Google integrating AMBER alerts
Google integrating AMBER alerts
Richard Dunlop-Walters’ The Brief is a must-read for those interested in news about how technology affects our lives every day.
Mr. Dunlop-Walters said of Google’s AMBER Alert integration:
whenever you perform a Google search related to an area where a child has been abducted and an alert was issued you’ll see an AMBER Alert on the results page.
This is a great example of how a company can make money and help society, and do both using its core technology (in this case, search targeting). The best part? Google is working on expanding the integration internationally in cooperation with foreign missing children’s advocates.
Professor David Post: Copyright is meant to benefit the public
Professor David Post: Copyright is meant to benefit the public
Professor Post, writing at The Volokh Conspiracy about the brief he helped write in the Aereo case:
copyright law does not exist for the benefit of authors; it uses the benefit granted to authors because that is a means to increase the creation and the availability of creative works to the public.
It’s important to note that this is not the Professor’s opinion, it is derived from the Constitution and the ways in which the Supreme Court has interpreted the Constitution (particularly Article I, § 8, clause 8).
The issue in this case is whether it is violative of copyright law for a company, Aereo, to essentially rent small digital television antennae to its customers that enable those customers to stream broadcast channels over the internet. Professor Post and his co-authors on the brief argue that it is not:
the court’s role in construing the statute is not to produce maximum authorial reward, but maximum public benefit. Where that means (as it often does) that it is the copyright owners who must persuade Congress to address the matter and adjust the balance so that it tips more in their favor, they are entitled and well-equipped to do that, as they have done so often in the past.
Read the amicus brief here.
Disney buys Lucasfilm for $4.05 billion
Disney buys Lucasfilm for $4.05 billion
Kathleen Kennedy, current Co-Chairman of Lucasfilm, will become President of Lucasfilm, reporting to Walt Disney Studios Chairman Alan Horn. Additionally she will serve as the brand manager for Star Wars, working directly with Disney’s global lines of business to build, further integrate, and maximize the value of this global franchise. Ms. Kennedy will serve as executive producer on new Star Wars feature films, with George Lucas serving as creative consultant. Star Wars Episode 7 is targeted for release in 2015, with more feature films expected to continue the Star Wars saga and grow the franchise well into the future.
I wasn’t a fan of Episodes I, II, or III, and this deal doesn’t increase my hope for some sort of redemption in future Star Wars films. I predict this will lead to a slow, painful death of the franchise in the eyes of geeks and comic store-guys who may have still held out that same hope.
I hope I’m wrong.
Marco Arment goes to a Microsoft store
Marco Arment goes to a Microsoft store
The link above and what it describes are far more damning than any of Microsoft’s shitty advertising and messaging.
Samsung shipped a stunning 57M smartphones in Q3 — twice as many as Apple
Samsung shipped a stunning 57M smartphones in Q3 — twice as many as Apple
How many Samsung devices are on the latest version of their respective operating systems?
Many consumers don’t know or care that they’re buying an outdated version of Android, but that ignorance will not last forever. Samsung needs to solve the fragmentation problem if they expect this kind of success to be long-term.
More interactive Tweets, in more than 2000 ways
More interactive Tweets, in more than 2000 ways
What ever happened to seeing a link and clicking on it? I don’t want garish, heavy embedded crap all over Twitter. But alas, it’s not my company or design to screw up, so I’ll stop whining (but not sulking).
Supreme Court Will Address Antitrust State Action Exemption
Supreme Court Will Address Antitrust State Action Exemption
Steve Semeraro at the Antitrust & Competition Policy Blog:
Government actors are charged with a duty to act in the public interest and thus can generally be trusted to restrain trade only when the public will benefit. Private actors, by contrast, are driven by the desire to maximize profit and will thus restrain trade when it is privately beneficial but harms the public interest. On 26 November, the Supreme Court will reenter the fray, hearing oral argument in FTC v. Phoebe Putney Health System.
This is an interesting part of antitrust law: the exemption from antitrust liability for state actors and, in very limited circumstances, private actors acting under the supervision of the state. These issues are more relevant than you may think if you’re not a law student/lawyer/professor/large-scale businessperson.
Consider my recent Amazon prediction, or the reach of international competition law.
Find more information about FTC v. Phoebe Putney Health System at SCOTUSblog, or read the 11th Circuit’s opinion at Google Scholar.
