Pushing Back Against Facebook’s Privacy Practices

The press and others bring needed new scrutiny to the social network

By Ryan Chittum

The press has begun an overdue backlash against Facebook, whose privacy invasions have grown increasingly brazen as its user base has grown and the company has looked for ways to monetize us.
I’ve been impressed recently by how well the press (and at least in a couple of cases, a blogger and an advocacy group) has illustrated the invasions of privacy by this $24 billion corporation.
Last week, Wired’s Ryan Singel’s cri de coeur on how “Facebook’s Gone Rogue; It’s Time for an Open Alternative,” listed all the ways Facebook has backslid on privacy and user control. Here’s a small sample:

So in December, with the help of newly hired Beltway privacy experts, it reneged on its privacy promises and made much of your profile information public by default. That includes the city that you live in, your name, your photo, the names of your friends and the causes you’ve signed onto.

This spring Facebook took that even further. All the items you list as things you like must become public and linked to public profile pages. If you don’t want them linked and made public, then you don’t get them — though Facebook nicely hangs onto them in its database in order to let advertisers target you.

Let’s face it: This is a corporation run amok. I hadn’t read about these “Beltway privacy experts,” but a quick search shows tangentially that in March the company hired Bush’s Federal Trade Commission chairman to defend its privacy practices in D.C. The press needs to report the FTC angle here. Is the commission investigating Facebook?

Facebook users can just quit if they don’t like it, you say. That’s true, but it misses the insidious nature of what Facebook is doing. To get why you have to understand the network effect, which describes how a service becomes more valuable the more people it has using it and vendor lock-in, which describes how users become dependent on one company.

To put it in more everday terms: Facebook has users over a barrel and Mark Zuckerberg, who “doesn’t believe in privacy”, apparently, takes advantage of that to creep into users’ lives. It’s a bait and switch.
These network effect and lock-in concepts are something the press hasn’t explored well enough.

With Facebook, you don’t own your own information. You can’t export your data to back it up or to use it on another social network. If you leave, you lose your information. The hundreds of comments I have on the 200 pictures I’ve put up of my three-month-old twins, for instance—I can’t keep those.

So, Singel’s idea of an open-source social network where you “own” your own information is an ideal result, as the Times reports this group of college kids is doing. Facebook is taking advantage of the fact that its hundreds of millions of users are locked in. Is that an abuse of trade worthy of FTC sanctions? I don’t know.

But it’s worth exploring

If you want to see why—and I mean literally see—take a look at a couple of fascinating graphic explanations of Facebook’s privacy creep.

IBM employee Matt McKeon posted this interactive gem last week illustrating Facebook’s privacy settings and how Facebook has taken away user control over five years (click through to use it).


It’s worth noting that this illo owes a debt of gratitude to the Electronic Frontier Foundation’s timeline of Facebook’s privacy changes, which it published a couple of weeks ago and were key in taking the privacy story to another level.

The New York Times took on Facebook privacy yesterday with a story and this excellent graphic
showing the complexity of its privacy settings and policies:


Its a big graphic, so click through to see the whole thing, including this illustration of how its privacy policy statement has expanded:


It’s now longer than the Constitution, as the Times helpfully points out.
And even if you do take a principled stand and quit Facebook, American Public Media’s John Moe shows how the site makes that difficult. Also (emphasis mine):

Or you can go through a few more steps and actually delete your account once and for all. You’ll never see that data again. But Facebook will. They still have that information and will continue to use it for data mining.

Lastly, if you’re at all interested in this issue, you’ve got to follow Ryan Tate’s excellent coverage of Facebook. Make sure you read this one even if you think you’re not interested.
ALSO: Make sure you read John Gapper in the Financial Times this morning on Facebook’s “open disdain for privacy.” This is important—one of the best pieces I’ve read on the issue yet (emphasis mine):

What is indisputable is that consumers need to be given a clear, comprehensible choice about how their personal information is used, so they can decide.

By this standard, Facebook is failing dismally. It is arguably complying with the law (although several privacy groups have argued to the Federal Trade Commission that it is not) since no private data are being provided to advertisers, but it is being far from transparent.
Apart from the difficulty of keeping information private and the barriers to doing so, it is breaching former understandings by getting millions hooked on its services with a promise of strict privacy controls, and then informing them that stuff happens and they must adapt.

