November 23rd, 2009

Internet: A threat to government or the other way around? (Part 4)

Posted by Doug Hanchard @ November 23, 2009 @ 10:51 AM

Categories: Antitrust, Blogs, Censorship, China, Commerce, Congress, Copyright, Courts, Cyber Security, Cybercrime, Cyberwar, Defense, Disaster recovery, E-government, Elections, European Parliament, European Union, FCC, FTC, Government 2.0, Government technology, Green Dam, Homeland security, Intellectual Property, Intelligence, International, Journalism, Justice, Law enforcement, Open government, Regulations, Security, Senate, Social networks, Spam, Standards, State & Local Govt, Telecom, UK, United Kingdom, United Nations, Web, politics

Tags: Law, Court, Counter Point, Internet, Government, Doug Hanchard

Justice systems around the world had their entire world turned upside down over the past several years because of the Internet. The basic sets of laws, often founded on a nation’s constitution are being used in ways that many forefathers never anticipated or envisioned. Republic, Dominion and Socialist government institutions around the world are all facing the same issues - often without any clear path of legal precedent.

One of the challenges facing courts is jurisdiction. Because of the very nature of the Internet, legal systems are now faced with new roadblocks that did not exist 10 years ago. Traditional methods of law enforcement and legal treaties do work and continue to be the basis of process and dealing with prosecution and trials. Interpretation of existing laws and applying them to Internet-related cases has not been a significant challenge in many cases. But there are some new aspects of what is admitted into court.

Evidence

What has shocked the system is how Internet-based materials are now used in the courts as evidence. Everything from ISP logs, website blogs, and social media sites (among others) are now being used in ways that prosecutors and jurists have never had to deal with in the past. It is also becoming a battle ground for several areas of law, particularly the integrity of evidence. This has many in the legal world concerned. It’s becoming clear that this will be an area of significant debate and will have far-reaching consequences. Internet evidence does not have look and feel of traditional evidence and, in many cases, has yet to be challenged as to its validity. Prosecutors are faced with a dilemma that impacts how and what they prosecute. This in turn has created a new source of political initiatives that are not only questionable, but in some parts of the world viewed as extreme.

Don’t have a Law yet? We’ll make one

The evolution of law and how it is created has traditionally been a slow and low priority part of the political system. No longer is that the case. Government ministers and cabinet officials appear to be fast-tracking new laws, specifically because of the Internet at a rapid pace of late. Politicians are practically tripping over themselves drafting new bills that claim that they know how to fix the problems of cybercrime and abuse. These ideas are moving at such a rapid pace that often few people actually have read the fine print. What concerns many is the advice politicians are getting on how Internet law should be created. Governments all over the world will have significant impact on such issues as free speech, Net neutrality, news, crime and governance of institutions.

Prosecution

There is not much sympathy for the courts in many parts of the world. That may soon change as news travels across the multimedia world of the Internet. Attorneys general throughout the United States are political and create their own priorities and thus control what is heard before the courts. This may have significant consequences as to the timing of how the Internet evolves and impact the economics of the service that potentially influences it’s usage for decades. In the United Kingdom, the courts will have to take into account European treaties and the European Parliament. Canada’s magistrates may strike down or uphold newly created laws that may wind up creating in-balance that could take years to reverse.

Rules await the Internet

Regulators such as the CRTC, FCC, OfCom are charting new territory in communication rules and regulations. Lawmakers are beginning to micro-manage this process. No one yet knows what the impact these new elements will have on the judicial system. It will take years before this is known and goes through several rigorous tests of the court system. Case law may take a decade or more before any true outcomes are known. By that time, a nation will have changed political administration and have new agendas that reset the cycle before some true outcomes are known. Net Neutrality will be debated and wind up before the courts in jurisdictions around the world. The results will vary like your bandwidth speed and access to content.

