<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Media Access Project &#187; RoadMAP</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.mediaaccess.org/category/press_room/roadmap/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.mediaaccess.org</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2012 16:24:46 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>A Deeper Dive Into What They Know About You</title>
		<link>http://www.mediaaccess.org/2012/02/a-deeper-dive-into-what-they-know-about-you/</link>
		<comments>http://www.mediaaccess.org/2012/02/a-deeper-dive-into-what-they-know-about-you/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2012 16:24:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Press Room]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[RoadMAP]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mediaaccess.org/?p=4101</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[First, an update from yesterday.  The National Association of Broadcasters put out a statement
attempting  to debunk the Pew survey which showed cable as the leading source of  campaign information, saying that &#8220;58% of Pew survey respondents cited  broadcast television as their primary source for campaign coverage,  vastly surpassing the 36% who [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>First, an update from yesterday.  The National Association of Broadcasters put out a <a href="http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?llr=kntjo9cab&amp;et=1109258338407&amp;s=2028&amp;e=0011TJFmgFpAe-tGur3fL-KG05UcY3veatyGDpIFK_EQSUxRioKwT3JApwH8QqPEFsXxK6ohQoZMOWZ5mOMpDRiHTWFRKSNrwNi874Au2Dq5pG4H8n9WYf6gdgM00D6itiTyfbZbmw18va25z57Ao7RantQXR4lvxakVDuZKzzk6r2rznOGTJxr2iayzgLUv5mig1UHpS6jOxtGyIbnhkPmaSoYiM0EF2xx" target="_blank">statement</a><br />
attempting  to debunk the Pew survey which showed cable as the leading source of  campaign information, saying that &#8220;58% of Pew survey respondents cited  broadcast television as their primary source for campaign coverage,  vastly surpassing the 36% who cited cable networks.&#8221;</p>
<p>Now, for  today&#8217;s item: it is the opening chapter of an important new book from an  old friend of RoadMAP&#8217;s, Professor Joseph Turow.  He takes a long and  sophisticated look at evolving digital advertising industry and its data  collection technologies.</p>
<div><em><strong>A Guide to the Digital Advertising Industry That&#8217;s Watching Your Every Click</strong></em></div>
<p><em><strong>In this excerpt from his new book, </strong></em><strong><a>The Daily You</a></strong><em><strong>,  University of Pennsylvania professor Joseph Turow takes you on a tour  of the industry that&#8217;s trafficking in the data you generate every day on  the Internet. You don&#8217;t have to be a privacy stickler to be worried.</strong></em></p>
<p><em><strong> </strong></em><em>At  the start of the 21st century, the advertising industry is guiding one  of history&#8217;s most massive stealth efforts in social profiling. At this  point you may hardly notice the results of this trend. You may find  you&#8217;re getting better or worse discounts on products than your friends.  You may notice that some ads seem to follow you around the internet.  Every once in a while a website may ask you if you like a particular ad  you just received. Or perhaps your cell phone has told you that you will  be rewarded if you eat in a nearby restaurant where, by the way, two of  your friends are hanging out this very minute.</em></p>
<p><em>You may actually like some of these intrusions. You may  feel that they pale before the digital power you now have. After all,  your ability to create blogs, collaborate with others to distribute  videos online, and say what you want on Facebook (carefully using its  privacy settings) seems only to confirm what marketers and even many  academics are telling us: that consumers are captains of their own  new-media ships.</p>
<p>But look beneath the surface, and a different picture  emerges. We&#8217;re at the start of a revolution in the ways marketers and  media intrude in &#8212; and shape &#8212; our lives. Every day, most if not all  Americans who use the internet, along with hundreds of millions of other  users from all over the planet, are being quietly peeked at, poked,  analyzed and tagged as they move through the online world. Governments  undoubtedly conduct a good deal of snooping, more in some parts of the  world than in others. But in North America, Europe, and many other  places, companies that work for marketers have taken the lead in  secretly slicing and dicing the actions and backgrounds of huge  populations on a virtually minute-by-minute basis. Their goal is to find  out how to activate individuals&#8217; buying impulses so they can sell us  stuff more efficiently than ever before. But their work has broader  social and cultural consequences as well. It is destroying traditional  publishing ethics by forcing media outlets to adapt their editorial  content to advertisers&#8217; public-relations needs and slice-and-dice  demands. And it is performing a highly controversial form of social  profiling and discrimination by customizing our media content on the  basis of marketing reputations we don&#8217;t even know we have.</p>