And:

As it is, Mr Zuckerberg, who turns 26 tomorrow, gives the impression of not caring a hoot about privacy. Whether by protest, legal action or regulation, he should be made to.

Indeed. Read the whole thing.

 Subscribe in a reader

The Wire - Next 100 Greatest Quotes

 Subscribe in a reader

The Wire - 100 Greatest Quotes

 Subscribe in a reader

On Climate: Kerry-Lieberman a "Bonanza of Corporate Giveaways"

PETER BARNES

Co-author of Climate Solutions: A Citizen's Guide, Barnes said today: "For months essential climate legislation has been delayed while Senators John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.) cut deals with lobbyists. Now the results are out: a mind-boggling bonanza of giveaways for corporate polluters and every energy industry except renewables.

"Fortunately, there is an alternative: the bi-partisan CLEAR Act co-sponsored by Senators Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) and Susan Collins (R-Maine). This simple 39-page bill would set a declining economy-wide cap on carbon suppliers, auction 100 percent of permits, and return 75 percent of the revenue to the American people to offset higher energy prices. Polluters would get no giveaways, clean energy investment would be spurred, and a majority of American families -- those who burn the least fossil fuels -- would come out financially ahead.

"Senators should now compare these two approaches and choose the best. And President Obama should do the same. Indeed, Obama should do more than that: he should make passage of climate legislation similar to the CLEAR Act a top priority for his administration -- just as he promised to do in his campaign."

TYSON SLOCUM

Director of Public Citizen's Energy Program, Slocum said today: "It's not accurate to call this a climate bill. This is nuclear energy-promoting, oil drilling-championing, coal mining-boosting legislation with a weak carbon-pricing mechanism thrown in. What's worse, it guts the Environmental Protection Agency's current authority to regulate greenhouse gases as pollutants under the Clean Air Act." See full statement, which includes a breakdown of corporate subsidies.

For more information, contact at the Institute for Public Accuracy:
Sam Husseini, (202) 347-0020; or David Zupan, (541) 484-9167

 Subscribe in a reader

Greenpeace v. Center for American Progress: A Debate on the Kerry-Lieberman Climate Bill

After many months of debate and delay, on Wednesday Senators John Kerry and Joe Lieberman unveiled a 987-page draft of a climate and energy bill that aims to cut emissions, reduce oil imports, and create energy-related jobs. President Obama welcomed the bill in a statement noting that the massive oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico provided another reason to “redouble our efforts to reform our nation’s energy policies.” But several environmental groups have criticized the legislation. We speak with Phil Radford of Greenpeace USA and Joseph Romm of the Center for American Progress’s blog ClimateProgress.org.

Guests:

Phil Radford, executive director of Greenpeace USA

Joseph Romm, senior fellow at the Center for American Progress. A former acting assistant secretary of energy for energy efficiency and renewable energy during the Clinton administration, he edits the blog Climate Progress. His latest book is Straight Up: America’s Fiercest Climate Blogger Takes on the Status Quo Media, Politicians, and Clean Energy Solutions.

JUAN GONZALEZ: After many months of debate and delay, on Wednesday Senators John Kerry and Joe Lieberman unveiled a 987-page draft of a climate and energy bill that aims to cut emissions, reduce oil [imports], and create energy-related jobs. President Obama welcomed the bill in a statement that noted the massive oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico provided another reason to, quote, “redouble our efforts to reform our nation’s energy policies.” He added that he hoped to pass climate legislation by the year’s end.

Last month, Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, one of the original partners in drawing up the bill, dropped out of the effort.

Senator Kerry was on Fox News Wednesday explaining the provisions of the American Power Act.

SEN. JOHN KERRY: It’s a bill that will increase America’s energy independence. For the first time in thirty years, we can actually reduce our foreign oil dependency by about 50 percent. And that’s very, very significant. We’re putting $100 million a day into Iran today. We believe we can change that with this bill by encouraging domestic natural gas production, conversion to natural gas vehicles, the Pickens Plan, to take big trucks and begin to put natural gas engines in them. In addition, we reduce our gap with China and India and make America more competitive. We have the broadest base of business support for this in history. We have utilities, oil company. Major executives of big corporations in America all believe that we can do this and must do this, and we’ll create millions of jobs here at home in doing it.


JUAN GONZALEZ: An earlier version of the Senate bill had included incentives to increase domestic offshore oil production. But this was changed in the aftermath of the Deepwater Horizon rig explosion and oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico. Now the bill gives states the right to veto any drilling plan that could cause environmental or economic harm.