Global perspective

Laws of a nation are now being combined in many parts of the world. The very essence of a sovereign nation set of laws is slowly being merged into a single set by which it will adhere to. This is particularly true in Europe where the European Parliament is attempting to create laws specifically surrounding the Internet. This has the potential to create political and legal challenges for courts in how they make decisions. The consequences have significant long term impacts on how courts operate and what order of Appeals and jurisdiction as they enter cyber space with profound outcomes yet to be decided.

The Supreme Court

Supreme Court decisions have not had an impact on the Internet - but likely will. Major court decisions at local, state, and provincial levels are being appealed and many will eventually be argued before the Supreme Court. That draws concern because of how many governments nominate and select jurists to be a part of the Supreme Court framework. In general terms, the institution is politically driven and has the potential to create decisions that may in fact be contrary to the very principles that many of us take for granted. It also works in the other direction. Many a government has had policies and laws overturned by the courts. Key segments will be privacy, Internet access and tracking - along with content management tangled with identity security. It could be argued that elected government officials are not a threat to the Internet, the courts are. The counter point is that will force parliamentarians to change the law, a task far easier said than done. Compounding the problem is that the highest courts around the world have (almost) unlimited tenure until death.  Jurists that will have profound impacts on the stance of governments surrounding Internet issues are in China, Pakistan, India, Russia, and the Middle East. China is unique in that it will have to eventually deal with treaties in which it is a signatory to, but no one has yet to appeal any government policies. It may soon have to. If WTO treaties are before their court system, the Internet could be next.

The court system in most democratic nations has dynamics rarely resulting in quick decisions. It may take years before government’s leaders and the lawmakers truly understand what they are dealing with. Some will fail in creating new laws that are considered extreme by many; others may actually pass the litmus test of a Supreme Court decision. History awaits the outcome.

Epilogue - it will never have an ending

So here we are; some of the files are out in the open, more need further decryption, understanding and updating. The pace of the discussion is increasing and appears to be moving along with few delays. 2010 promises to be the start of a new decade that has a few fundamental issues to resolve. The debate has begun and could be a pivotal point in how society uses and government manages the Internet.

Go back to:
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3 in this series

November 22nd, 2009

Internet: A threat to government or the other way around? (Part 3)

Posted by Doug Hanchard @ November 22, 2009 @ 3:32 PM

Categories: Censorship, Congress, Courts, E-government, Elections, Government 2.0, Government technology, Homeland security, Journalism, Justice, Law enforcement, Regulations, Senate, Social networks, State & Local Govt, Web, politics

Tags: U.S., Safety Agency, Government, Internet, Vertical Industries, Doug Hanchard

Part III

From 1959 to 1975, the era of demonstration (Vietnam War) was to protest on the lawns and parks of universities and public venues. The Kent State shootings by National Guard troops in May of 1970 was not the first demonstration against government, but it certainly was the event that ignited further demonstrations at universities all over the United States. Demonstrators had no defense against armed troops and the toll was significant both in political values and individual trust in government. News organizations covered every demonstration nationally from that event onwards until the end of 1975.

There are more Internet Packets than there are bullets

Almost 40 years later, some government officials and elected official are pushing agendas that have long term consequences to its people that have similar overtones of big brother control.  Today the landscape is very different.  If people don’t like what they see potentially becoming Law, they have a new tools without fear of an M-16 being pointed at them. At one extreme end of protest, several protests went directly onto the offensive and have launched cyber war attacks against government institutions such as Estonia. It has been alleged that a U.S. Congressman suggested cyber attacks should be ordered against North Korea. I investigated this claim and could not find a single article verifying its authenticity, but it’s been reported all over the internet. A request for an interview was declined by the Congressman’s office.

It doesn’t stop there; non government groups are also launching political cyber attack campaigns against (VANK vs. Japan) each other. Emailing an elected official was the first step. Media tools which are now at the disposal of anyone, is an arsenal that has far more power than any individual or group in government can defeat. Instead of thousands of journalists covering a story, there is potentially billions of people reporting bits of news that are crisscrossing the globe that nobody can stop - for now. There is the potential for citizens to protest by using the internet to attack their own government, particularly in the United States and the U.K. and may believe it is their right to do so. This is not the kind of digital divide that government knows how to deal with either.  The days of the Boston Tea party are long gone and we know what happened two years later and that is not a scenario that will unfold or be repeated.

