Tag Archives: policy

The Fed is owned by Wall St.

Posted on by
Reply

If it wasn’t clear before that Wall Street owns the Federal Reserve Bank, it was made clear today.

Stocks Soar After Fed’s Big Rate Cut: Financial News – Yahoo! Finance

A jubilant Wall Street barreled higher Wednesday after the Federal Reserve cut its benchmark interest rate by a larger-than-expected half a percentage point.

I consider this move the result of the short-sighted approach that Wall Street favors in spite of its detrimental effects to the economy’s long-term health. In reality, a cut was probably needed to show everyone that the Fed will take action when required to prevent a complete economic meltdown, such as another Great Depression. However, I think this big cut may prove to be very short-sighted because the already weak and flailing dollar is now worth less than it had been. This rate cut should be slightly helpful for ARM mortgage holders whose rates reset next month, but I doubt the cuts will improve the overall economy in the long-run and, despite the Fed’s efforts, many ARM holders will not be helped in the long-run because home prices are already decreasing.

In the long-run, a strong and healthy dollar is better for the US economy than avoiding a cyclical trend called a recession. Avoiding a recession now may only make the next one worse. The Fed should bite the bullet and tell Congress what it is probably thinking, that account deficits and high amounts of US currency held by other countries’ central banks (in the trillions of dollars) are a bigger problem in the future. It is time to either raise taxes or cut services, or both, to pay off the national debt. Otherwise, the Great Depression may recur and we’ll be stuck play the role of the Weimar Republic with absolutely worthless currency.

Today’s move also reminds me of M.B.A.’s telling a friend of mine that revenue was more important than profit, even in a product with profit margins over 80%. Maybe I’m dense, but I don’t see how revenue is a better or more important statistic than profit margin that puts money in the bank and that can be re-invested back into the company. But then again, that’s part of the attitude that prevails in Wall Street and runs our federal monetary policies.

Hasn’t the DNC learned yet?

Posted on by
Reply

The DNC is about to shoot itself in the foot with asinine policies meant to punish states that are protesting an inherently unfair primary process. And the major candidates are only too happy to suck money from those states without needing to zealously campaign there.

More candidates to skip rogue Dem states – Yahoo! News

Hillary Rodham Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards on Saturday joined three other Democrats who say they will skip states that break party rules by holding early primaries.

Their decision is a major boost to the primacy of four early voting states â?? Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina â?? and a welcome development to the Democratic National Committee.

…. The DNC has tried to impose discipline on a handful of unruly states determined to vote before Feb. 5 and gain influence in the election cycle.

I disagree with the DNC policy to strip states of delegate representation at the convention if they vote earlier than Feb. 5, 2007. The DNC deserves a lot of the blame for the current spat by supporting an inherently unfair primary system for so many years.That unfairness has led most other states to move up so they get a piece of the pie and a say in who will be elected to run in the general election. The last presidential primary cycle ended by February, before most states had an opportunity to vote.

The DNC must absolutely provide a workable system and is within its right to set guidelines for who it elects in a primary and for a primary schedule. If they don’t, this tit for tat will continue indefinitely and primaries will be held in July 2011. But retaliating against Florida’s and Michigan’s Republican legislatures by denying delegate votes to the Democratic convention is not acceptable. That current path chosen by the DNC is the wrong one because it will shoot itself in the foot. The policy disenfranchises voters and will ultimately backfire against it for a couple reasons. One, the DNC is known to support voting rights and this move looks hypocritical, even if it is intended to restore order in the process. Two, primary elections are combined in several states with referendums and local elections. Imagine if the DNC needs to rally the troops in Florida or Michigan to hit the polls for a cause it deeply supports. Expect to feel the wrath of independently-minded voters come November ’08.

The better solution is either (1) all states hold primaries on the same day; or (2) all states participate in a round robin in which five primaries are held every Tuesday for ten weeks. The next election cycle will see the five that voted first voting last and the other groupings of states moving up a week.

Ultimately, New Hampshire and Iowa must recognize they are not better than any other state and will need to share the spotlight with other states.