<p><strong></p>
<div><em><strong><br />
</strong></em></div>
<p></strong></em><strong>MORE:</strong><em><strong><br />
<a href="http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?llr=kntjo9cab&amp;et=1109258338407&amp;s=2028&amp;e=0011TJFmgFpAe_-bu_wqLKg0QshWqpIHU_41J8FXgimF63SioGYzcpMdCo64rme8zFLFrFQ9n5-tKPYV8drCizKBga7d5EKz-uNk169Yel67RrNYfx3VED3S2RDyjbMGJfthnajJsGDXeKBtHbMck_NVtXqlyTlGNJQZlH5y5wcJgTHdKhmvzM_k02oLFKjXNgpf1CQxxPNF1Hq_dMf6r1Bte46PHvhJ0wt5BpN7EY1LXWE7wggxt_IK4bovNnWg6aXA4P14uBdQLXUoKonUE6ZbQ==" target="_blank">The Atlantic</a></strong></em></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.mediaaccess.org/2012/02/a-deeper-dive-into-what-they-know-about-you/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>TV Reigns Supreme</title>
		<link>http://www.mediaaccess.org/2012/02/tv-reigns-supreme/</link>
		<comments>http://www.mediaaccess.org/2012/02/tv-reigns-supreme/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 08 Feb 2012 15:22:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Press Room]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[RoadMAP]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mediaaccess.org/?p=4099</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[There&#8217;s yet another terrific survey from the Pew Research Center for the  People and the Press.  This one shows that TV remains the dominant  source of information on presidential elections.  In this case, that  means cable.  (RoadMAP regulars must be tired of hearing yet again the  local TV has kept its [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>There&#8217;s yet another terrific survey from the Pew Research Center for the  People and the Press.  This one shows that TV remains the dominant  source of information on presidential elections.  In this case, that  means cable.  (RoadMAP regulars must be tired of hearing yet again the  local TV has kept its clout as a source of local news and information.)   Facebook and Twitter?  Not yet&#8230;.</p>
<div><em><strong>Cable Leads The Pack As Campaign News Source </strong></em></div>
<div><em><strong>Twitter, Facebook Play Very Modest Roles</strong></em></div>
<div><em> With a contested primary in only one party this year, fewer  Americans are closely following news about the presidential campaign  than four years ago. As a consequence, long-term declines in the number  of people getting campaign news from such sources as local TV and  network news have steepened, and even the number gathering campaign news  online, which had nearly tripled between 2000 and 2008, has leveled off  in 2012.</em></p>
<div><em> The one constant over the course of the past four elections is the  reach of cable news. Currently, 36% of Americans say they are regularly  learning about the candidates or campaign on cable news networks. That  is virtually unchanged from previous campaigns, yet cable news is now  the top regular source for campaign news.</em></div>
<div><em> </em></div>
<div><strong>MORE:<br />
<a href="http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?llr=kntjo9cab&amp;et=1109248453877&amp;s=2028&amp;e=001jMFAcOPBedR_Cqsmol8rCqE4mTws00mmikmdEh7Hp94YF1GBIK81o-u1_TdnLUdQYUrqY9vKvJXvsySzuGDNsR8WaTAjTlIHxVewwoF4PFLuW4Smzf3l1EkidjbFY7Khn3tfqWgjeJ05udxxeBYOSHwbG-TxVWlhOjN9FIABbnmNnMCbRHQh8x6bkP1sBaZUYkmEAzyf2I0=" target="_blank">Pew Center For the People and the Press</a><br />
</strong></div>
</div>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.mediaaccess.org/2012/02/tv-reigns-supreme/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>How Google&#8217;s World Is Imperiled</title>
		<link>http://www.mediaaccess.org/2012/02/how-googles-world-is-imperiled/</link>
		<comments>http://www.mediaaccess.org/2012/02/how-googles-world-is-imperiled/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 07 Feb 2012 12:32:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Press Room]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[RoadMAP]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mediaaccess.org/?p=4084</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Jim Fallows has a great discussion analyzing recent articles that frame  the Google vs. Facebook fight as a war over the future of open networks.