Governments have seen this potential and are developing applications and systems that can defend and attack any Internet event, foreign or domestic. This is not (just) about firewalls and creating offensive capabilities, but also about proposing new laws, which many believe are the beginning of a new era of government knows best.

Information is power

Many fear this could behold a future that dictates who holds control over the Internet. Early indications are that this view has some validity. Several nations (United Kingdom, United States, Canada, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, China, and Russia) are already monitoring and archiving significant information about their constituents.  There’s nothing new in knowledge that databases exist containing information about its citizens. Here’s what is new: the scale and ultimate purpose. Public safety agencies are encouraged to share multiple databases of information. That has created a new culture in police enforcement and created a new breed of police officer that simply has far more information than they need or should have available to them upon which to make an appraisal or use with valid merit. We have witnessed new variants of stereotype and investigation methods police officers use which are wrong in its outcome. England’s decision to maintain DNA records of individuals, even if found innocent has already caught several police officers making snap decisions that a suspect must be guilty of ’something’ - is a classic example that happens routinely.

What’s good for catching the bad guy maybe worse for the upstanding citizen

People realize that information is kept and archived about them. How it is used or manipulated however, is a completely different discussion. Privacy and protection from abuse of such information has now become a priority concern for everyone and currently there is a widespread worry that government simply does not have the trust of people to ensure its safeguarding. Memories of May 4, 1970 may come back to haunt many.

Governments are proposing laws allowing the tracking and archiving where users are on the Internet. These laws have their foundation in protection against illegal downloading of copyright materials and while valid, have far more reaching consequences than that purpose, and most recognize it as such - except many politicians. How much more information is the government going to track - this blog perhaps? I know that the 754^th ELSG - Electronic System Group (part of the 554^th ESW Wing) of the U.S. Air Force out of Hanscom Air Force Base has visited the blog, as has the Central Intelligence Agency. That doesn’t mean they are monitoring or tracking this blog, but what’s to stop them for doing so (hi guys! *wave*) and creating a file? - Good thing I know they’re the good guys…..
Go to:
Part 1
Part 2
Part 4 in this series

November 22nd, 2009

Internet: A threat to government or the other way around? (Part 2)

Posted by Doug Hanchard @ November 22, 2009 @ 3:30 PM

Categories: Blogs, Censorship, Congress, Courts, Elections, Government 2.0, Government technology, Homeland security, Journalism, Justice, Multi-media, Obama, Open government, Senate, Social networks, Spam, State & Local Govt, Web, politics

Tags: News, Internet New, Spin Bad New, Internet, Portals, RSS, Government, Blogging, Doug Hanchard

Part II

It’s been suggested in many articles that President Obama won the U.S. election in 2008 because his campaign used Twitter, Facebook and other social media effectively over the course of the campaign that spanned two years.  But this new instant social media clearly it works both ways: Bad news travels much faster, and with significantly more power, than good news ever does. Face it: People love dirt and passing on bad news more often, with negative results which tend to stick in a voters mind for a longer period of time than good news does.

The snowball effect

There’s more to it than just a story being uploaded and published on a blog or RSS feed. It goes a lot farther, much much farther. Internet news is now available in every language, where anybody who has access to a computer or smart phone is now a potential audience for ‘news’. That has politicians nervous because just how many of these stories are published with incomplete information along with confirmation that the material they are publishing is true. Harder still, once it’s published, how much effort do you put into getting a retraction if the story is inaccurate? And if the politician pushes too far, it may be perceived that there is in fact truth to the article, compounding the problem.  Twitter spreads news like a virus and it’s unstoppable and often it doesn’t, if ever, post retractions or corrections at the same velocity. We thought we understood the 7/24 news cycle when the era of 200 television stations became a reality… uh no…not even close were we in understanding what this cycle means - until now.