Invention as Art
This is a great article on patent drawings and models, as selected for Co.Design by Kelsey Campbell-Dollaghan.
iPad mini - Every inch an iPad.
iPad mini - Every inch an iPad.
Everyone is shitting their pants over this thing, but I’m more excited by the new MacBook Pro.
FTC Publishes Facial Recognition Guidelines
FTC Publishes Facial Recognition Guidelines
Carl Franzen, of TPM Idea Lab:
There are two cases where the FTC believes that companies need to get a consumer’s “affirmative express consent,” that is, an “opt-in,” before using information captured via facial recognition: When identifying anonymous individuals to third parties that wouldn’t otherwise know who they were, and when using any data or imagery captured via facial recognition for purposes outside of what was initially stated by the company.
This is good news because it signals awareness on the part of the FTC that this is an issue. Mr. Franzen provides some good context in his article, so if this stuff interests or worries you, click through to read his analysis. You can also find the FTC’s press release on the issue here, the report itself, in PDF format, here, and the dissenting statement of Commissioner J. Thomas Rosch, also in PDF format, here.
Amazon outage takes out Reddit, Foursquare, Heroku
Amazon outage takes out Reddit, Foursquare, Heroku
Lee Hutchinson, writing at Ars Technica:
These kinds of outages are a jarring reminder of the true nature of “the cloud”—it’s still just servers in data centers.
Amazon’s market power in ebooks leads to some questionable behavior, as well as some anti-competitive business practices.
Now it is becoming increasingly clear that reliance on Amazon by some of the internet’s most popular services could be a liability. Their cloud hosting services, which, to be fair, are well known for affordability and reliability, look like an attractive single point of failure for the things we use on the internet every day.
Introducing the New Entertainment Experience from Xbox
Introducing the New Entertainment Experience from Xbox
Yusuf Mehdi, Chief Marketing Officer for Microsoft’s Interactive Entertainment Division:
[…] we will rapidly accelerate the reach of Xbox entertainment from more than 67 million consoles to literally hundreds of millions of devices worldwide. Also this week, we will take our biggest step ever to increase our global reach, extending Xbox entertainment experiences to 222 countries from 35.
Looks good. The only question now is whether it will work as well for me as it did for this well-coiffed engineer. Even if the only thing I get out of this update is the ability to use a phone or tablet keyboard to enter text on my Xbox, it will be the greatest thing that ever happened to the Microsoft console.
Amazon's "phantom" 20% VAT for UK ebook sales
Amazon’s “phantom” 20% VAT for UK ebook sales
Ian Griffiths and Dan Milmo of The Guardian, quoting ” a contract seen by the Guardian,” presumably between Amazon and one of its UK publishing “partners”:
If the base price exceeds the base price … provided to a similar service then … the base price hereunder will be deemed to be equal to such lower price, effective as of the date such lower price comes into effect.
That’s a good deal, especially coupled with the recent ebooks settlement.
The US antitrust regime is focused on protecting consumer interests. That means that as long as Amazon’s book selection continues to rise and their prices continue to fall, they’re unlikely to see any problems on the competition law front.
That’s probably not good for consumers in the long-run, especially given Amazon’s DRM and control over your devices and library. I’m going to go out on a limb here and predict that Amazon will face some antitrust scrutiny of its own in the next year.
Sloppy SSL implementation begets Android app vulnerabilities
Sloppy SSL implementation begets Android app vulnerabilities
Dan Goodin at Ars Technica explains how researchers found that 8% of apps in a 13,500-app sample were susceptible to man-in-the-middle attacks. Hopefully developers will revisit their SSL implementations or, better yet, Google will update future versions of the Android SDK to disallow some of the poor coding decisions that cause these vulnerabilities.
Nebraska court strikes down restrictions on internet use for sex offenders on free speech grounds
Nebraska court strikes down restrictions on internet use for sex offenders on free speech grounds
Professor David Post of Temple Law served as an expert for the plaintiffs — yes, sex offenders — in this case. His focus, as he points out in his Volokh Conspiracy post, was on the overbroad nature of the statute barring internet use by sex offenders, which he believes, and the United States District Court for the District of Nebraska agreed, was beyond what the First Amendment allows.
Your first thought might be “who cares about a sex offender’s free speech rights?”
The answer, of course, is that the Constitution cares, particularly after they have served prison time and otherwise complied with constitutionally sound penalties for their crimes.