The current system rewards candidates for only focusing on a few early states and ignoring the rest. I’m in California, most populous state in the union, and even I feel a lack of love here from candidates. I can only imagine how voters feel in Michigan, Florida, and 45 other states not named New Hampshire and Iowa. Here, candidates only come to town for high stakes fundraisers and are gone in a matter of hours. Normal people like me never get a chance to hear them speak like they do in Iowa or New Hampshire. That was until our primary was moved up early enough so that we couldn’t be ignored.

The reason the DNC lost the past two presidential elections is because it was out of touch with the regular, everyday person. A trend that I see is continuing as it intends to disenfranchise voters from its own party in two of the top ten most populous states and lose crucial credibility in others. And if it continues, the next trend will be states forcing the parties pay for their primary/caucus. Why should California or any other state host and pay for a primary if it doesn’t actually matter? After all, budgets are tight and why should any state pay for an election that doesn’t matter.

Locally, I’m not the only one frustrated with the primary process that ended by February last election and which has ruled the primary in California moot during the past three or four (if not more) presidential elections. That’s why our state is now voting Feb. 5.

Second note regarding Yahoo! shareholder proxy

Posted on by
Reply

I don’t like that directors’ proposals, such as electing directors, are automatically voted in the positive if a shareholder does not actually cast a vote, and all proposals made by shareholders that the directors don’t like are automatically voted against the proposal. Rather, I believe all votes that aren’t actually cast should be registered as “abstained.” I’m sure Yahoo! isn’t the only company with such a slimy policy, and other companies do this,  but it isn’t right.

Maybe I’ll make that proposal for next year’s annual meeting. 🙂

Yahoo! Shareholder Proposal Re: Internet Censorship (The anti-Y! China proposal)

Posted on by
Reply

Yahoo! shareholders have made two very interesting proposals that will be voted on during the annual shareholder meeting next week (June 12, 2007).

First, the City of New York Retirement System proposed that Yahoo! set six minimum standards to help protect freedom of access to the Internet. The proposal is directly aimed at Yahoo! China, a subsidiary of Yahoo!, Inc., for providing contact information for journalists and other pro-democracy activists to the Chinese government which subsequently imprisoned those activists. The minimum standards are:

  1. Data that can identify individual users should not be hosted in Internet restricting countries, where political speech can be treated as a crime by the legal system.
  2. The company will not engage in pro-active censorship.
  3. The company will use all legal means to resist demands for censorship. The company will only comply with such demands if required to do so through legally binding procedures.
  4. Users will be clearly informed when the company has acceded to legally binding government requests to filter or otherwise censor content that the user is trying to access.
  5. Users should be informed about the companyâ??s data retention practices, and the ways in which their data is shared with third parties.
  6. The company will document all cases where legally-binding censorship requests have been complied with, and that information will be publicly available.

Second, someone with a small number of shares (200) has proposed that Yahoo! set up a board committee for Human Rights.

Truth is, businesses should not have offices or subsidiaries in a country if the return also comes with assisting a dictatorship or other authoritarian regime to inhumanely treat its people. I’m sad in general that any company would be stuck in this quandary. And I’m sad that we, as a country, have transfered a great deal of our manufacturing and labor intensive tasks to countries with such authoritarian governments and have almost all turned a blind eye to what we’re doing in the name of progress and economic benefits (it provides neither in the long run).

In the end, I think we as shareholders need to be responsible for the actions of companies we own. And this message goes to shareholders of Cisco (creator of the Great Firewall of China), Google (censoring search results for China), and a host of companies doing business in China and other countries to skirt more stringent environmental regulations in the US and EU.

I have a very small number of shares of Yahoo! that I acquired while working there and will vote for both although I don’t think my vote counts for much more than my symbolic expression, and I don’t expect either to pass.

*note: I’m still a fan of Yahoo! and a user of its products. I just happen to disagree with some of the business decisions made – business decisions any other company would have a hard time not making an identical choice. A little constructive criticism never hurt anyone, unless you live in a country that outlaws it.