The Spin

Bad news is also how the opposition takes aim at its targets. Once a story is in the wild, you can bet your opposite is firing out their take on a story, sometimes with twice the venom and quadruple the amount of information that can literately engulf the target.  If you thought spam was a problem, political drama is going to crush it in the years to come.  One question it raises is: Can we absorb it all? The politician may have an escape route after all. But there’s an old saying: If enough junk is thrown at the wall, some of it is going to stick…

The story

News is also about agendas that elected leaders want to you to vote for. Out go the press releases, RSS alerts, Twitter, blogs and social portal postings. You become engulfed in it. You can’t surf anywhere without it coming at you. Well, you can, but don’t worry; they’ll find you anyway and make sure you listen. As opposing sides pitch you why each respective side is right and the other is wrong, you wonder if they even remember what they represent you for in the first place. This onslaught of political news is ignored, absorbed and debated and the arguments and dilution of substance begins. Often it can be ugly at one extreme to complete blandness at the other.  Politicians rarely remember which side of the bed they woke up on, why should it be any different trying to get a bill passed on the floor of the legislature?

What some leaders are starting to realize is that if they are not careful, their constituents will tune out. So far that’s not holding true, with the majority of western world eligible voters having access to the internet and having an email address or a cell phone with a data plan. Most troubling for elected officials are secondary news sources that create perception beyond their editorial control. These secondary sources are your friends that pass on the news, as a tweet, email, blog or text message which are condensed and revised pieces of news. This audience tends to get engaged BECAUSE it came from a source they associate with. The future might hold that people create firewall or filter rules that prevent political messages getting to them, but rarely will they reject these secondary sources of news.

Reaction to government has moved from the lawns of universities and parks to the Internet.

Go to:
Part 1
Part 3
Part 4 in this series

November 20th, 2009

Internet: A threat to government or the other way around?

Posted by Doug Hanchard @ November 20, 2009 @ 6:58 AM

Categories: Blogs, Courts, Cyberwar, Elections, Government technology, Journalism, Multi-media, Net neutrality, Open government, Privacy, Regulations, Social networks, State & Local Govt, Telecom, Twitter, Web, Winter Olympic Games, politics

Tags: President, Internet, Government, Vertical Industries, Doug Hanchard

Could the Internet pose a threat to government as an institution and create significant problems that shape how governing in the future occurs around the globe?  Or are government a danger to users of the Internet — and vice versa?

The answer is maybe both.  The internet has plunged government institutions into a very steep learning curve; creating new frontiers that many bureaucrats believe help how they run the country. For many departments, it’s been a windfall in financial savings such as publishing news, services, and many other programs. But for the actual governors of a country, it’s become quicksand or worse: the death knell for an elected official. The power brokers have found that making deals that used to be done in secret are now just about impossible to do. Getting a deal done, negotiating give and take on a bill is now leaked before the ink has even dried, because a draft is already out on the internet on some blog or news forum - like this one.  Senators, Congressmen/women, parliamentarians around the world no longer worry about one single person; suddenly, anyone around them can be the next Deep Throat tell-all informer, straight from their BlackBerry to Twitter, and their career could be over.

It could be argued that the internet is the great equalizer to government and its institutions, preventing them from becoming too powerful. For other agencies, it’s an entirely new battlefront - one which they now must confront - and use.

• The Internet is the great creator and destroyer of current and next generation politicians.
• A journalist does his homework and steadfastly enshrines ethical methods.

These two statements are about to collide in a head-on crash of extraordinary proportions. When U.S. President Nixon resigned from office, it wasn’t a news story covering a week in the life of a President’s downfall. It started in June of 1971 and finally ended when he left office in August of 1974. Newspaper reporters had to maintain constant pressure on information leaking out of the White House and Defense Department for three years.  Watergate was covered by some of the most respected journalists in the world and ensured that the facts pertaining to the story followed strict guidelines before publication. Those standards were what ultimately brought down a President.

Standards 2009… I don’t have time for that!