Senator Kerry was questioned Wednesday by Clean Skies News about how the oil spill has affected the offshore drilling provisions in the legislation.

SEN. JOHN KERRY: Give states more power to be able to make a decision about what happens to them, if they’re at risk in that process. But we all know we’re going to continue to drill in America. We’re not going to suddenly stop this overnight. Everybody gets up in the morning; they’ve got to get to work. We drive cars, buses, trucks. That’s our economy. That’s why this bill is so important, because it begins to move us in a place that creates clean fuels, more efficient engines, electric cars, trucks driven by compressed natural gas. All of those are jobs. We have nuclear power. We have natural gas, clean coal technology research—all the things that we need to make America more independent in the production of our energy.


AMY GOODMAN: Well, for more on the pros and cons of the proposed climate and energy legislation introduced by Senators Kerry and Lieberman, we now host a debate on the American Power Act.

Phil Radford is executive director of Greenpeace USA. In a statement released Wednesday, he called it, quote, “largely a dirty energy bailout bill.” He joins us from Washington, DC.

And for a more optimistic view of the bill’s potential, we’re joined by Skype by Joseph Romm, senior fellow at the Center for American Progress. A former acting assistant secretary of energy for energy efficiency and renewable energy during the Clinton administration, he edits the blog “Climate Progress” at climateprogress.org. His latest book is Straight Up: America’s Fiercest Climate Blogger Takes on the Status Quo Media, Politicians, and Clean Energy Solutions.

We welcome you both to Democracy Now! Let’s begin with Joseph Romm. Why do you like this bill?

JOSEPH ROMM: Well, this will be the first bill ever passed by the Senate, if it were to pass, that would put us on a path to get off of fossil fuels. It requires, over four decades, an 80 percent reduction in carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels.

The other critical piece of this—this was something that Senator Kerry emphasized—was we need to pass a bill that enables us to meet our commitment that Obama made at Copenhagen. Pretty much every other country in the world is ready to take action, and we’re the only ones that are holding up a global deal. So if we can pass this bill, there can be a global deal that finally addresses the grave threat posed by global warming. If we can’t pass this bill, then I’m afraid I don’t see much prospect for a global deal.

JUAN GONZALEZ: And Phil Radford, your main concerns about the legislation, as reported out by Kerry and Lieberman?

PHIL RADFORD: Well, I think that this bill possibly jeopardizes a global deal. You have Western Europe committing to cutting pollution by 30 percent below 1990 levels, and this bill cuts it by three. So we’re doing one-tenth of what other countries are planning to do. And that really weak pledge that President Obama made last year in Copenhagen made so many people so angry that it basically blew apart the negotiations.

I think the bill basically just needs to get stronger. The problems are the pollution isn’t cut enough. While the oil spill disaster did take some of the oil provisions out, there are still incentives for states to drill for oil. And then, another crisis just happened. In New Jersey, radioactive tritium just leaked into the aquifer from a nuclear plant. It’s getting in people’s groundwater. Hopefully that disaster can show people that we’re really gambling with our children’s future when we’re giving tens of billions of dollars to nuclear energy in this bill.

AMY GOODMAN: Joseph Romm, your response?

JOSEPH ROMM: Well, there’s no question the bill should be stronger, but Phil’s characterization of what happened in Copenhagen is not accurate. The fact is that the Chinese didn’t want to deal, and Obama came in at the last minute and personally negotiated a deal, and he brought a commitment that is matched in this bill to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 17 percent by 2020. So, if we can pass this bill, there’s a chance at a global deal. But there is no question that—there’s no plan B. There’s no plan B. If this bill doesn’t pass—and this is something that Al Gore has said many times, and so has Senator Kerry—then we’re kind of left with business as usual.

Now, I think it’s important for people to understand that this bill could easily be stronger. And I think it would be great if we could strengthen it on the Senate floor. But the primary thing we need is a shrinking cap on greenhouse gas emissions and a rising price on pollution. And that is what will incentivize a transition to a clean energy economy. We have—the environmental community has, for decades, tried to figure out how to pass a law that would start shutting down existing dirty coal plants, and they have failed to do so. This is the first bill that’s ever been put before the Senate that has a possible chance of passing that would actually start shutting down existing coal plants.