PROPOSAL NO. 6
STOCKHOLDER PROPOSAL
The City of New York Office of the Comptroller, 1 Centre Street, New York, NY 10007-2341, has notified the
Company that it intends to present the following resolution at the annual meeting, as custodian and trustee of the New York City Employeesâ?? Retirement System, beneficial owners of 1,587,718 shares of common stock of the Company, The New York City Teachersâ?? Retirement System, beneficial owners of 1,164,585 shares of common stock of the Company, the New York City Police Pension Fund, beneficial owners of 628,874 shares of common stock of the Company, the New York City Fire Department Pension Fund, beneficial owners of 187,208 shares of common stock of the Company, and as custodian of the New York City Board of Education Retirement System, beneficial owners of 110,387 shares of common stock of the Company. The proposal and the proponentâ??s supporting statement appear below in italics.
The board of directors of Yahoo! strongly opposes adoption of the proposal and asks stockholders to review the Boardâ??s response, which follows the proposal and its accompanying recitals.
The affirmative vote of the holders of a majority of the shares of common stock present, in person or
represented by proxy, and entitled to vote on the proposal is required to approve this proposal.
Our Board of Directors recommends that you vote â??AGAINSTâ? the stockholder proposal.
Stockholder Proposal
INTERNET CENSORSHIP
Whereas, Freedom of speech and freedom of the press are fundamental human rights, and free use of the
Internet is protected in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which guarantees freedom to â??receive and impart information and ideas through any media regardless of frontiersâ?, and
Whereas, the rapid provision of full and uncensored information through the Internet has become a major
industry in the United States, and one of its major exports, and
Whereas, political censorship of the Internet degrades the quality of that service and ultimately threatens the integrity and viability of the industry itself, both in the United States and abroad, and
Whereas, some authoritarian foreign governments such as the Governments of Belarus, Burma, China, Cuba,
Egypt, Iran, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Vietnam block, restrict, and monitor the information their citizens attempt to obtain, and
Whereas, technology companies in the United States such as Yahoo, that operate in countries controlled by
authoritarian governments have an obligation to comply with the principles of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, and
Whereas, technology companies in the United States have failed to develop adequate standards by which they can conduct business with authoritarian governments while protecting human rights to freedom of speech and freedom of expression,
Therefore, be it resolved, that shareholders request that management institute policies to help protect freedom of access to the Internet which would include the following minimum standards:
1) Data that can identify individual users should not be hosted in Internet restricting countries, where
political speech can be treated as a crime by the legal system.
2) The company will not engage in pro-active censorship.
3) The company will use all legal means to resist demands for censorship. The company will only comply with
such demands if required to do so through legally binding procedures.
4) Users will be clearly informed when the company has acceded to legally binding government requests to
filter or otherwise censor content that the user is trying to access.
5) Users should be informed about the companyâ??s data retention practices, and the ways in which their data is shared with third parties.
6) The company will document all cases where legally-binding censorship requests have been complied with,
and that information will be publicly available.
Board of Directors Statement AGAINST Stockholder Proposal
Yahoo! is committed to preserving and advancing the fundamental principles of free speech and expression,
and as described in detail below, has already adopted policies to promote open access to information and
communication for users of the Companyâ??s services around the world. The board of directors believes the
Companyâ??s existing policies, which were carefully developed by Yahoo!â??s management team, provide the Company with the flexibility and resources to comply with applicable laws and, at the same time, protect and advance these important freedoms. By contrast, Yahoo! believes certain of the standards suggested by the proponent would give the Company insufficient flexibility in responding to applicable legal requirements. Accordingly, while Yahoo! shares many of the proponentâ??s concerns and objectives, the board of directors believes, in light of the policies, practices and initiatives already in place at the Company, the proponentâ??s suggestions are both unnecessary and counter to the best interests of the Company and its users, and therefore urges stockholders to vote â??AGAINSTâ? the proposal.
Yahoo! is deeply concerned by efforts of some governments to restrict communication and control access to
information. Yahoo! also firmly believes the continued presence and engagement of companies like Yahoo! in these markets is a powerful force in promoting openness and reform. Yahoo! understands its responsibility to remain engaged on these issues on a global basis; however, Yahoo! believes private industry alone cannot effectively influence foreign government policies on issues like the free exchange of ideas and open access to information.