Facebook, Google, And The Future Of The Online &#8216;Commons&#8217;
 As part of digesting the meaning of the Era of the Facebook IPO,  please check out an essay today by [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Jim Fallows has a great discussion analyzing recent articles that frame  the Google vs. Facebook fight as a war over the future of open networks.</p>
<div><em><strong>Facebook, Google, And The Future Of The Online &#8216;Commons&#8217;</strong></em></div>
<div><em> As part of digesting the meaning of the Era of the Facebook IPO,  please check out an essay today by Dave Winer, which builds on one  yesterday by John Battelle, which itself was a response to one the  previous day by Keith Woolcock. All are worth reading, and all concern  the way Facebook&#8217;s rise is changing &#8212; and distorting &#8212; the overall  shape of the internet. </em></div>
<div><em> In brief they argue:</em></div>
<div><em> &#8211;  Google&#8217;s business success depended on a worldwide internet structure as  open, untrammeled, and transparent as possible. Therefore most of what  Google did for its own corporate interest also advanced those aims &#8212; or  at least did not impede them.</em></div>
<div><em>-  Facebook&#8217;s business success depends on an internet structure that is  increasingly &#8220;gated&#8221; and segregated into proprietary realms. Therefore  most of what Facebook has done is to induce maximum sharing of personal  information within its propriety sphere, while erecting barriers to the  flow of information from one realm to another.</em></div>
<div><em>-  The shift of business advantage from the &#8220;public&#8221; to the &#8220;private&#8221;  model means more than a different subset of people becoming  zillionaires. It will also affect the fundamental structure of the  Internet and its value to the 99.999% of us who are neither Google nor  Facebook IPO-beneficiaries. Already its effects are being seen, as all  these pieces argue, with Google&#8217;s promotion of its &#8220;G+&#8221; and  social-search features. Facebook&#8217;s ascent leaves Google with no choice  but to compete on those terms.</em></div>
<div><em> </em></div>
<div><strong>MORE:</strong></div>
<div><strong><a href="http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?llr=kntjo9cab&amp;et=1109238802304&amp;s=2028&amp;e=001MEWhRH8TjBQtlRFA45bfrEjhJiIz6BvoRSM-y-Bm4rzisoZncMhaOAEPCV6JYrAIa-G8YeXpJONBrh7xlSAPoNVbEZMWJkuQDs7HyRm5W-jznhLOFCJV0CYmGu7dscGt0jrFvpoXUXnT19-XO_WLEaqaGwH-HDJA464t-MnIylp51pJy5Qxm7wb4pxSbUl6OOnxZmKJtK0i_sAKVtXkZ_pkui7Dqw0SxNsBf6Zyqki8VTrhqj4w1GAloQ1nBqiWW" target="_blank">The Atlantic</a><br />
</strong></div>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.mediaaccess.org/2012/02/how-googles-world-is-imperiled/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>A Milestone For Social Media?</title>
		<link>http://www.mediaaccess.org/2012/02/a-milestone-for-social-media/</link>
		<comments>http://www.mediaaccess.org/2012/02/a-milestone-for-social-media/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 06 Feb 2012 16:31:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Press Room]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[RoadMAP]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mediaaccess.org/?p=4080</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Last week&#8217;s flap over the quick reversal of the Susan G. Komen  Foundation&#8217;s disaffiliation with Planned Parenthood may have been a  turning point for social media.  Coverage of the story took it for  granted that the blowback was triggered by social media, and there was  relatively little discussion about how social [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Last week&#8217;s flap over the quick reversal of the Susan G. Komen  Foundation&#8217;s disaffiliation with Planned Parenthood may have been a  turning point for social media.  Coverage of the story took it for  granted that the blowback was triggered by social media, and there was  relatively little discussion about how social media has changed the  nature of public advocacy and activism.  For one thing, the cycle for  such things is now much shorter; even a year or two ago, it might have  taken a few days &#8211; not 24 hours &#8211; for the public&#8217;s reaction to register.   This marginalizes some of the traditional forms of influence, such as  newspaper editorials.  The point is clear; Facebook is now the front  line of much social activism, both domestically and internationally.</p>