JUAN GONZALEZ: Phil Radford, several major environmental groups have given some qualified support to this bill. The Environmental Defense Fund put out a statement, said that it contains strong goals for reducing carbon emissions and protecting the climate, significant consumer protections against cost increases, and provisions to boost domestic energy production with environmental safeguards. And also the Natural Resources Defense Council came out and said the draft legislation gets us moving in the right direction. Where do you think that these groups are wrong?

PHIL RADFORD: Well, I think—I think the tepid endorsement that most environmental groups have given to this bill just reinforces Greenpeace’s argument, which is that this bill has very little to do with what scientists say we need to do. I agree with Joe, this is a step. It’s, at best, a very small baby step. But the real issue is that we need to cut pollution by about 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2015, and this doesn’t get us anywhere close to that. And so, while it’s a baby step, Congress is busy negotiating with themselves, when really we just can’t negotiate with physics. We can’t negotiate with the fact that scientists say that if we don’t address this problem really quickly and cut pollution by up to 40 percent within the next five years or so, then we’re likely going to have far less water in the Southeast and in Atlanta for people to drink. We’re likely to lose anywhere from 35 to 50 percent of the world’s species in the next century. And so, while Congress negotiates with itself and decides whether or not they want oil or how many baby steps they take on cutting pollution or whether or not to threaten more aquifers like New Jersey’s with nuclear power, scientiests are saying, “Wait a minute, you can’t negotiate with nature. You need to do something more serious.” And so, I think that’s why you see groups like NRDC and EDF very tepidly say this seems OK. But I think the entire environmental community agrees, if we want to stop global warming, this needs to get much stronger very quickly.

AMY GOODMAN: What, Phil Radford, would be your version of a climate bill? What would satisfy you?

PHIL RADFORD: Well, I think—I think the first thing is that we just need to take more serious steps to get off of oil. I think that we—by 2020, we could have 30 percent of our fleet plug-in electric or plug-in hybrid. By 2030, we could have 90 percent. We should just get there now.

I think the second thing is that we need to really have a price on carbon. While everybody tells you that there’s a price on carbon, what they don’t tell you is the price on carbon is so low that utilities will be making money off of it, but it won’t drive clean energy investments, because the price is so low.

And so, there are a lot of provisions here that need to be strengthened. The requirements for clean energy in the bills are either equal to or less than what states are already doing. So when people tell you this will produce clean energy jobs in the next decade, it’s just barely or completely untrue. And so, there are a lot of provisions in here, if we really want a bill that addresses the environment and global warming, that need to be significantly strengthened.

AMY GOODMAN: Who has the ears of these senators, Phil Radford?

PHIL RADFORD: Well, I think a lot of people do. I think, unfortunately, they’ve listened too much to the coal companies, to the nuclear companies, to the natural gas companies, to the offshore oil drilling companies. And they haven’t listened enough to the people who say, “You know what? I don’t want my children to grow up in a world where they don’t get to see 35 percent of the world’s species or where we’re still sending our sons and daughters overseas for wars for oil.” And I think if politicians listen more to those people instead of the polluters, we’d have a much stronger bill.

JUAN GONZALEZ: And Joe Romm, what about this whole issue of nuclear energy and the incentives for more nuclear plants in the United States, given the—obviously the Obama administration itself supports that, but there are many Americans still who remember that just like maybe it took a few decades for a major oil spill in the Gulf, it was only a few decades ago that we had a major nuclear accident here in the United States at Three Mile Island?

JOSEPH ROMM: Well, anyone who reads my blog “Climate Progress” knows that I don’t think nuclear power is going to be one of the major solutions going forward. It’s just too darn expensive. There are a lot of risks to it, too. But right now, it is just staggeringly expensive. There are, you know, I think, pointless subsidies in this bill for about a dozen new plants. I don’t know if we’ll ever build those plants, because they’re so expensive.

But, you know, the bottom line is, we don’t get to write the bill. And this was something that Senator Kerry made very clear yesterday. It’s not the bill he would write if he were king. But you need to get sixty votes in the Senate. So I think we can all sit here and imagine the perfect bill, but the fact is, in this political climate, it’s going to be very hard to even get this bill passed. So I guess the choice is, we can sort of keep doing what we’re doing, which is catastrophic, or we can start the process of pushing clean energy into the marketplace, getting off of foreign oil, and putting a penalty on pollution. I’d like to do more, you know, and don’t get me wrong. Anyone who reads “Climate Progress” knows I would like a much stronger bill. But if you don’t start, then you certainly never get anywhere.

