Do you really believe this? Do you not understand the influence that Fox News has with regard to elections in the U.S.? And you do understand that things like net neutrality, FCC decency standards enforcement, regulation and oversight of broadband providers, etc., are affected by the outcomes of those elections, right? You can ignore politics at your own peril, but to suggest that it doesn't matter is a bit naive.

Do you mean "decent and objective" like the Fox & Friends legal analyst who criticized the Senate for failing to pass a bill providing health care for 9/11 first responders, yet never once mentioned that every single one of the votes against bringing it to cloture were from Republicans?

The interesting thing about bias discussions is that you have to consider the baseline of comparison. That is, how do you determine what counts as "bias?" Are you (or the paper, rather...but you seem to be endorsing the study by proxy) really suggesting that the average member of Congress somehow represents "true" America? Should the average member of Congress really be considered the "unbiased" starting point?

Instead, I would posit that the average member of Congress represents the voting populace, not all Americans. For instance, this paper (PDF) finds that older voters routinely favor the older candidate. If we look at U.S. census data (PDF) of voters, we see that the voting populace tends to be older (58% are 45 or older). Demographically, this population tends to be conservative, both socially and fiscally. Consequently, it is plausible that the average member of Congress is more conservative than the average American of legal voting age.

Thus, if we accept the premise that the liberal/conservative make-up of members of Congress is more representative of the voting populace than the U.S. as a whole, we can conclude that the media organizations may have more of a liberal bias than the average voter, but not necessarily the average American. Personally, I believe that this premise is still too generous. Given the necessity of Congress critters having close ties to business (CEOs write bigger donation checks than grocery store cashiers), I would suggest that members of Congress are more conservative than the voting populace. If this is true, it exacerbates the flaws of the original study even more so, as it shows that their baseline is significantly more conservative than the average American.

Here is an interesting critique of some other problems with the paper.

You've sort of hit on one of the things that has concerned me about these leaks. I generally support WikiLeaks's stated goal of exposing corruption. But people, especially here in the U.S., ignore the repercussions. For instance, there are many people that argue that anything done in the name of our democracy should be public. That way, we would have a fully informed populace that would use this information accordingly in the next election cycle. As the argument goes, if the citizens are unaware of the government's actions on their behalf, then the citizens cannot act to change the policies. It's a very noble ideal. But it's also deeply flawed.

Information is not classified to keep U.S. citizens in the dark. Rather, it is classified (primarily...yes, there are abuses...but that's a different matter) in order to keep the information out of the hands of hostile entities (certain foreign governments and terrorist organizations). There is simply no possible way to have a fully informed populace without sharing the information with our enemies or those who do not share our values.

So, yeah, it is a nice ideal to help the citizenry become aware of corrupt actions done by members of the U.S. government. However, we need to accept that there is a cost to this information. It is not free. Individuals in other countries may be imprisoned or killed. North Korea may act even more antagonistically now that they have reason to suspect that they do not have the full support of China. Iran may increase the urgency of their nuclear program now that it's publicly known that Saudi Arabia and Egypt have been urging the U.S. to strike.

In the end, there's always a trade-off. Yes, we U.S. citizens have more information about our government. However, so do other groups that may react in very bad ways. To suggest that political embarrassment is the only result of these leaks is utterly naive.

If you look at the very end of the article, the author does mention that he will return to the topic in a couple of weeks where he'll "take a look at McAvoy," which I'll presume is referring to Atonement. But still... The Dunkirk scene is one of the most amazing pieces of cinematography in recent history and should be at the top of any list of long takes. The complexity and the sheer scale is phenomenal.

The claim that pirates take nothing is disingenuous. For every MP3 that exists, someone spent time and creativity to produce the song that is encoded. Thus, the pirate is actually taking the product of someone else's work. Of course, given the crap that's on the radio today, it doesn't seem like a whole lot of time and creativity. But there's no accounting for taste...

What you are really trying to get to is the fact that there is an artificial scarcity of digital media. That is, if I make a copy for you, I can still use my original copy. I completely agree, which is why I think the appropriate fine would be a fairly trivial cost for minor offenders. Something on the order of $5-20 per track.

The real problem with all of these prosecutions (persecutions?) is that there is a semantic gap regarding the actions that are occurring. P2P users think what they are doing is theft, if they think about it at all. They think that by using these systems, they are getting things for free. However, they are not being prosecuted for theft, but for copyright infringement, which is carries significantly larger fines. The average P2P user does not log onto the system thinking that they are distributing illegal copies. They may think that they are "giving back," since they got something for free, but they do not realize the legal implications of their actions.