<div><em><strong>The Most Surprising Thing About How People Use Facebook</strong></em></div>
<div><em><strong>Facebook isn&#8217;t just for sharing baby photos and YouTube videos, it&#8217;s also a crucial new political space.</strong></em></div>
<div><em> We all know that people are using Facebook every day for keeping  up  with their friends &#8212; sharing pictures, statuses, and little finds  from  across the Internet. But it turns out that for the most hardcore   Facebook users, the platform is more than social &#8212; it&#8217;s political. </em></div>
<p><em> According to <a>a new report from Pew</a>,   the Facebook users who have the most friends, were tagged in the most   photos, and received the most wall posts, were more likely than average   users to attend political rallies and meetings offline. Additionally,   those who used Facebook&#8217;s &#8220;groups&#8221; feature were also more likely to try   to convince other Facebook friends to vote for certain candidates. (In   general Facebook users were more likely than average Americans to vote   in an election.)</em></p>
<p><em> It makes sense that an overall pattern of engagement extends  beyond  Facebook to the greater world. And this was true before Facebook  too &#8212;  people who are more social, more engaged, also have higher  rates of  civic participation.</em></p>
<p><em> But because Facebook is now where so many of those people &#8212;  these  highly engaged citizens &#8212; spend their time and communicate, the   Facebook game is rising in importance for political campaigns. Voter   contact &#8212; asking someone personally to vote &#8212; is thought to be the   most effective way to get people to the polls, and it&#8217;s all the more so   when the people making the contact are friends not strangers. Facebook,   with its dense and active networks, offers campaigns a more efficient   way of making those contacts. On Facebook, there is the potential to   reach more people, whom they assume to be friends, without sending   people into the streets to walk door to door.</em><br />
<strong>MORE:</strong><br />
<a href="http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?llr=kntjo9cab&amp;et=1109228801549&amp;s=2028&amp;e=0012PQfHkcTWFUXira-G8TfFW_l8OGNIDeVfK-IFfhscvAUOPBtecLH_qcWz-HRaK5yOzL9_UmfeFIR-xdJCrh_6AmxynHqUE9RkwvZiwW8cxBJK04_eY43BjNfCQogLwriWRKjQKzAEZNTa5bsqfNAkbpjBF58gm1o0bDWQTwNt2dqNhHEkIgjzgfLrvrLE2bBeA_GbjyYcuEqRvQK7SVwA9gFABYBWuDWUXKGt8cTN1Qf-bUyqr9LGKcRy68QlPy0" target="_blank">The Atlantic</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.mediaaccess.org/2012/02/a-milestone-for-social-media/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Stopping Internet Censorship: A Success Story</title>
		<link>http://www.mediaaccess.org/2012/02/stopping-internet-censorship-a-success-story/</link>
		<comments>http://www.mediaaccess.org/2012/02/stopping-internet-censorship-a-success-story/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 03 Feb 2012 15:22:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Press Room]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[RoadMAP]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mediaaccess.org/?p=4076</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Bob Cannon&#8217;s Cybertelecom.Org has  been entertaining and informing legalistic geeks since the earliest  days of the modern internet (well, since 1997).  It is part legal  reference, part news updates and part opinions, and 100% nerd.   Yesterday, Bob tweeted the history of how the good guys beat the  &#8220;Communications Decency Act.&#8221;  MAP [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Bob Cannon&#8217;s <a href="http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?llr=kntjo9cab&amp;et=1109213186395&amp;s=2028&amp;e=001eraxBc-l5GD4eQR5S6iUlqspG69B2jFrGPi_FojLnlnsX_OPdcw0hcWNK7d6-Fvkk9uOaRIuLkOY2fxXfeIEMq_eeNZUbIAvN8GP0ihjDffuGhv51y1KjyFwWSoZFQbcVIO5vL24QcU=" target="_blank">Cybertelecom.Org</a> has  been entertaining and informing legalistic geeks since the earliest  days of the modern internet (well, since 1997).  It is part legal  reference, part news updates and part opinions, and 100% nerd.   Yesterday, Bob tweeted the history of how the good guys beat the  &#8220;Communications Decency Act.&#8221;  MAP is proud to have helped this effort.</p>
<div><strong><em>15 Years Of Stopping The Barbarians At The Gate (Communications Decency Act)</em></strong></div>