AMY GOODMAN: Well, we want to thank you both for being with us. Joseph Romm, editor of “Climate Progress,” senior fellow at the Center for American Progress. And Phil Radford, executive director of Greenpeace USA.

 Subscribe in a reader

Sink or swim

Reports last week of rising sea levels reducing traditional food sources in Kakadu National Park and the size of islands in the Torres Strait serves as a reminder that every now and then an issue comes along that is beyond the reach of politics.

An issue that can’t adequately be dealt with by our political system because dealing with it requires consensus between and co-operation by our elected representatives; because it can only be tackled with bipartisan long term policy and monetary planning; and because it may require confrontation with large and sometimes powerful parts of the electorate and, perhaps, the loss of political “careers”.

Rising sea levels and mapping our planned retreat is just such an issue. Yes indeed, it will put our politicians to the test.

Late last year the UNSW Climate Change Research Centre revealed in its Copenhagen Diagnosis Report that:

.... By 2100, global sea-level is likely to rise at least twice as much as projected by Working Group 1 of the IPCC AR4; for unmitigated emissions it may well exceed 1 meter. The upper limit has been estimated as - 2 meters sea level rise by 2100. Sea level will continue to rise for centuries after global temperatures have been stabilised, and several meters of sea level rise must be expected over the next few centuries ...

Uh oh. That doesn’t even factor in sea-level rises associated with king tides and storm surges! And since Prime Minister Kevin Rudd’s recent abandonment of the carbon trading proposal, it looks like we’ll have “unmitigated emissions” for quite a few years yet.
Now our governments can’t plead ignorance about this. Drawing on some of the findings of the Climate Change Risks to Australia’s Coasts report, the Minister for Climate Change recently said:

… Up to 247,000 residential buildings are at risk of flooding from a 1.1 metre sea level rise. Their replacement value is up to $63 billion. Many industries that support Australia’s economy rely on use of the coastal zone. Those industries are vulnerable even to small rises in the sea level and changes to the extreme events. Our coastal infrastructure will be affected - from low-lying airports in Brisbane or Sydney to the vital infrastructure that supports our electricity and wastewater services ... Not only are our assets and environments at risk, many of our sandy beaches could erode away or recede up to hundreds of metres over the coming century …

It’s worth noting that $63 billion was the 2008 replacement value so if you can believe what’s allegedly going on with house prices it would be at least $80 billion by now. On top of that there are the risks posed to community services and industries located within 200 metres of the shoreline, and the potential fallout for tourism (PDF 3.05MB).

Can you even try to imagine (PDF 527KB), let alone calculate, the cost of that kind of damage?
Well insurance companies have, and continue to do so. It’s their business to balance the rates of losses against premium revenues.
Munich Re has reported:

Torsten Jeworrek, Munich Re Board member responsible for global reinsurance business, drew attention to the marked increase in major weather-related natural catastrophes worldwide since 1950, the number now having more or less tripled. Economic losses from weather-related natural catastrophes in the period since 1980 totalled approximately US$ 1,600bn (in original values).

Overseas countries have already experienced a costs shift from private insurance companies to governments (aka us, the taxpayers) and also back to individuals because insurance companies need to cherry-pick their clients to avoid climate change risks.

Closer to home Reportage Enviro, a branch of the Australian Centre for Independent Journalism magazine, reported that sea level rise could cost Australians $150 billion in uninsured real estate. (It also makes an interesting reference to insurance in terms of lending requirements.)

It’s easy to see that that estimate is realistic: the storms that hit on the 2007 Queen’s Birthday weekend alone cost the industry $1.48 billion. Why wouldn’t private insurers be pulling out of bad risks as their exposure progressively increases?

You’d think a sensible government would see the need - in everybody’s interests - to work closely with insurance companies to allocate and manage risks, and to take logical steps like the Federal Government taking over coastal climate change planning. Have we seen any action like that yet?
The Inquiry into climate change and environmental impacts on coastal communities called for the Productivity Commission to investigate gaps in insurance coverage for owners of coastal property. It’s not clear from the Productivity Commission’s website whether or not the government has actually commissioned a report.
To give it what little credit it deserves, the government at least has allocated funding for several climate change adaptation projects and assessments. It also set up a Coasts and Climate Change Council, though its term is limited to the end of this year. On the back of unmitigated emissions it remains to be seen how successful preventative measures will be, if they actually are instituted.