Because state actors have the most leverage in this field, Yahoo! believes continued government-to-government dialogue in bilateral and multilateral forums is vital to achieve progress on these complex political and human rights issues.
As part of the Companyâ??s ongoing commitment to preserving the open availability of the Internet around the
world, Yahoo! announced in February 2006 it was undertaking the following actions:
â?¢ Collective Action: Yahoo! will work with industry, government, academia and non-governmental organizations
to explore policies to guide industry practices in countries where content is treated more restrictively
than in the United States and to promote the principles of freedom of speech and expression.
â?¢ Compliance Practices: Yahoo! will continue to employ rigorous procedural protections under applicable
laws in response to government requests for information, maintaining its commitment to user privacy and
compliance with the law.
â?¢ Information Restrictions: Where a government requests that Yahoo! restrict search results, Yahoo! will do
so if required by applicable law and only in a way that impacts the results as narrowly as possible. If Yahoo!
is required to restrict search results, it will strive to achieve maximum transparency to the user.
â?¢ Government Engagement: Yahoo! will actively engage in ongoing policy dialogue with governments with
respect to the nature of the Internet and the free flow of information.
Since this announcement, the Company has also established a multi-disciplinary and cross-functional team of
Yahoo! employees worldwide to coordinate and support the Companyâ??s efforts to address privacy and free
expression issues on a global basis. The team consists of Yahoo! employees from a variety of disciplines and
departments, including legal, public and governmental relations, privacy, public policy, community affairs, global law enforcement and compliance, security, emerging markets and international operations. Members of the team consult regularly with Company officers and other personnel and respond to internal and external requests for information and feedback on foreign laws and Company practices and policies. Members of the team also consult with governmental agencies, such as the U.S. Department of State, and various outside professionals in the field, including experts at various academic institutions. Members of the team also collaborate with leaders and representatives of other technology and communications companies to seek solutions to free expression and privacy challenges these companies face when conducting business internationally.
To further advance thinking and practices around the promotion of free expression and privacy, Yahoo! is
actively engaged in a formal dialogue, co-facilitated by Business for Social Responsibility and the Center for
Democracy & Technology, that includes industry counterparts, various human rights groups, academic institutions and socially responsible investors. This diverse group aims to produce a set of global principles and operating procedures on freedom of expression and privacy to guide company behavior when faced with laws, regulations and policies that interfere with human rights. The groupâ??s goals also include creating an implementation, accountability and governance framework, as well as a forum for sharing ideas.
The policies, practices and initiatives described above have been developed by Yahoo! management based on
its thorough and careful consideration of the inherent complexities associated with operating under the laws of multiple foreign countries. These complicated issues require a detailed understanding of the Companyâ??s business (which is highly competitive and characterized by rapid change), user base and technologies, as well as an ability to conform to the various legal and regulatory systems of the countries in which the Company maintains operations.
Yahoo! believes that it would be imprudent for the Company to be constrained by a set of specific, static and highly prescriptive standards and policies that may not be workable and effective across countries and business lines.
Instead, Yahoo!, its stockholders and its users are better served by more generalized policies that fully reflect the
Companyâ??s commitment to the principles of free speech and user privacy and still afford the Company enough flexibility to design and implement procedures that comply with the various legal systems under which the Company chooses to operate.
Yahoo! also believes its existing policies appropriately recognize the different roles private industry and
governments play with respect to the nature of the Internet and the flow of information, and that such policies properly allocate to the Company responsibility for working and maintaining a dialogue with governments, members of academia and other industry participants for the purpose of advancing and protecting these fundamental principles. The Company believes its existing policies, practices and initiatives, as described in more detail above, strike an appropriate balance in furthering these important objectives and will effectively position the Company to serve as a continued force in promoting openness and reform.
Recommendation of the Board of Directors
FOR ALL OF THE FOREGOING REASONS, THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS RECOMMENDS
THAT STOCKHOLDERS VOTE

