journal of Law and Policy for the Information Society seeks research papers for a special Fall/Winter, 2005 issue on the theme, “Federal Secrecy After September 11 and the Future of the Information Society.” This issue will be published with the support of The Century Foundation, which has received a grant from the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation to promote scholarly inquiry into the impacts of government secrecy. We are open to topics within any discipline, and would be especially receptive to multidisciplinary research in this domain.

Examples of possible topics include:

  • The impacts of secrecy in various domains (e.g., transportation, facility vulnerabilities) on national security
  • The impact of secrecy on public safety preparedness
  • Historical patterns in government secrecy
  • The impacts of the 2001 amendments to the FOIA
  • Government secrecy behavior after September 11 compared to other wars
  • U.S. government secrecy behavior in comparison with other democracies
  • Secrecy before and after the end of the Cold War
  • Is current secrecy policy a consequence of September 11 or an extension of Aministration policies antedating September 11?
  • The impact of government secrecy and scientific research
  • The impact of government secrecy and the impact on innovation
  • The impacts of secrecy on public attitudes
  • The interplay of federal secrecy policy with state and local open government policies

Proposals should offer original work that has not and will not be previously published in another venue. The work should not simply offer the author’s opinion, but shed significant light on the topic presented through the rigorous presentation and analysis of evidence. We envision that completed articles should be roughly 10,000 words each, exclusive of references (but including textual footnotes). Depending on the number of meritorious proposals received and accepted, honoraria in the range of $750.00-$1000.00 will be offered for completed works.

I/S would also be pleased to receive proposals for shorter, less formal essays, of no more than 5,000 words that represent advocacy or more preliminary analysis, although we will be unable to provide honoraria for such works.

Please forward proposals, no more than 1-3 pages in length, to Sol Bermann, Managing Editor of I/S, at bermann.1@osu.edu. The deadline for proposals is WEDNESDAY JUNE 1, 2005. Decisions will be made by June 15, 2005, and the deadline for accepted manuscripts will be August 1, 2005.

I/S: A Journal of Law and Policy for the Information Society is a new interdisciplinary journal of research and commentary concentrating on the intersection of law, policy, and information technology. I/S represents a one-of-a-kind partnership between one of America's leading law schools, the Moritz College of Law at the Ohio State University, and the nation's foremost public policy school focused on information technology, Carnegie Mellon University's H. J. Heinz III School of Law and Public Policy. For additional information about I/S, see www.is-journal.org.

I'm on the I/S editorial board, and will probably submit a paper proposal if I can get the #$# grading done in time, but I'm not an editor of this symposium so I can't take the credit.

Posted in 9/11 & Aftermath, Talks & Conferences | 5 Comments

My Brother Tries Movie Criticism

The Empire Strikes Bush:

“This is how liberty dies — to thunderous applause.”

So observes Queen Amidala of Naboo as the galactic senate grants dictator-to-be Palpatine sweeping new powers in his crusade against the Jedi in the final “Star Wars” movie opening this week.

It's just one of several lines in “Star Wars: Episode III — Revenge of the Sith,” that reveal the movie to be more than just a sci-fi blockbuster and gargantuan cultural phenomenon.

“Revenge of the Sith,” it turns out, can also be seen as a cautionary tale for our time — a blistering critique of the war in Iraq, a reminder of how democracies can give up their freedoms too easily, and an admonition about the seduction of good people by absolute power.

There's lots more meta-criticism (what other journalists say) where that came from.

Posted in Dan Froomkin | 1 Comment

People Are Getting Nervous About Google

Thinking About Technology has pointers to and a summary of anti-google rumblings about the web, notably the strong stance taken by Tokyo-based web authority Dr. Karl-Friedich Lenz, whose work I've profited from for some years.

But the real sign of the times is that a major linux-oriented web comic has a (funny, sad) anti-Google cartoon.

