practical obscurity*

I usually post about media, law, and culture. But you never know.

[practicalobscurity]

My brother-in-law asked about Google Photos, here’s what I said.

We talk about tech and law from time to time, and he asked if I had any thoughts on the new app, announced today. This is all very preliminary, as I haven’t even seen the Terms of Service (maybe it’s covered by the general policy?) I think it nicely encapsulates a lot of what I encourage folks to think about with regard to these kinds of things.

As ever, anybody who decides to use this very enticing app should try their best to understand the tradeoff they're making: it looks terribly convenient and useful, and it's free, so what does the user give up in exchange? It's glib to say, "their privacy." It's more accurate to say a certain amount of control over those images and the information that is attached to them. (And remember that digital photos can come laden with metadata: including the time and even the place the photo was taken. Imagine taking a picture with an iPhone when location services is on.) Google is an advertising company--they make use of the information you provide to them (search terms, emails, other metadata) by selling advertising space on their platforms and by selling that aggregated, quasi-anonymous information to third parties that want to advertise to you all around the web. So in order for this to work for Google, they are gonna ask: "how can we use this platform to show you ads (here and elsewhere), and how can we link this content to other information we have about you to in order to fine-tune those ads?" Worth mentioning that this may, sooner or later, include facial recognition technology like what Facebook's already been doing. The tradeoff might also include a license to use your pictures in various ways, which would be in the terms of service (all of this would be in the TOS, actually, which I haven't seen). A lot of people get confused and say things like "Instagram owns your photos, not you" but that's not quite accurate. By posting stuff on social media, you usually don't give up your ownership of the content, but you do grant the platform a license to use your content in a variety of ways. So you own it, but so do they. I would expect Google to do the same, even though this is not a social media platform, no matter what they say about how they're going to protect my privacy. So I'd read the TOS very closely for that information before I sign on. As far as data security, it's probably not more or less secure than other platforms that Google runs, which is to say pretty damn secure, but not unhackable forever and ever. They know they are the biggest target in the world, and take security very seriously. So this will be like other Google products: it will probably be super convenient and easy to use, setting the benchmark for this kind of app. It will be highly secure, while adding many drops to a vast, vast ocean of data about its users.

Update: I would also tell him to read this very comprehensive post from Buzzfeed.

[practicalobscurity]

Hitler's Cartoon Problem and the Art of Controversy

Napoleon said caricatures “did more than all the armies of Europe” to defeat him. King Louis Philippe jailed a comic artist on the grounds that such a work “amounts to an act of violence.” ... When the English government was pursuing the policy of appeasement before the Second World War, they found that one of Germany’s demands was that [Evening Standard comic David] Low stop making fun of Hitler.

An April 2013 review of Victor Navasky's The Art of Controversy. Via the excellent MediaREDEF newsletter.

[practicalobscurity]

Reading on #CharlieHebdo, Blasphemy and Freedom of Expression

I'm not sure I've got much to add to the cacophony of condemnation and commentary on the killing of 12 people at French satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdo on Wednesday.

The Guardian view on Charlie Hebdo: show solidarity, but in your own voice | The Guardian

This editorial is a clear articulation of journalistic clear-headedness on the issue, a response to claims that the only true way media outlets can show solidarity with Charlie Hebdo and show a lack of fear in the face of terrorism ("jes suis Charlie") is to republish its most controversial cartoons.

"There is an appealing simplicity to that stance, but it rests on faulty logic. The key point is this: support for a magazine’s inalienable right to make its own editorial judgments does not commit you to echo or amplify those judgments. Put another way, defending the right of someone to say whatever they like does not oblige you to repeat their words."

A core value of freedom of expression is showing unflagging support for the right to speak without regard for the content of speech. Hence, a diverse and dynamic marketplace of ideas. 

The Blasphemy We Need | Ross Douthat, New York Times

David Brooks' column on Charlie Hebdo has gotten lots of attention, and deservedly so, for its criticism of free speech hypocrisy.