<div><em> Sixteen years ago today, Senator James Exon introduced the  Communications Decency Act. Also, during that same year, the National  Science Foundation completed the privitization of the NSFNET, giving  birth to the public Internet as we know it.</em></div>
<div><em> Senator Exon stood on the floor of the Senate, with a folder  filled with assorted undesirable content, and declared that we must stop  the barbarians at the gate. At that time, most members of Congress had  never been online, didnt know what the World Wide Web was, and could not  spell &#8220;Internet&#8221; (of course, there were a few who did understand the  potential of the Internet and championed it). For Congress, the equation  was simple: whatever this Internet thing was, no Member of Congress was  going to be seen as soft on pornography.</em></div>
<div><em> The Communications Decency Act was passed in 1996 as an amendment  to the Telecommunications Act (the only reference to the Internet in  that historic legislation).  It was quickly challenged by the ACLU,  struck down by a trial court, and (thanks to expedited review), quickly  struck down by a unanimous Supreme Court. </em></div>
<div><em> It&#8217;s been 15 years since the CDA was passed. What has transpired?   Today, Cybertelecom will recount that 15 year history in a series of  tweets &#8211; it will take most of the day.  Below is an unabridged version  of those tweets:</em></div>
<div><strong>MORE:</strong></div>
<div><strong><a href="http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?llr=kntjo9cab&amp;et=1109213186395&amp;s=2028&amp;e=001eraxBc-l5GAxymvbX9w7McGW4L0yEBe4Qo8LKg4HFS1Q_cM4ZYN77uhwtI8XTiv2n_pN3vHLgGNP0azZvRUKLDsaE0LELDlbpevfIPPtAVitho9Qfceq31DtAtfZX0LR1dXShxTg3_f2q2SJlSRtAJRS_RlkGGVOuieOC2yxWNKQ1Mck517JdWVWrPxwWd8a0t8Qa5yiV4fm3bOSqy-AjPhnURBwydCfYyQUcObGrdNQ2XY6I1iB6LCPXiAF15jaM58ZuYqygT7SFm-aoaRhN1LJlsi3TCbxG-cQuU7kv7n8nyRfSvz0uE7Y2hQwwo0ViCq3mUh0uWP8RXP_E8jdy7KS6GninrWtbIbgSCMbGlE=" target="_blank">CyberTelecomBlog</a><br />
</strong></div>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.mediaaccess.org/2012/02/stopping-internet-censorship-a-success-story/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>One Thing To Read About The Facebook IPO</title>
		<link>http://www.mediaaccess.org/2012/02/one-thing-to-read-about-the-facebook-ipo/</link>
		<comments>http://www.mediaaccess.org/2012/02/one-thing-to-read-about-the-facebook-ipo/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 02 Feb 2012 15:55:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Press Room]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[RoadMAP]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mediaaccess.org/?p=4064</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Facebook IPO is surely one of the biggest tech stories of the year,  and the volume of coverage is, accordingly, overwhelming.  Moreover,  this has been anticipated for months, so there was a lot of time for  reporters to prepare for it.  If you&#8217;re short on time today, skip  straight to [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The Facebook IPO is surely one of the biggest tech stories of the year,  and the volume of coverage is, accordingly, overwhelming.  Moreover,  this has been anticipated for months, so there was a lot of time for  reporters to prepare for it.  If you&#8217;re short on time today, skip  straight to this item from Wired, which offers a savvy explication of  Mark Zuckerberg&#8217;s letter to current and potential investors.</p>
<div><strong><em>Facebook&#8217;s &#8220;Letter from Zuckerberg&#8221;: The Annotated Version</em></strong></div>
<div><em> Facebook&#8217;s Form S-1 Registration Statement with the Security and  Exchange Commission includes details on the IPO itself and the  company&#8217;s financial condition as well as a letter from founder and CEO  Mark Zuckerberg to current and potential shareholders &#8211; aka the whole  world. It discusses the company&#8217;s business and technological philosophy  and what Zuckerberg calls its &#8220;social mission&#8221; &#8211; i.e., &#8220;to make the  world more open and connected.&#8221; </em></div>
<div><em> Statements like these serve as a manifesto, a declaration, a  founding document for the company and its future. It&#8217;s useful to pay  them close attention. As Zuckerberg writes: &#8220;We think it&#8217;s important  that everyone who invests in Facebook understands what this mission  means to us, how we make decisions and why we do the things we do.&#8221;</em></div>