What makes these prosecutions so heinous is that the MPAA and RIAA are perpetuating this misunderstanding. Every "P2P is bad" public service announcement that I have ever seen on TV or before a movie says that "file sharing is theft." This campaign of disinformation actually lures users (primarily those who are young and naive) into thinking that their crime is less severe than the charges they will actually face.

Courts and the legislature must work together to address this semantic gap, which includes new legislation that addresses the nature of sharing in the digital age and sets appropriate fines. That should also include sanctions against the trade organizations for irresponsible campaigns.

Before the election, I kept hearing all this talk of anti-incumbency and people being mad at both parties for screwing up. And yet, 85% of incumbents that were running for re-election won. Thank you, Mr. Jerry Mander.

In the strict classical sense, you are correct. However, that's not how the Senate works anymore. If the minority party threatens to filibuster, the majority simply does not bring the vote to the floor, unless they know they have 60 votes. Basically, both sides have become so damn lazy that they won't even fight for their bills and call the other side's bluff. Yet more evidence that the two-party system sucks.

*Sigh*. WTF? How can you guys take yourselves seriously when you are so clearly taking many things out of context and (intentionally?) misinterpreting clear sentences?

Kagan's quote: "It is still true that BCRA 203, which is the only statute involved in this case, does not apply to books [emph. added] or anything other than broadcast; 441b does, on its face, apply to other media." So part of the law actually under consideration (BCRA 203) does not apply to books, but another section (441b) does. So what is 441b? The first part of the text of that statute reads:

It is unlawful for any national bank, or any corporation [...], to make a contribution or expenditure in connection with any election to any political office[...]

The statue goes on to prohibit unions from making such contributions to federal elections (President, VP, Senate, etc.).

Let me make this very clear: This statute in no way gives the government the power to ban books. And Kagan was making no such claim. Rather, by stating that 441b applied to books, Kagan's argument was as follows. If a corporation paid for the publication of a book that was intended for the purposes of electioneering, that corporation has broken the law. The electioneering element is very clear. This does not apply to books in general. The book has to target a specific candidate and be published in the area where it would have an impact on a particular election. Furthermore, 441b only applies if the publication of the book was paid for by a corporation. If a private individual wanted to publish a book attacking a candidate, 441b does not apply. If a political action committee or a non-profit group or any collective group other than a corporation or national bank paid for the publication of such a book, 441b does not apply.

Even if the statute does apply, the book would not be banned. Rather, the corporation would face prosecution under the statute. In addition, publication of the book would be delayed at most, so as not to sway the electorate. Once the election is over and publication of the book holds no power over that particular election, publication would be allowed to proceed. Of course, as Solicitor General Kagan pointed out, even if there were a book that met all the criteria (corporate-funded solely for electioneering), which is very unlikely, courts would most likely allow the immediate publication because there is a strong argument for a legal challenge. So she is stating that if the government tried to pull such a trick, they'd almost certainly lose.

Finally, note that 441b does not apply to general political speech. Corporations can gladly pay to make Fahrenheit 9/11 or publish Ann Coulter's books, or any other such screed, because those works do not fit the criteria of electioneering. While candidates may be singled out, they are never done so individually. Fahrenheit 9/11, for example, took aim at the culture of the federal government after 9/11. Sure, it takes plenty of shots at Bush. But it also talked about the invasion of Iraq, 9/11 itself, the impact on people, how everyone in Congress (except Feingold) voted for the USA PATRIOT Act without reading it, etc. Political? Yes. Electioneering? No.

This is all a far cry from the suggestion that Kagan was claiming the federal government had the power to ban books.

On the contrary. I'm a Facebook user and a privacy advocate. I also have many friends (some of whom are privacy researchers) who feel the same. I know quite well the value of privacy, and I do not give it up lightly. Instead, I view the sacrifice of a small amount of privacy (which I control by limiting the amount of data that I publish) to be the price that I am paying for using the service. I have friends all over the world, and Facebook provides the common platform that we use to keep in touch. Thus, it's not as simple as saying that I don't value privacy. Rather, I have found that the cost-benefit analysis Facebook offers is quite nice for my purposes.

Citation please. If this is true, then why are things like art and porn protected on grounds of free speech? There is plenty of free speech that has nothing to do with beliefs, opinions, or facts. I believe what you mean is that any speech that doesn't violate the Harm principle is protected speech.