PROPOSAL NO. 7
STOCKHOLDER PROPOSAL
Mr. John C. Harrington, 1001 2nd Street, Suite 325, Napa, CA, who owns 200 shares of the Companyâ??s
common stock, has given notice of his intention to present a proposal at the annual meeting. The proposal and the proponentâ??s supporting statement appear below in italics.
The board of directors of Yahoo! strongly opposes adoption of the proposal and asks stockholders to review the Boardâ??s response, which follows the proposal and the proponentâ??s supporting statement.
The affirmative vote of the holders of a majority of the shares of common stock present, in person or
represented by proxy, and entitled to vote on the proposal is required to approve this proposal.
Our Board of Directors recommends that you vote â??AGAINSTâ? the stockholder proposal.
Stockholder Proposal Amendment to Corporate Bylaws Establishing Board Committee on Human Rights

RESOLVED: To amend the corporate bylaws, by inserting the following new Article 4.4:
Article 4.4
Board Committee on Human Rights
a. There is established a Board Committee on Human Rights, which is created and authorized to review the
implications of company policies, above and beyond matters of legal compliance, for the human rights of
individuals in the US and worldwide.
b. The Board of Directors is authorized in its discretion consistent with these Bylaws and applicable law to
(1) select the members of the Board Committee on Human Rights, (2) provide said committee with funds for
operating expenses, (3) adopt regulations or guidelines to govern said Committeeâ??s operations, (4) empower said Committee to solicit public input and to issue periodic reports to shareholders and the public, at reasonable expense and excluding confidential information, on the Committeeâ??s activities, findings and recommendations, and (5) adopt any other measures within the Boardâ??s discretion consistent with these Bylaws and applicable law.
c. Nothing herein shall restrict the power of the Board of Directors to manage the business and affairs of the
company. The Board Committee on Human Rights shall not incur any costs to the company except as authorized by
the Board of Directors.
Supporting Statement
The proposed Bylaw would establish a Board Committee on Human Rights which would review and make
policy recommendations regarding human rights issues raised by the companyâ??s activities and policies. For
example, Yahoo reportedly disclosed the identity of a Chinese citizen who had published information critical of the Chinese government on the internet; as a result of Yahooâ??s disclosure, the individual is serving a 10 year jail sentence. Also, of the major internet search engines operating in China, Yahoo censored more terms, according to a limited test conducted by Reporters Without Borders. We believe the proposed Board Committee on Human Rights could be an effective mechanism for addressing the human rights implications of the companyâ??s activities and policies on issues such as these, as they emerge anywhere in the world. In defining â??human rights,â? proponents suggest that the committee could use the US Bill of Rights and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as nonbinding benchmarks or reference documents.
Board of Directors Statement and Recommendation AGAINST Stockholder Proposal Yahoo! shares the proponentâ??s commitment to human rights, and as described in more detail in the boardâ??s statement in opposition to proposal no. 6 in this proxy statement, the Companyâ??s management team has already instituted practices and initiatives that are designed to assess the implications of the Companyâ??s activities and policies and to protect and advance essential freedoms, such as freedom of expression and privacy rights.
To further advance thinking and practices around the promotion of free expression and privacy, Yahoo! is
actively engaged in a formal dialogue, co-facilitated by Business for Social Responsibility and the Center for
Democracy & Technology, that includes industry counterparts, various human rights groups, academic institutions and socially responsible investors. This diverse group aims to produce a set of global principles and operating procedures on freedom of expression and privacy to guide company behavior when faced with laws, regulations and policies that interfere with human rights. The groupâ??s goals also include creating an implementation, accountability and governance framework, as well as a forum for sharing ideas.
These practices and initiatives have been developed by Yahoo! management based on its thorough and careful consideration of the inherent complexities associated with operating under the laws of multiple foreign countries.
The board of directors believes that Yahoo!â??s management team, with its day-to-day involvement in the Companyâ??s business operations and its detailed understanding of the legislative and regulatory landscape of the countries in which the Company operates, is in the best position to assess these matters and to make informed judgments as to what practices and policies are most likely to promote the interests of the Company and its stockholders and users.
Recommendation of the Board of Directors
FOR ALL OF THE FOREGOING REASONS, THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS RECOMMENDS
THAT STOCKHOLDERS VOTE â??AGAINSTâ? THIS PROPOSAL. PROXIES RECEIVED BY THE
COMPANY WILL BE VOTED â??AGAINSTâ? THIS PROPOSAL UNLESS THE STOCKHOLDER SPECIFIES
OTHERWISE IN THE PROXY.