<div><em> Below is the full text of the letter, with apposite commentary  and analysis. Unless otherwise indicated, everything in indented  blockquotes is commentary, and all emphases (except for section headers)  are mine.</em></div>
<div><em> </em></div>
<div><strong>MORE:</strong></div>
<div><strong><a href="http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?llr=kntjo9cab&amp;et=1109204485023&amp;s=2028&amp;e=001oEDb0Ga4GVzXKf3FeYstl4sNQgzfDv-q7TiODJevuj2i-1rK__mjO1pH6jDIPtX661igNaM0tyPWc6b91pZGzxKs2bvfgQMZJkKUJo8tbkHituBg2a0H1evkRgJRgtV-TdXV1XEF4-CbmLa94_Zuhf4iRUvnHYPVY2EyRrPtKPSKjC7pUwz0h7rRJrev43LP" target="_blank">Wired</a><br />
</strong></div>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.mediaaccess.org/2012/02/one-thing-to-read-about-the-facebook-ipo/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Are We At The Beginning of (Another) Tech-Driven Boom?</title>
		<link>http://www.mediaaccess.org/2012/02/are-we-at-the-beginning-of-another-tech-driven-boom/</link>
		<comments>http://www.mediaaccess.org/2012/02/are-we-at-the-beginning-of-another-tech-driven-boom/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 01 Feb 2012 15:34:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Press Room]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[RoadMAP]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mediaaccess.org/?p=4061</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Two well-credentialed scientists argue in the Wall Street Journal that &#8220;big data, smart manufacturing and the wireless revolution&#8221; will  fuel a new era of economic expansion.  Perhaps, but will these  technologies create jobs?  In fact, the robots used in &#8220;smart  manufacturing&#8221; are generally designed for the precise purpose of  reducing labor [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Two well-credentialed scientists argue in the <em>Wall Street Journal</em> that &#8220;big data, smart manufacturing and the wireless revolution&#8221; will  fuel a new era of economic expansion.  Perhaps, but will these  technologies create jobs?  In fact, the robots used in &#8220;smart  manufacturing&#8221; are generally designed for the precise purpose of  reducing labor costs.</p>
<div><strong><em>The Coming Tech-led Boom</em></strong></div>
<div><strong><em>Three breakthroughs are poised to transform this century as much as telephony and electricity did the last.</em></strong></div>
<p><strong><em> In January 1912, the United States emerged from a  two-year recession.  Nineteen more followed-along with a century of  phenomenal economic  growth. Americans in real terms are 700% wealthier  today.</em></strong></p>
<p><em> In hindsight it seems obvious that emerging technologies circa   1912-electrification, telephony, the dawn of the automobile age, the   invention of stainless steel and the radio amplifier-would foster such   growth. Yet even knowledgeable contemporary observers failed to grasp   their transformational power.</em></p>
<p><em> In January 2012, we sit again on the cusp of three grand  technological  transformations with the potential to rival that of the  past century.  All find their epicenters in America: big data, smart  manufacturing and  the wireless revolution</em>.<br />
<strong>MORE:</strong><br />
<a href="http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?llr=kntjo9cab&amp;et=1109190589489&amp;s=2028&amp;e=001oKuDcpqJITz0gfINrLn1mtPJJ8jrwvU-7OznsWWTwe4MXUMV6Km51j8GqIRWML54S5Nu6dPH3NpyclQgqZ9GhB6F7qaXoo3JxRp_ocVucGFAiW3Kbp3MmplpkRNzVG4XUzezF5wx1NCLlkPzSnEqtGTzoz5wt6lzuycfS9yrsxgK_IOn1XPmfEksETfwK3Kc" target="_blank">Wall Street Journal</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.mediaaccess.org/2012/02/are-we-at-the-beginning-of-another-tech-driven-boom/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Consent Of The Networked</title>
		<link>http://www.mediaaccess.org/2012/01/consent-of-the-networked/</link>
		<comments>http://www.mediaaccess.org/2012/01/consent-of-the-networked/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 31 Jan 2012 15:42:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Press Room]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[RoadMAP]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mediaaccess.org/?p=4050</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In case you missed the announcement, the next event in MAP&#8217;s policy forum series, to be held on February 7 (details here)  will address international issues of internet governance.  Today&#8217;s item  relates to that topic; it is an excerpt from Rebecca MacKinnon&#8217;s new  book.