Today, a single story with enough information that is both accurate AND false can wipe out a politician in the amount of time it takes to log into a BlackBerry, type out 140 characters onto Twitter.com and you’re done like tweet….

The amount of retractions and corrections that news organizations have published has skyrocketed over the past several years. I myself have had to correct a story’s accuracy of facts. The speed of the internet has also created a conundrum that existed already in newspapers: Deadlines, which have now accelerated from several hours to ‘hit the press’ to seconds to get it online before the person across the street on his cell phone blogs it. Competition isn’t what it used to be. A single event can have devastating effects that spread and collects unwitting victims that are also elected, thus ending that official’s colleague career.

Go to:
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4 in this series

November 19th, 2009

FCC wants public comment on digital democracy - voting online

Posted by Doug Hanchard @ November 19, 2009 @ 6:06 AM

Categories: Congress, E-government, Elections, FCC, Government technology, Multi-media

Tags: FCC, Submissions, Federal Government, Government, Doug Hanchard

Last month I wrote about online voting and the trend to continue to move towards this type of service. The FCC is looking for comments which will influence the FCC’s policy and submit back recommendations to Congress. Online town hall meetings using multimedia applications are also being reviewed.  The extent to which voting options are available are not part of the FCC’s review or mandate.  Paper ballots and in person voting are not likely going anywhere anytime soon.

It will be interesting to see if the value of online voting is swayed by the economics and accuracy of voter tabulations and participation. There are a lot of arguments for and against electronic and online voting. Another focus area likely to surface is the digital divide - many people simply do not use the Internet, let alone own a computer.  As I noted in my previous post, there are other ways it could still be accomplished such as smart phones or kiosks connected to the election service platform.

Submissions are due by December 10 of this year.

 Loading ...

 Loading ...

November 17th, 2009

Do former CEOs make better politicians than career diplomats?

Posted by Doug Hanchard @ November 17, 2009 @ 5:48 AM

Categories: Congress, Elections, Open government, Senate, State & Local Govt, White House, california, politics

Tags: Meg Whitman, Carly Fiorina, President, Politics, Theodore Roosevelt, Professional Development, Career, Doug Hanchard

Both Meg Whitman (E-Bay) and Carly Fiorina (HP) are entering U.S. politics in California where anything is possible. Both were high tech corridor heavyweights managing two of the largest ICT corporations in the world. Ross Perot (EDS) tried to run for President - twice. Some considered his chances weak in the beginning, yet he almost pulled it off, some analyst suggest. Former Vice President Cheney while CEO of Halliburton between 1995 and 2000, has always been in politics starting in 1969 until his retirement last year.

U.S. Governments generally elect career politicians, rising through the ranks from town councils, state legislatures and finally federal institutions. Many have careers spanning 40+ years. Congressman John Dingell of Michigan has served in office since 1955 and is the longest serving elected House member in history.

There are two other sources of diplomats. One is not too far distant from the political spectrum, the other is. The first is the military, Gen Eisenhower (President) , Gen Colin Powell (Secretary of State), and several generals since the civil war went into politics at various levels. One of the surprises in the 20th century was General Douglas MacArthur’s decision not to enter politics despite many who felt he would have won a Presidential race in 1952. Theodore Roosevelt has the distinction of serving first in politics, leaving to enter the military (1898 Spanish-American War) and reenter politics eventually becoming the 26th U.S. President from 1901 to 1909.

The other source is actors such as former President Regan, Fred Thompson (Senator), Clint Eastwood (Mayor), Arnold Schwarzenegger (Gov of California) and many others. The track records of each are likely to be debated forever.

The corporate world has not had significant leadership roles in recent U.S. elections. The question often arises as to why. The answers vary from scrutiny, pay, and general consensus; it’s easier to influence change from outside the political arena than from within. Should be an interesting news cycle watching Meg Whitman and Carly Fiorina’s attempts getting elected in California. Silicon Valley may not be the safe haven they think it is. Fiorina is challenging three-term Senator Barbara Boxer (who’s been in federal politics since 1983) while Whitman is going up against the Terminator who’s been Governor since 2003.