Trusting in Levees, City Builds on Flood Plains – New York Times

Posted on by
Reply

Trusting in Levees, City Builds on Flood Plains – New York Times

“Levees constrict a riverâ??s path and raise its water level, which causes higher, faster flow. A flood plain, conversely, exists in nature to absorb a riverâ??s overflow.â??The more levees we build, the higher we have to build them,â? Professor Kusky said. â??Itâ??s a self-perpetuating problem.â? “

Smart!

Anti-illegal-immigrant law OKd in Texas – Yahoo News

Posted on by
Reply

I understand the complaints regarding illegal immigration, however I don’t think the steps being taken by Farmers Branch, TX are prudent, effective, or legal.

Anti-illegal-immigrant law OKd in Texas – Yahoo News

“FARMERS BRANCH, Texas – Voters in this Dallas suburb became the first in the nation Saturday to prohibit landlords from renting to most illegal immigrants.
The ban was approved by a vote of 68 percent to 32 percent in final, unofficial returns. “”The ordinance requires apartment managers to verify that renters are U.S. citizens or legal immigrants before leasing to them, with some exceptions.

“Property managers or owners who break the rule face a misdemeanor charge punishable by a fine of up to $500.”

Ultimately, the issue of immigration is to be dealt with by the US federal government, rather than states or localities. If I were a landlord in that city, I would refuse to follow that ordinance and would challenge it on three grounds. First, it would require me, as a private citizen, to do the job of the government. Where does it end? Will they then require all businesses to require ID from customers before serving them? “Let me repeat that order: 2 hamburgers and an order of fries. That’ll be $4.85. I’ll need to see two picture IDs and your social security card.” Second, the job of dealing with immigration and a process for naturalization is a power given to Congress in Article I, section 8, and is not reserved to the states. The ultimate solution needs to come from Congress. And third, I would challenge it strictly on principal.

Instead of actually dealing with the problem of illegal immigration, the city of Farmers Branch will just spend millions of dollars defending itself in lawsuits and irritate business leaders.

The only effective way to deal with illegal immigration is for the federal and state governments to cut off the reason why immigrants are here in the first place, and that is jobs. If it were very difficult for illegal immigrants to find jobs, they they would be less likely to come. But even after 10 years of Republicans controlling Congress, six of those with a Republican President, there wasn’t much that actually went on other than whooping, hollering, and chest pounding. Seems that’s all that ever happens regarding the subject of illegal immigration.

The IRS gives out tax payer IDs but ICE (formerly INS) doesn’t know. Social Security numbers are concurrently used by multiple people. ICE isn’t informed. There are other examples of the federal government not actually working together on the problem, but you get the drift. Ultimately, it is because Congress really doesn’t really want to cut off the flow of cheap, cheap labor. The reason is that a majority of the Republicans don’t want to upset the business base that funds their campaign.

A quick-fix solution would be for the federal governmental departments to coordinate. Anytime a social security account is used by multiple people, flag it for La Migre. And put the IRS and ICE in contact. A long-term solution, not that Congress would ever want one is to create a national ID card system. Then, Congress would pass a law that says anyone doing business that is in interstate commerce must check the ID against a government funded background check that would return information regarding the person as well as a photo. States would also pass laws requiring all other employers to run background checks using the same system. Boom! Illegal immigration would dry up.

Until then, immigrants aren’t the real problem, and landlords shouldn’t be deputized just because they own a specific piece of property they lease out to another. And the issue of illegal immigration is a red herring certain [non]-leaders wish to use to distract everyone from all the real issues that we face in our every day lives, the wars being waged, bribery and scandal in the political ranks, collapsing health care system, rising college tuitions, unfolding housing crisis, decreasing value of the dollar, and an overall fleecing of our country (have you seen the federal debt amount recently?).

reminder of University policy on sharing copyrighted materials- increase in notifications

Posted on by
Reply

It appears the RIAA is about to come after students at SCU. It amazes me that they (RIAA) don’t more heavily promote the music rental services like Rhapsody, Yahoo! Music, and the new Napster. Instead they make rental more costly by forcing additional charges to upload songs to MP3 players (notice the payment structure for the three services) and in general make it more difficult for everyone.