Consent Of The Networked
How can digital technology be structured and [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In case you missed the announcement, the next event in MAP&#8217;s policy forum series, to be held on February 7 (details <a href="http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?llr=kntjo9cab&amp;et=1109182007874&amp;s=2028&amp;e=001aBhOapvyl1X7F3OsGlb5yPoT3Ioreif0BUkRwddDuDar4ewFYtoBSsRKe41asYT15Sy3gYmpsg8H2OipdF7nu8NraTWLnUjgFa0sNCYI-S1h9TlBnspWEozshZjN1syHoRx7P3ZCVqnmj7rMeMC15pGVTURblajmR1UHgCunGQRyElwFVO2ELasE9vQPLNch" target="_blank">here</a>)  will address international issues of internet governance.  Today&#8217;s item  relates to that topic; it is an excerpt from Rebecca MacKinnon&#8217;s new  book.</p>
<div>Consent Of The Networked</div>
<div>How can digital technology be structured and governed to maximize the good and minimize the evil?</div>
<div><em> On March 5, 2011, protesters stormed the Egyptian state security  headquarters. In real time, activists shared their discoveries on  Twitter as they moved through a building that had until recently been  one of the Mubarak regime&#8217;s largest torture facilities.</em></p>
<div><em> Videos and photos uploaded to YouTube, Flickr, and Facebook showed a  flurry of young men (and a few women) opening doors and cabinets,  sifting through piles of shredded paper, pulling out stacks of files,  and examining pieces of equipment, including implements of torture.</em></div>
<div><em> Some activists found their own files. They were full of wiretap  transcripts and reams of printouts of intercepted emails and mobile  messages. Clearly, the Egyptian government had sophisticated  surveillance technology-purchased from several North American and  European companies-at its disposal. It still does.</em></div>
<div><em> &#8220;If you want to liberate a society, just give them the Internet,&#8221;  said Wael Ghonim, the young Google executive and a hero of the Egyptian  revolution for his role in creating the Facebook group that played a key  role in getting the first wave of protesters into Cairo&#8217;s Tahrir  Square. The Internet certainly did play a powerful role in bringing down  a dictator-but it was leveraged by a committed community of activists  who spent the better part of a decade building a movement. It is less  clear how helpful the Internet will be when it comes to protecting the  Egyptian people&#8217;s rights in the post-Mubarak era and in building a new  democracy.</em></div>
<div><em><br />
</em></div>
<div><em> </em></div>
<div><strong>MORE:</strong></div>
<div><strong><a href="http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?llr=kntjo9cab&amp;et=1109182007874&amp;s=2028&amp;e=001aBhOapvyl1WJQFHzRcPBFvfb311i2hk3QI4BAeR5BQsCKIqWwq3BjF2Uw-AypdoZ30d_2e7VvP-u9KJU_Wpxm6RSRyLqFCyTsG1LR4mH4P2VXIXY-hbuElmT0kes7qHMvDRk52fW1-HpRbZweFY_MMep4VZP89EK9caARdXO2wbkertvT72_KqSn_TNOhUvZCFpktbBH8JN8dZYp1YrSRVKB86tQcW8KxNJkWwZLpNyAoc6Je7WsbJDN01VmUOoX2JfXJMt8sJ8EeSVmcdA2nd-0MMoAkjIbpLzsEagEv-f0oFrZIXoPnMezerzwtF5LSwzLINYwOG1nRktzzZ5fdA==" target="_blank">Slate</a><br />
</strong></div>
</div>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.mediaaccess.org/2012/01/consent-of-the-networked/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Apple Way Vs. The Google Way</title>
		<link>http://www.mediaaccess.org/2012/01/the-apple-way-vs-the-google-way/</link>
		<comments>http://www.mediaaccess.org/2012/01/the-apple-way-vs-the-google-way/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 30 Jan 2012 15:23:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Press Room]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[RoadMAP]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mediaaccess.org/?p=4043</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Here is an interesting discussion how Apple innovates from the top down and Google does it from the bottom up.
The Yin And The Yang Of Corporate Innovation
 In the hunt for innovation, that elusive path to economic growth  and corporate prosperity, try a little jazz as an inspirational  metaphor. 
 That&#8217;s the message [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Here is an interesting discussion how Apple innovates from the top down and Google does it from the bottom up.</p>
<div><strong><em>The Yin And The Yang Of Corporate Innovation</em></strong></div>
<div><em> In the hunt for innovation, that elusive path to economic growth  and corporate prosperity, try a little jazz as an inspirational  metaphor. </em></div>
<div><em> That&#8217;s the message that John Kao, an innovation adviser to  corporations and governments &#8211; who is also a jazz pianist &#8211; was to  deliver in a performance and talk on Saturday at the World Economic  Forum in Davos, Switzerland. Jazz, Mr. Kao says, demonstrates some of  the tensions in innovation, between training and discipline on one side  and improvised creativity on the other. </em></div>
<div><em> In business, as in jazz, the interaction of those two sides, the  yin and the yang of innovation, fuels new ideas and products. The  mixture varies by company. </em></div>