 Loading ...

November 3rd, 2009

The taxman goes mainstream on YouTube

Posted by Doug Hanchard @ November 3, 2009 @ 6:59 AM

Categories: Elections, Government technology, Multi-media, Obama, Regulations, State & Local Govt, UK

Tags: YouTube Inc., Video, Taxman, Corporate Communications, Government, Marketing, Doug Hanchard

Multimedia offers several things that ordinary print doesn’t: Driving home a point in person is one of them.  Press releases, bulletins, direct mail often are ignored, so what to do? But video, multimedia, regular TV news also have their limits. In an era of 200 TV stations offering a variety of specialty channels where “news” is ignored, how to reach the masses and offer an ability to go when you please to view important information? The government in the U.K. has started to post on YouTube. HM Revenues and Customs have put Dave Hartnett, HMRC’s Permanent Secretary for Tax, straight onto video about the deadline for off shore tax havens.

The challenge for most ministries or departments is costs. Constantly sending out direct mail or advertising in newspapers or phone calls is becoming expensive.  Putting out a video that anyone can download for free, view it on their own time is becoming an attractive option. The government can stipulate that public notice was given and published in a medium that anyone can retrieve and thus fair warning was established.

YouTube has been the source for political and official government messages with mixed results until the 2008 U.S. presidential election, where President Obama’s campaign used it aggressively. There are more than 137,000 videos related to the President. He’s not alone in the use of YouTube. Search results for Senator John McCain displays 179,000 videos, Former Gov. Sarah Palin 88,000, and former President Bush shows a whopping 388,000 different video clips! Many of these videos are responses or unusual commentaries on the individual and is clearly an effective medium to get one’s message out. The regular evening news may find itself being replaced when it comes to political affairs. Whether you hear about it or not, the government is coming to collect.

Here’s the HM Revenue & Customs video:

October 20th, 2009

Electronic voting: Changing the world faster than a Windows upgrade

Posted by Doug Hanchard @ October 20, 2009 @ 10:07 AM

Categories: Blogs, Canada, E-government, Elections, Government 2.0, Government technology, International, Microsoft, Open government, Social networks, Twitter, Web services, White House

Tags: Microsoft Windows, Web Site, Whitehouse, Government, Internet, Web Site Development, Web Technology, Vertical Industries, Portals, E-voting

The world changes every day and often our lives get impacted every second by outcomes out of our domain or control.  Government institutions and the leaders we elected change political behaviors at a slower pace. Lawmakers react along party lines and tout change as the promised path to improvements. They have four years, sometimes longer, in office to create change.  It can take decades for policies and laws to actually happen in many parts of the world. The Internet world is pushing to shorten those time lines.

Computers, smart phones, and applications are now a part of the social fabric that we all use. It seems we are a very vocal bunch. No longer is it about having your own website or voice on a newsgroup posting — that’s old stuff. Today, it’s being a part of a social network both as an individual and a group or business. You join different clubs and organizations, sign virtual petitions and speak out on issues and still talk to your lost long family, friends and make new ones.

Who would have ever thought that 300 million users would be on Facebook in such a short time? Language translation of a web page now takes place in a nanosecond. Nobody should to be left out if they are connected to the Internet. The world access to the Internet is now approximately 1.6 billion people — roughly 25% of the population.

The recent global financial crisis was predictable by computer modeling, some argue — if the regulators around the world had integrated laws and data sharing. That’s unlikely, given the reality of how much risk people were simply willing to take and given the lax rules that existed.  It’s true, some blogs and information about the crisis that occurred exploded on the internet and published on many of the social websites we visit every day. Publishing articles about the disaster are global since it impacted so many people’s lives. Governments have reacted, this time quickly. Financial reforms and bailouts are happening around the world at lightning speed compared to normal government day-to-day ramblings. Government is listening, making fundamental changes in how they govern when they link to Facebook, Myspace, Twitter and many others and update almost daily. The White House is linked to all of them!