What I like about Douthat's piece is its application of the logic that animates the Guardian editorial to the level of understanding the broader, but also more personal, implications of offense giving and taking in a liberal democratic society.

"If a large enough group of someones is willing to kill you for saying something, then it’s something that almost certainly needs to be said, because otherwise the violent have veto power over liberal civilization, and when that scenario obtains it isn’t really a liberal civilization any more.

...

If all you have to fear is a religious group’s fax machine, what you’re doing might not be as truth-to-power-ish as you think."

The potential for violence raises, rather than lowers, the need for people and institutions to support free expression.

Dangerous Words | The Economist

This piece simply lends context--historical, religious--that I haven't seen elsewhere and that I think is sorely lacking in news coverage and commentary on Charlie Hebdo and the killing there. In particular, it is a rumination on how we empower words: "the idea that by saying something one can do something profound and terrible."

The article raised an interesting tension in my own thinking, as someone who studies mass communication. My work relies on a conception that expression is a tremendously powerful and meaningful part of human life. So how satisfying should it really be, then, to respond to killers of offensive speakers, or those who sympathize with the killers, that their response is irrational because "they're merely words and pictures?"

*Image via The New Yorker

[practicalobscurity]

Update: Reflections on my (Virtual) Return to School

I promised some thoughts and observations on the surveillance law course I signed up for earlier in the fall. The class ended back on Dec. 9.

My original intent was to talk a bit about both my experiences with my first MOOC (that's Massive Online Open Course) as well as the content of the course, but most of what I have to say here deals with the former.

To be blunt, I had a pretty hard time staying invested in the course. Part of this may be because of the way I approached the endeavor in the first place: with genuine curiosity, but without a crystal clear goal in mind (let alone the promise of any tangible reward). At any rate, recent research shows relatively low completion rates among those who sign up for MOOCs regardless of their intentions upon registering. So I'm probably among the majority. (You can also count me among those interested in the answers researchers may find to the "why ... people leave" question.)

What would have kept my attention? It's hard to say, but I noticed a couple of things that might inform my thinking about teaching law--both online and "IRL"--down the road that aim to keep students engaged.

There were a few things I noticed about my interaction with video lectures.

One was that I didn't feel particularly inclined to take notes, especially because I could pause and rewind the lecture whenever I wanted, enhancing my sense that I could "get" things without writing them down. While the fact that I could pause and restart whenever I wanted seems like a feature, it might've been a bug in my case, as I--like many learners--tend to better remember and understand things I write down.

I also noticed a couple of tendencies in the way I interacted with the videos that led to bad habits, and thus bad learning. The videos could be sped up, which compressed the time it took to watch them. This was something I could do, but maybe shouldn't have, since it also increased the likelihood that I missed something. I also tried multitasking while watching lectures, to see if I could pull it off. True to some of the research out there on learning and multitasking, I found it impossible to do both.

One thing I thought the course usually did well, but not always, was to place abstract legal concepts in the context of the so-called real world. In other words, the goal is to encourage students to understand legal rules and standards by contemplating their application in various situations, both actual and imagined. This is usually done in traditional law classes through hypotheticals and analogies. It was interesting to notice that my interest in some of the material waned exactly when the distance between the legal concepts and their concrete significance seemed greatest. It was also interesting to remember what it feels like, from a student's standpoint, when the boredom and confusion creeps in. I strive to make these clear connections in the classroom every day, and the experience reminded me of why it's so key to student engagement.

Relatedly, some of the lectures left historical context out of the explanation. While I recognize that a 10-to-15-minute lecture means you simply can't talk about everything, but the law felt less dry and disconnected to me when I felt like I better understood its intellectual, political, or sociological roots. Maybe it's the historian in me, but maybe it's the student who appreciates the storytelling aspect of learning.