<div><em> Mr. Kao points to the very different models of innovation  represented by Google and Apple, two powerhouses of Silicon Valley, the  world&#8217;s epicenter of corporate creativity. </em></div>
<div><em> The Google model relies on rapid experimentation and data. The  company constantly refines its search, advertising marketplace, e-mail  and other services, depending on how people use its online offerings. It  takes a bottom-up approach: customers are participants, essentially  becoming partners in product design. </em></div>
<div><em> The Apple model is more edited, intuitive and top-down. When asked  what market research went into the company&#8217;s elegant product designs,  Steve Jobs had a standard answer: none. &#8220;It&#8217;s not the consumers&#8217; job to  know what they want,&#8221; he would add.</em></div>
<div><em><br />
</em></div>
<div><em> </em></div>
<div><strong>MORE:</strong></div>
<div><strong><a href="http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?llr=kntjo9cab&amp;et=1109171871789&amp;s=2028&amp;e=001k-E9FlW2BSleWksdN5Wm81-QoN3-WqcPEgoKGhozHx8o1ij_8Ugj81Je-tmPk1tYvAi58G4OFQG8pPrpakYUec4TKGu6iru_3obbfL3P8b3nESDGJZzAwZJ-4Z93W_xPoHquTfMNgxsinD0_BaQ_2e4pBc7v2uVjM1TG2YwdGI-g-qdpZf3JNJ1itodI7xzmMneYlpInrPkKSAa4N1TF-07udmUAuKDX" target="_blank">New York Times</a><br />
</strong></div>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.mediaaccess.org/2012/01/the-apple-way-vs-the-google-way/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Bad Reporting On The Supreme Court&#8217;s GPS Decision?</title>
		<link>http://www.mediaaccess.org/2012/01/bad-reporting-on-the-supreme-courts-gps-decision/</link>
		<comments>http://www.mediaaccess.org/2012/01/bad-reporting-on-the-supreme-courts-gps-decision/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 27 Jan 2012 15:06:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Press Room]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[RoadMAP]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mediaaccess.org/?p=4036</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Tom Goldstein, one of the leading members of the Supreme Court bar,  takes the Supreme Court press corps to task for bad reportage of this  week&#8217;s decision rejecting the warrantless use of a GPS device.  RoadMAP  greatly admires the reporters who cover the Court, as does Goldstein,  but he thinks they [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Tom Goldstein, one of the leading members of the Supreme Court bar,  takes the Supreme Court press corps to task for bad reportage of this  week&#8217;s decision rejecting the warrantless use of a GPS device.  RoadMAP  greatly admires the reporters who cover the Court, as does Goldstein,  but he thinks they blew it this time.  This item is admittedly rather  legalistic; a plain language explanation of the case can be found at <a href="http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?llr=kntjo9cab&amp;et=1109155278175&amp;s=2028&amp;e=001p8NzZKISdQLPBS4iH1PB6WZ3Ej_lsnYI1PEwxn_7jT6buE-1CV7flqmNORNtMtCzQkV1CZDji6UoN7ef62HR-MI2MB8e5lcD2RUySpvI7I7T_JkMKQj2q4xiSRlXD9U8ifg-0xQkYpKDWE6ntTUiQ00CPxQsymkTiHS7K5lDTpHqdesCcuhCHhU_T-c-ot-pzJ0yLGIcYoch5vr5h2sBpt-ZKgy0JE401NhC2udcDkrwjxZFVAIBIR40t_btTPrwN45PeqeaO7Pc0drVOjFeEOVjf-XgdwDaQ8GbT2wUJrjuifU-bIG2Kw==" target="_blank">Slate</a>.</p>
<div><strong><em>Jones Confounds The Press</em></strong></div>
<div><em> In this post on Monday, I summarized my understanding of the  issues that the Court decided in the Jones GPS tracking  decision and  the other issues it left open.</em></div>
<div><em> The case involves a mildly complicated area of the law.  The  alignment of the Justices also left the issues unusually opaque.  But  the legal rules have very practical implications for ordinary Americans  on a significant question of personal privacy.  So describing the case  correctly is important.  In this post I explain how I think that the  press got the case wrong.</em></div>
<div><em> The Court&#8217;s only holding is that the installation of  a GPS  monitoring device is a search.  That is a different question from  whether it requires a warrant and whether it requires probable cause, as  opposed to a lesser standard like reasonable suspicion.  The Court in  Jones did not decide the government&#8217;s argument that this &#8220;search&#8221;  (installing the GPS device) did not require a warrant.</em></div>
<div><em> </em></div>
<div><strong>MORE:</strong></div>
<div><strong><a href="http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?llr=kntjo9cab&amp;et=1109155278175&amp;s=2028&amp;e=001p8NzZKISdQJhNyt-rCWaK8un3Xg8LVnupEJ8HCkFfyWIiUpz-kuOQL8KJXhDk4HTw_x-MUyhlwvLPzp49dShYVvUg0XbraberysDpX1AfIHiXIc_rQKvetDTjZ2VjfK6y_i1L8zJYc-0ng8OaPARiOOtjSkofvaWjDY2HoiqMIo=" target="_blank">Scotusblog</a><br />
</strong></div>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.mediaaccess.org/2012/01/bad-reporting-on-the-supreme-courts-gps-decision/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