“Dear Students:

I am writing to remind you about Santa Clara’s policy regarding sharing of copyrighted materials such as music, videos, and software – such sharing is illegal, in violation of the University’s Network and Communications policy (http://it.scu.edu/policies/NetPolicy.shtml), can lead to disciplinary action by the University, and can place you at risk of financial and criminal sanctions.

More than 20,000 people have been sued by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) for illegally sharing copyrighted music.

The potential financial exposure is up to $150,000 per song, video, or program obtained or shared in violation of copyright. Santa Clara is required to comply if it receives a subpoena requesting identification of someone suspected of such sharing via University computer networks.

Recently, RIAA has announced that they will be targeting university students with 400 monthly *offers to settle* in advance of suits.

This reminder is motivated by a dramatic increase in notifications of potentially illegal file sharing received by the University. This academic year we have already received nearly three times the number of notifications received all of last year, including eight in the past 24 hours. At some other institutions such a surge has preceded receipt of subpoenas.

Regardless of your personal view of the ethics related to file sharing of copyrighted materials, it is an illegal activity, one with potentially serious criminal and financial risks, and possible repercussions for your relationship with the University. Please be aware of these possibilities and conduct yourself accordingly.

I*d be happy to discuss file sharing, or other technology issues, at any time: [email], or [phone#].

Ron Danielson
Vice Provost and CIO”

Is spanking a child the same as beating that child?

Posted on by
Reply

California Assemblywoman Sally Lieber seems to think it is.

“I think it’s pretty hard to argue you need to beat a child,” Lieber said. “Is it OK to whip a 1-year-old or a 6-month-old or a newborn?” — California lawmaker seeks ban on spanking. Y! News, via AP.

I find the logic in that statement suspect when used to support a spanking ban. To beat is to “strike repeatedly.” To spank is to “strike especially on the buttocks with the open hand.” Therefore, to Sally, the words “beat” and “spank” mean the same thing because they both mean “to strike.” And as a result, we need to ban spanking because we want to ban beating and whipping a small child.

I disagree with Sally’s plan and believe the current laws are sufficient to provide parents flexibility to discipline their children and the State ability to protect children. According to the AP article, current California law permits spanking by parents unless the degree of force is excessive or not appropriate for the child’s age.

When I think of beating, I think of a child being hit multiple times with force that would hurt an adult. That’s much different than the tap on the butt I consider to be a spanking. It is probably reasonable to say that beating and/or whipping a small child is likely to violate the current law. Likewise, it is probably reasonable say that an excessively strong or long spanking episode would qualify as a beating and violate the current law.

I don’t have children yet, but I’ve seen young children who don’t respond to an alternative measure, such as time-out or the naughty box (a toy goes in the box). Should a parent not be able to give a slap on the butt in those situations? I don’t think so.

Sally is my elected representative so I’m likely to contact her once the bill is public so I can directly quibble over semantics with her.

limiting postal marketing mail

Posted on by
Reply

A family member recently commented on the amount of junk snail mail they receive. I prepared an email with information to help reduce the amount received and decided to post that information in case anyone else finds it useful.

The best way to stop receiving marketing mail is to contact the companies you do business with and tell them to limit the amount of marketing mail they send you and to not sell your personal information. However, that is often not enough because of direct marketing is big industry in the US. There are existing lists with your personal information that is sold wholesale, credit bureaus, public records such as telephone book listings or property deeds.

Offers of credit:
From the the Experian Privacy Policy:

“You can remove your name from prescreened credit or insurance offer mailing lists from Experian, Innovis, TransUnion and Equifax by calling 888 5OPT OUT (888 567 8688).

You will be given a choice to opt out for five years or permanently. If you elect to opt out permanently, you will be mailed a Notice of Election to Opt Out Permanently, which you must sign and return to activate your permanent opt-out. Even though your request becomes effective with Experian within five days of your notifying us, it may take several months before you see a reduction in the amount of solicitations. “

I opted-out in August and have only gotten two more offers since October. Much better than the two per week I had been receiving.