Depending on the country, though, there actually are plenty of reasons to curb free speech and expression. Countries like China, North Korea, and Iran do it to keep their governments in power. I'm not saying they're good reasons, but they're reasons nonetheless.

As for corporate personhood, it's actually kind of funny if you look at the history. The court didn't actually decide that corporations were people. Instead, the court reporter inserted a remark into the record that has since been interpreted to grant corporate personhood. So it's been used as precedent, even though that is not what the case actually decided.

See my response above. Assuming that they will actually learn the lesson here requires a big leap of faith (and naivete and a lack of experience studying how well "user education" solves security problems).

Again, making students feel bad is not an effective teaching technique. It may work on some, but it will completely backfire on others and you've completely lost them for good. And you don't really have to worry about the lawyers as much as the parents. Yes, the parents. Even in college.

Actually, it's not as wide as you think. The researchers did not collect any of the personal data. They simply provided a message that this could have been a scam. So the "payload" there was also harmless. The outrage wasn't about any stolen data. The outrage was completely about the deception. Even after the administration placated fears that the students had about identity theft, the uproar continued. Also, the class isn't focused on malicious software. That's just the topic of this lesson. The class is a 101 introduction to computing. If this were a more advanced class...maybe...given the circumstances. But this is absolutely not the right audience for this kind of lesson.

As for the harmless payload, how does the student know that? All the student sees is that they clicked on something and the teacher infected their computer. Sure, during the lesson, you point out how to delete the file. But how does the student know that was the only file you installed? You could have embedded a keylogging rootkit within that virus for all they know. By falling for your trick, they lose a little bit of trust in you. As a result, some of them (especially those who are not doing well and think it's because you "have it out for them") will remain suspicious and think that you've planted something nefarious on their computer. Without that trust, you can't convince them otherwise.

As for the lesson being "fully understood [...] at the end of the class," that's just wishful thinking. After all these years, everyone now knows not to click on email attachments, right? Apparently not. I remember reading some commentary once (I think it was Adam Shostack) that pointed out that user education doesn't work. Many, many people who have undergone security training get phished, install viruses, etc. Why is phishing still a problem? Because it works. Social engineering is effective. All you have to do is surround that link with some text about getting rich fast, seeing celebrity X naked, losing 50 pounds in a week, etc., and you will get some hits. Even from people who have been trained to know better.

Most likely, some of these students will (in the short term) not click on anything they get via email, even if it's legitimate. After a while, though, the lesson will fade, they'll become complacent, start clicking on things...and we're back at square one. Many of the students will still click on attachments, thinking they're safe. After all, this attachment isn't called "CS101-Example.exe" so it must be safe, right? "What do you mean I got a virus? All I did was open this .doc file. It wasn't a .exe!"

I don't know what your profession is, but I'm willing to bet it's not teaching. Or at least I hope not. Yes, the "burned hand" technique can be very effective, provided that the student "understand[s] how and why you were burned." But you're automatically assuming that every student will understand what happened. See above, regarding user education. You're also assuming that every student that clicked on that virus will actually attend the lecture where you teach them what happened.

The bigger problem with the "burned hand" is that it also undermines the relationship of trust between the instructor and students. Yes, most of the students will learn the lesson (temporarily anyways). The problem is that not all students will feel that way. It turns out that people don't like being made fools of, even if it is part of learning a lesson. And some students will react harshly. Very harshly. I'm not saying the teacher would get fired. But there will almost certainly be a student that will shut down as a result of this lesson. You've completely undermined their confidence because they feel stupid.

The benefit of this lesson is marginal at best, yet the cost is almost certainly that you would cause irreparable damage in the confidence and/or trust of some of the students. Any "real teacher" will tell you that the benefit in this case comes nowhere near outweighing the cost.

Did I say anything about protecting them from the real world? In the class room, you can talk all you want about how evil and vicious the world is. You can run through some illustrations. Have at it. But deception, even though it can be effective, is not a good teaching technique.

Thanks for the laugh. Yes, Millenials are notorious for self esteem issues, and many of them have very fragile egos. They may not necessarily run to the Dean's office, but, yes, something as simple as accidentally falling for installing a harmless "virus" will have a devastating effect on some. And you never know. Some of them may tell their parents who happen to be wealthy and influential donors of the university. I can't find the story now, but recently, a judge (I think? maybe an AG?) got reprimanded because he used official letterhead to threaten his son's professor because the professor said he had high standards for performance in the class.