I read a scary article on Yahoo! this morning about a fight in Congress about whether or not to allow internet service providers like Verizon, AT&T, and Comcast to provide fee-based services for access to certain internet sites. The scenario is like the following: if you get just the ‘basic’ service, you might browse to your favorite search engine, say Google, but it is horribly slow, or the site won’t come up on your browser at all. However, Yahoo! search has partnered with your ISP, so their search site is instantly accessible even with the ‘basic’ service. If you upgrade to the ISP’s ‘silver’ plan, then suddenly Google is is available to you again (sounds like cable television, doesn’t it?). This scenario, where ISPs control what content is available to you over the Internet is at odds with the idea of Net Neutrality.
If the telcos get their way, get ready for a massive stifling of innovation. Sure, Google has deep enough pockets now that it could probably make arrangements with ISPs so that its search was available even with a ‘basic’ plan, but would Google have made it back in 1998 when it was competing with Lycos, Infoseek, and Yahoo!?
Interesting opinion piece from BBC News.
Inspired by Margaret, I took an online political profiling quiz. The results were not surprising:
| You are a Social Liberal (60% permissive) and an… Economic Moderate (55% permissive) You are best described as a:
Link: The Politics Test on Ok Cupid |
There is an editorial in today’s New York Times about this case involving reporters Judith Miller and Matthew Cooper and their refusal to testify regarding confidential sources who revealed the name of a CIA agent to them. I find this case interesting and troubling in many ways. I do not know enough about constitutional guarantees of a free press and legal precedents regarding confidential sources to form a legal opinion. Nonetheless, I certainly have plenty of thoughts about the matter.
First of all, the idea that reporters can be compelled to reveal confidential sources seems completely antagonistic to the idea of a free press. Quite simply, reporters cannot adequately research stories if people in sensitive positions cannot provide information to reporters without fear of being revealed. There are many examples in our nation’s history of stories which we would not have heard about without credible guarantees of confidentiality; the most obvious example being Watergate.
On the other hand, it also does not make sense to grant reporters unlimited immunity to such inquiries. Just as lawyers and doctors are compelled to reveal information when a client tells the lawyer or doctor that he intends to commit a crime, reporters should not publish stories that needlessly put another’s life at risk. In this case in particular, Bob Novak’s article which revealed that Valerie Plume was a CIA agent was an unnecessary element of the story which put Ms. Plume’s life at risk and completely destroyed the possibility for her to continue her occupation. This seems to me to be a reckless misjudgment on the part of Mr. Novak.
Which actually brings me to the part which confuses me most: Ms. Miller and Mr. Cooper seem to have done the responsible thing in not publishing this information. So, what did they do that got them in trouble? Did they pass this information on to other reporters? I would agree that that would be wrong. But if they did not disclose the information and just refused to reveal their confidential source, then I think the law should protect them.
If anyone knows something about constitutional arguments regarding a free press, please let me know.