Other generic marketing mail addressed to you. Think, Publisher’s Clearinghouse:

  1. Delist your name and address from the telephone book. For me, it costs about 40 cents per month (although, in reality should be free).
  2. The Direct Marketing Association (DMA) is the largest of the trade organizations representing companies and organizations that send direct mail. They allow an opt-out but will force you to pay a dollar before honoring your request, citing a bogus excuse of fighting fraud. I will submit a legislative proposal to my state legislator and congresswoman at some point in the next year proposing that such charges be banned and suggesting the creation of a do not mail list, like the do not call list. Marketers only bring it upon themselves.
  3. Major data warehouses and resellers

And if you’re getting telemarketing, make sure you get on the National Do-Not Call list maintained by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). According to an FTC press release on June 21, 2006, more than 125 million phone numbers were registered on the do not call list . BTW: According to that same press release, cell phones don’t need to be included because of specific Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulations that already forbid telemarketing to cell phones.

Has Yahoo! Mail Jumped the Shark?

Posted on by
Reply

Yahoo! Mail ran a test by attaching third party advertisements to the bottom of each email message I sent using my Yahoo! Mail account during the past week. Here are three such ads:

(1)

Sponsored Link

Mortgage rates near 39yr lows. $420,000 Mortgage for $1,399/mo – Calculate new house payment

(2)
____________________________________________________________________________________
Sponsored Link

Online degrees – find the right program to advance your career.
www.nextag.com


(3)

Sponsored Link

Degrees online in as fast as 1 Yr – MBA, Bachelor’s, Master’s, Associate – Click now to apply

Previously, that ad spot was held only by internal Yahoo! products such as Yahoo! Mail, Messenger, and Music. Those are expected. This is, after all, mail from a Yahoo! Mail account. However, third party advertisements, particularly bottom-of-the-barrel advertisers like LowerMyBills and Nextag, are another story.

To be blunt, I think it stinks. I understand that Yahoo! is a business but it needs users as much as it needs advertisers. Attaching third party advertisements to the bottom of user emails will likely turn users off to Yahoo! Mail and the company in general and is a particularly risky move because there are viable competing products that don’t attach third party ads, like GMail and Hotmail.

If Yahoo! Mail likes the result of the test and decides to continue down this path, I have some demands (after all, I am now just a user):

1) More clear and conspicuous disclosure.

a) Name the advertiser and/or domain. Only one of the three advertisers I listed above are named.
b) Disclosure that this ad is inserted by Yahoo!.
c) A “more info” link that points to a help page that contains more information about what this is about.
d) The font used for the disclosures needs updating. It should be the same or similar font size, weight, and color as the ad itself. “Sponsored Link” is currently in grey (versus black) and in a smaller font than the ad. If the ad is in black, the text should be too. The current set-up makes it look like Yahoo! is hiding something.


2) Control over advertisers and advertising categories. Major advertisers (i.e. Chevy, Dell, Disney, etc) that sell regular products and services are fine. However, I don’t want bottom of the barrel advertisements hawking controversial products or services that will make my emails look spammy or get caught in spam filtering software. Examples include LowerMyBills, X10, CIC (credit reports), sites selling diplomas or telling us how to earn a degree, selling prescription drugs such as ci@lis and viagra, or sites pushing multi-level marketing (MLM).

3) No web beacons or graphical ads ever. Enough said.

4) More information about how this works. Questions that need to be answered include:

  • “How are advertisers chosen?”
  • “How are the ads and advertisers screened?”
  • “What type of ads will never appear?”
  • “How are the ads targeted?”
  • “Are my email messages scanned to determine the topic?”
  • etc.

I think these demands are reasonable. I’m not asking for a cut; having a free, dependable email service is enough for me. I just don’t want my messages to look like spam, be flagged as spam, or for the ads to offend the recipients. Even then, I won’t decide whether to accept the ads until I have more info.

I don’t think I need to remind anyone, but Yahoo! is in the trust business. Without user trust, Yahoo! is nothing. Users build a lot of equity in their online identities, including their email addresses, but that doesn’t mean they won’t abandon the company and its products if they feel they can no longer trust it. That same equity is what makes a user fight like hell if that identity is threatened.

I could say a million things more but I don’t have time. I should be studying.

Note: I edited this some and made my blog public again after finding out this program was a test that has since ended. I’m glad I don’t need to consider giving up my email account just yet.