The core of the court’s holding lies in the following passage:
The ban not only restricts the exchange of text between adults; it also restricts the exchange of oral and video communication between adults. Moreover, the ban potentially restricts the targeted offenders from communicating with hundreds of millions and perhaps billions of adults and their companies despite the fact that the communication has nothing whatsoever to do with minors.1
This looks to me like a well-meaning statute, meant to keep sex offenders away from kids online, that was very poorly drafted. You could achieve the desired goal using far narrower provisions. I hope someone proposes a corrected statute to that effect.
Brazilian newspapers leave Google News en masse
Brazilian newspapers leave Google News en masse
Carlos Fernando Lindenberg Neto, president of Brazil’s National Association of Newspapers, on his association’s withdraw from Google News:
Google News’ presence in the Brazilian market is small. We believe (the loss of traffic) is an acceptable price to protect our content and brands.
The linked article, by Isabela Fraga at the Knight Center for Journalism in the Americas blog, offers good background on the issue.
I never go to Google News without clicking on at least three stories I wouldn’t have otherwise encountered. Maybe I’m the exception and not the rule. But if Google News’ presence is really that small, isn’t the potential or actual harm they claim necessarily small as well?
This decision looks petty and short-sighted, particularly in light of Newsweek's recent announcement.
Alto: Aol's attempt to redesign email
Alto: Aol’s attempt to redesign email
Austin Carr, writing at Fast Company's Co.Design blog:
It’s actually proved to be a more modern and nimble alternative to many of its mainstream counterparts, and boasts many novel features that Google, Yahoo, and Microsoft, even with its beautiful redesign of Outlook, should all heed lessons from.
His review has some images and a really good explanation of how Alto feels. Fast Company's Adam Bluestein spoke with Alto's team leads, and that article is also worth a look.
The articles compare Alto to Pinterest, but it looks to me more like Evernote, with note titles and summaries on the left and notebooks in a larger “stack” layout pane on the right. Regardless, it looks elegant and functional, which is what I want from websites and apps. I’m really impressed by how it looks and the philosophy behind what they did, including empowering an insular team to build it outside of Aol’s larger structure.
In fact, Alto looks so well-designed that, if I was in charge at Aol, I probably would have had them launch without much of a mention of Aol at all. It’s unfortunate but true that the Aol brand is really a handicap to anyone trying to do something as bold as redesigning how we use email. Some people may see “Alto, by Aol” and skip it altogether. I almost did.
Alto works with many popular email services, including Gmail, so I’m excited to see how it works. You can request an invite here. I’ll write something more in-depth when I get the chance to try it out.
Verizon Activated 3.1 Million iPhones In Q3 2012, But Only 651K Were iPhone 5s
Verizon Activated 3.1 Million iPhones In Q3 2012, But Only 651K Were iPhone 5s
MG Siegler, commenting on the TechCrunch post by Chris Velazco, linked above:
In other words, the iPhone 5 was on sale for just nine days before the quarter ended. And it was supply-constrained the whole time.
Mr. Siegler and Mr. Velazco pointed out the nine-day sales window the iPhone 5 had before these quarterly numbers were announced, but neither came right out and said what I find to be the most impressive expression of it:
Verizon activated over 72,000 iPhone 5s per day during the nine days ending the quarter.
2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals: DOMA violates Equal Protection
2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals: DOMA violates Equal Protection
Larry Neumeister, for AP:
The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued its 2-to-1 ruling only weeks after hearing arguments on a lower court judge’s findings that the 1996 [“Defense of Marriage Act”] was unconstitutional.
This is good news. The holding was based on the intermediate scrutiny constitutional standard and declared DOMA violative of Equal Protection.
The dissent in the 2-1 decision came from Judge Chester Straub, who said “courts should not intervene where there is a robust political debate because doing so poisons the political well, imposing a destructive anti-majoritarian constitutional ruling on a vigorous debate.”
It is the duty of a court to intervene where legislation violates constitutional protections, and that is exactly what DOMA does with regard to same-sex marriage.
There is no valid argument to the contrary.
If the Supreme Court fails to strike this law down when it comes to them some time in the next year, and fails to confirm that our Constitution disallows discrimination with regard to who citizens love solely on the basis of a majoritarian religious belief, it will be the darkest legal day in my lifetime thus far.