Lastly, but significantly, the class relied on Google Scholar for legal research on a couple of quizzes. It worked pretty well, probably contrary to some easy assumptions about the complexity and speciality of legal research. I also think it may have been empowering to students who had never done any legal research to find that it doesn't have to be more complicated than using a search engine.

As I mentioned at the top, I have relatively little to say on the content at this stage, if only because it involves complex and interlocking issues that I havent' really gotten a chance to digest in a comprehensive way. One point worth stressing, though, is that we rely on the press to explain issues of surveillance to the public and help us consider the benefits and drawbacks. In addition to a lack of transparency that traditionally surrounds this area of law, complexity itself can offer a shield to the government seeking to expand its power.

Also: MOOCs Aren’t Revolutionizing College, but They’re Not a Failure | MIT Technology Review

[practicalobscurity]

Back to School?!

Just a few short years after finishing coursework on the way to my PhD, I'm back in class.

I signed up for a free online course on Surveillance Law being offered on Coursera and taught by Stanford Law grad and computer science Ph.D. candidate Jonathan Mayer. (Is he any good? Well, once signed up to teach the class, he promptly identified a couple troubling security weaknesses in the Coursera site, and broke them down on his blog, so make of that what you will.)

I'm doing the class for a couple of reasons. One is that surveillance law is a quickly evolving area about which I could stand to bolster my knowledge and sharpen my thinking, as a teacher and media law scholar.

When reporters run up against the government surveillance apparatus, it has significant implications for freedom of the press. Moreover, as it has become clear that these issues effect all of us in our daily communication interactions, I think it's important to know as much about them as possible, as somebody who encourages his students to be active and engaged citizens and savvy media users.

I am also doing the class because I want to learn about the platform; particularly from the student's perspective. I haven't taught a class online yet, but it seems to be inevitable, and I want to see how this goes.

I've already had a couple of little observations, as some of the course materials--video lectures, readings and short assignments--have gone live on the first day. For example, seeing that most of the lectures are around 10 minutes long, one of my first thoughts was about how I could fit them into my week. "Oh hey, I could watch one or two on my phone on the bus on the way to the office. That would be convenient..." Which is just the kind of multitasking which has traditionally worried me about online lectures and the like--especially since law can be a subject with a steep learning curve requiring engagement and focus. So one thing I might soon learn is whether those worries are legitimate or overblown.

At any rate, I'll try to post insights--about the content or the platform--as I gather them along the way. And if you want to join in the fun, I think you can still register!

[practicalobscurity]

Celebrity Nude 'Art' Exposes the Limits of the Law (Guest Column) // Hollywood, Esq.

I know we've moved quickly from one topic of abuse to another this week, but I thought I'd offer a link to this clear and precise (if not extremely timely) rundown of the case law that lies behind the limited legal options for people whose private digital information is hacked and distributed online.

If I was teaching media law this semester, this is the article I'd share with my students, along with Woody Hartzog's op-ed of a similar ilk at CNN, explaining why "if you want it private, don't put it in the cloud" is faulty thinking from a normative and legal standpoint.

The bottom line is that there are important lessons in the latest celebrity photo about how much the law struggles to keep up with changes in technology and society, but we don't need to rely on the law alone to ensure that the Internet is a safe and useable space for everybody.

[todaysdocument]

"Dear President Ford,

I think you are half Right and half wrong.”

Letter to President Gerald Ford from Anthony Ferreira a Third Grader at Henry B. Milnes School

[todaysdocument]

On September 8, 1974, President Gerald Ford stunned the nation by announcing “a full, free, and absolute pardon” for former President Richard Nixon.

This letter, from third grader Anthony Ferreira, encapsulated the country’s deep division over Ford’s controversial decision, stating simply:  ”I think you are half Right and half wrong.”

[practicalobscurity]

Not so fast to the “hey the copyright office said you can’t copyright that monkey selfie,” bandwagon, everybody.

Here’s a lucid and contrary analysis, with an interesting reflection on how we value creativity now, to boot.