Posted in Internet | 3 Comments

51 Congressman Call for War Crimes Investigation

Congressman John Conyers has sent a letter (cosigned by 50 Congresspersons) to the Attorney General calling for a special prosecutor to investigate claims that the U.S. has violated the War Crimes Act at secret detention facilities in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay. Source: Raw Story

What chance is there that AG Gonzales, who bears some of the guilt, will approve this request? How small can you count?

Full text of letter below. (Although the Raw Story version seems to be missing some footnotes?) Kudos to all signers.

Continue reading

Posted in Torture | 2 Comments

Grading

Now is the dreadful time of year when I have to grade exams. I like to think that I am good or better at most parts of my job, and competent at the rest. But even hubris would not suffice to make me think I am an efficient grader. I am slow.

No, I am very slow. I agonize. I get upset at the weak exams — I want the students to do well, and the reality is that they don't all do well. Among the worst parts is seeing common errors float up: could so many people have sat through a semester of my class and not learned that? Did I somehow say something that unintentionally misled half the class? Or is it some commercial outline somewhere that led them astray? There is no way to know.

I used to get really upset about the disasters, the D's and the (rare) F's. Now, perhaps my heart is hardened. Or, more likely, I've come to understand that not everyone is cut out to be a lawyer. Those are not my fault.

It also helps that today's students at UM are better than they were over a decade ago. There are far fewer disasters, and some of the students are very very good. Even so, there are a lot of mushy waffly exams. C+'s dragged down lower by blatant errors, or pushed up by an insight. B's listing under the weight of distractors or unspotted issues.

The A's are the best. Quick to read, easy to grade. They got it! I smile. I wish there were more of them. For the very best I'll be writing them a note, asking them to drop by so I can congratulate them in person, offering to write them recommendations. Most come by, not all take me up on the offer; some already have their futures mapped out, others I never learn the second act much less the third.

Grading is serious business. It matters enormously to the students; they think it determines their prospects. They are not entirely wrong, although for most careers it will affect the first job more than any other, and in five or ten years will be much less relevant than what they have been doing since. I have all sorts of strategies to try to be as fair as I can be. I split the exams up into piles of questions to increase consistency and so that performance on one question won't subconsciously affect the grade of the next. I grade each question in a different order so no blind grading number always comes first. I read every very low grade twice to make sure I gave it every consideration. I have certain issues in mind which, unless you see them and deal with them properly, you cannot get a top grade.

I am fairly confident that if you gave me the same pile of exams to mark last year or next year, almost all the grades would be the same. Certainly the A's, the B+'s, they're quite clear. So too with the C's on down. We don't have a B- grade. The high B's and the low C+'s are very different exams. But right at the margin between the B and C+…there I always suspect that on a different day things might have fallen a little differently. You can only do the best you can.

Grading is serious business. I spend hours and hours at it, while only a few rooms away, my wife grades twice as many exams — she's justly a more popular teacher and also teaches the business subjects that more students think they want or need — nearby, my wife grades twice as many exams in about half the time. She's a grading machine. I find my mind has wandered, and I have to start reading the essay all over again. Grading is serious and important and requires attention. But it's just not that interesting to read the fortieth essay on the same subject.

This year may be different. Normally when I'm not grading I have the alternative of doing something more interesting — usually research. But this year, when I'm not grading what I should be doing is unpacking boxes: our nearly endless home remodeling project is near enough to completion that we've taken back the half of our worldly goods that we had stuffed into a 10×15 container. (“Thank you for staying with us” said the man at the storage facility, as if I were checking out of 3-star hotel…) Now the boxes are in piles on the floor. And it's not all obvious where it all goes.

It's time to start grading today.

Or maybe tomorrow.

Posted in Law School | 7 Comments

Conservative Straight-Jacket for Universities Bill Dies in Tallahassee

The keep Florida stupid bill (also known as the “ensure the dominance of private universities” bill) is dead (for now).

Posted in Florida | Comments Off on Conservative Straight-Jacket for Universities Bill Dies in Tallahassee