Are the changes in direction about faces to implementation of such web portals? Is this truly going to change governments and how they create law? As technology, security solutions and applications improve and become trusted, I would not be surprised to see certified referendums, municipal and federal government level voting on specific issues be made available and counted on web sites or portals, a reality within a year in some parts of the world. Some countries are already doing limited online voting (U.K., Canada, Switzerland) for elections. In the U.S., it has been used for primaries. Read the rest of this entry »

October 19th, 2009

Success or failure equals government intervention

Posted by Doug Hanchard @ October 19, 2009 @ 12:32 PM

Categories: Antitrust, Congress, Courts, Elections, Google, Google Book Deal, Intellectual Property, International, Microsoft, Regulations, SEC, Transportation

Tags: Financial, Industry, Government, Vertical Industries, Financial Accounting, Finance, Doug Hanchard

The economy is in complete disarray and recovery efforts cost taxpayers everywhere. It will be a small fortune (a few trillion dollars) in long-term debt that governments are now incurring. Government is not at fault right? They are not the cause of economic wealth or disaster - right? What role do they really play? Turns out the answer is plenty.

Daily, the press fires out news about bailouts everywhere in the auto sector and financial marketplace, institutions that caused their own undoing are putting us in asset devaluation and debt never seen before. If you’re a successful company, don’t worry, the government sector is going to still tear your company apart. Microsoft is being micro-managed by the EU ,and the U.S. government make current financial regulators look like amateurs. What industry or company is on a government hit list?

If you’re successful, then rest on your laurels, shrug your shoulders and begin to fall flat on your face, just blame everyone else for causing the problems when the company falls apart. As a bonus, don’t worry the government will come bail you out. If you’re the biggest and most successful and financially sound, the government still wants to get into your books and tell you what your business can do and hand over some of the business to your competitors.

Why didn’t the government do that with GM? Shouldn’t they simply have handed over some of the business to Toyota, Ford and others? In a sense with Chrysler, they did and packaged up a deal and prayed that FIAT didn’t blink before they signed on the dotted line.

I wonder if Cisco is going have to worry some day that it will have to hand some of its business over to Juniper, Ciena, Brocade or other network gear companies? Read the rest of this entry »

December 15th, 2008

McCain campaign auctions BlackBerries -- complete with phone numbers!

Posted by Richard Koman @ December 15, 2008 @ 4:58 PM

Categories: Elections, Security

Tags: Phone, RIM BlackBerry, Auction, Handhelds, Telecom & Utilities, Hardware, Richard Koman

The Fox News affiliate in Arlington, Va., thought it would be entertaining to check out the auction of McCain campaign high-tech gear. They sent investigative reporter Tisha Thompson down to buy a Blackberry. They were going for $20. She bought several. And they got quite a surprise, as the station reports.

When we charged them up in the newsroom, we found one of the $20 Blackberry phones contained more than 50 phone numbers for people connected with the McCain-Palin campaign, as well as hundreds of emails from early September until a few days after election night.

We traced the Blackberry back to a staffer who worked for “Citizens for McCain,” a group of democrats who threw their support behind the Republican nominee. The emails contain an insider’s look at how grassroots operations work, full of scheduling questions and rallying cries for support.

But most of the numbers were private cell phones for campaign leaders, politicians, lobbyists and journalists.

And those people weren’t too happy to get a call from the station’s reporters.

“Somebody made a mistake,” one owner told us. “People’s numbers and addresses were supposed to be erased.”

“They should have wiped that stuff out,” another said. But he added, “Given the way the campaign was run, this is not a surprise.”

Campain reaction? Oops. “It was an unfortunate staff error and procedures are being put in place to ensure all information is secure.”

To this The Washington Post notes:

Wiping a BlackBerry is actually fairly simple for most models. From the Options menu, choose Security Options, then General Settings. From that screen, press the Menu button to pull up a list of actions. Choose Wipe Handheld, and soon you should be all set.