[practicalobscurity]

CityLab/The Atlantic | A History of Police Uniforms—and Why They Matter

The Upshot/New York Times | Not Just Ferguson: National Guard Has a Long History With Civil Unrest

Just a couple of interesting pieces of historical context for the ongoing civil unrest in Ferguson, Mo. and the role of law enforcement in such situations.

I'm writing on deadline this week, so unfortunately I can't really take the time to offer any additional thoughts, but I think it's important that we get as much historical context on this complicated and frustrating situation as possible.

(Photo of an accused anarchist being searched by police from the Library of Congress)

[practicalobscurity]

The creator of Godwin’s Law on the inevitability of online Nazi analogies and the ‘right to be forgotten’ // Washington Post

A Q&A with Mike Godwin on scrubbing the Internet of people's bad behavior.

"What you see underlying the "right to be forgotten" is the idea that somehow there's a sense of yourself out in the world that you can draw boundaries around. That, I think, is fantasy. I sympathize with the fantasy. I think it's a natural human impulse. But the fact is that we're connected in ways that require us to think profoundly about how we present ourselves. And we're never going to achieve the kind of control over that that one might want in an ideal world."

[practicalobscurity]

Some would argue that this is exactly the way it should work, and that authors who aren’t able to prove their claims should be prepared to pay the price. But the U.S. Supreme Court in Sullivan feared that legitimate stories would go unreported if that price was a crippling damage award. The jury’s verdict may seem like a vindication to Ventura, but it reminds those who write about public figures, especially in the freewheeling world of the blogosphere, that they do so at their own risk. It’s a sobering way to mark the 50th anniversary of New York Times v. Sullivan.

Jane Kirtley, on the jury verdict that awarded Jesse Ventura, "professional gadfly and raconteur," a total of $1.8 million in his lawsuit against Navy SEAL and "American Sniper" Chris Kyle.

Kyle wrote in his book that after hearing a celebrity former SEAL he dubbed "Scruff Face" badmouth the war in Iraq and his fellow soldiers, he knocked the guy out in a bar fight. Kyle later identified "Scruff Face" as Ventura, and Ventura sued saying the book and Kyle's comments were a lie, defamed him, and that Kyle was unjustly enriched as a result.

An appeal in the suit is likely.

[practicalobscurity]

“When Comcast decided to get bigger, ... we all had to ask ourselves, Are we big enough? We all have to think about getting bigger.”

- An anonymous media executive, quoted in David Carr's July 16 New York Times piece on the reported purchase of Time Warner by Fox.

[practicalobscurity]

Net Neutrality for American Democracy

The FCC extended its deadline for filing public comments on Net Neutrality to Friday from today, after reports emerged that the website wasn't handling the tens of thousands of submissions well.

Here's what I submitted a little while ago:

Due to the Internet's crucial role in the commerce, communication, and civic engagement of every single American (not to mention every single person in the world), I strongly urge the Commission to classify Internet Service Providers as Title II common carriers, reject any form of a "fast lane" for Internet communication, and apply these rules to all means of accessing the Internet available today and those yet to be created.

You should weigh in too.

*You might've noticed I haven't posted in awhile! I've been busy. After spending a year teaching at Simpson College, I took a job at Quinnipiac University. Then some stuff happened. Anyway, I'm going to try and post a little more regularly again.

[practicalobscurity]

Freedom of the Press and Criminal Solicitation // Huffington Post

Striking the right balance between the government's legitimate need for confidentiality, the press's legitimate need to obtain information about government action, and the public's "right to know" what its representatives are up to, is a difficult and delicate task.

I've not seen a more incisive explanation of the legal issues arising out of the Department of Justice's investigation of reporter James Rosen. Geoffrey Stone's is a must-read for the basics.

[practicalobscurity]

Principal Park, Des Moines Iowa, courtesy of Google Maps.

[eyeonspringfield]

[practicalobscurity]

Newspapers phasing out Newspapers phasing out copy editorsNewspapers phasing out