All of this points to climate change and its consequences being one of these issues beyond the reach of politics. Australia’s political history on the issue in the three years since 2007 begins with promises, passes sequentially through inquiries, reports, “debate” (as a polite euphemism for the squealing of the self-interested), stand-offs on party lines, parliamentary obstruction, and international spruiking not matched by domestic assuredness; ultimately, it ends with abandonment in 2010.
So if you’re interested in watching our governments tackle serious economic, environmental and moral challenges, then I’d suggest you strap on your pasha bulker: the rising sea levels are likely to dampen your seat in the grandstand.


 Subscribe in a reader

Go Fish - Have reporters paid sufficient attention to the Gulf spill’s impact on marine life?

On Tuesday morning, Agence France-Presse reported that “Louisiana’s charter fishermen are slamming media coverage of the Gulf oil spill for doing more damage to the tourism industry than the slick itself, with livelihoods at risk.”

Waters east of the Mississippi River have been closed to recreational and commercial fishing since April 30, but this week both federal and Louisiana state officials extended closures to the west of the river as well. As of Wednesday morning, “Roughly a quarter of Louisiana state waters are now off limits to fishermen, in addition to more than 16,000 square miles of federally regulated waters closed farther offshore,” according to The New York Times.

(An up-to-date map of state of federal closure is available at the Louisiana Department of Fish and Wildlife. NOAA reported Tuesday that 93 percent of Gulf waters remain open.)
One of a handful of fishermen at the nearly deserted marina in Venice, Louisiana (which calls itself the “Fishing Capital of the World”) told Agence France-Presse that he believes that 95 percent of the Louisiana’s waters were “still fishable,” however.
“The negative media is positively doing more damage to the industry than the oil,” said Dave Ballay, the marina’s former owner. “The coverage is essentially just about ‘put these men of business.”

That criticism prompted a very interesting bit of media reporting Tuesday from The New Republic’s Bradford Plumer. He asked Robert Brulle, a sociologist at Drexel University who focuses on environmental issues, for his thoughts; Brulle put together two graphs charting the number of stories and the number of minutes that NBC, CBS, and ABC have devoted to oil spill coverage from 1970 until the present.
To his apparent surprise, the data led Plumer to ask this question: “Is the press undercovering the oil spill?” While the Exxon Valdez spill in 1989 “obviously got an enormous amount of coverage … it’s striking that even incidents like the 1978 Amoco Cadiz accident off the cost of France got far more media attention than the current BP spill,” he observed.

Of course, while distant, the Amoco Cadiz spilled 68 million gallons of oil into the sea— six times more than did the Exxon Valdez—and caused widespread environmental damage. But it is true that more than a dozen incidents in the last forty years have inspired similar or greater levels of coverage from the big three networks than the current spill, including the 58,000-gallon spill in the San Francisco Bay in 2007, to which they devoted almost twice as many stories.

One of the keys to high levels of coverage in all these cases, Plumer rightly surmises, is “imagery.” The Exxon Valdez, Amoco Cadiz, and San Francisco Bay spills provided photographers and videographers with ample opportunities to shoot oil drenched coastlines and wildlife. Oil from the current spill, on the other hand, has yet to impact Gulf Coast shores in such dramatic ways. Hence the relatively low levels of coverage. Hence the angry fishermen who say the media have hurt their business.

Is their ire misplaced? Last week, I lambasted a front-page New York Times article that sought to put a damper on fears engendered by experts that had “been quick to predict apocalypse.” But the attempt to mitigate hyperbolic prognostications didn’t bother me as much as the fact that the reporters were acting as apologists for government and industry rather than holding them to the fire. The whole affair is set against a history of lax safety standards and poor oversight, and the reporters’ attempt to tamp down on the disaster hype seemed a little too blasé.

An article in the Times the next day about “concerns up and down the food chain” did a much better job of reporting the potentially “devastating effects” of the spill—some of which may be invisible—while carefully emphasizing that:

So far, there have been few documented animal casualties of the Deepwater Horizon spill, though rumors of dead manatees and whales abound. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [NOAA] said that its planes had spotted numerous species of dolphins and turtles in areas now covered by the slick.

Other news outlets also did their part to dispel the rumors. After thirty-eight dead sea turtles washed up along the Gulf Coast in early May, blog posts at Web sites like The Huffington Post proclaimed that “endangered sea turtles have emerged as the flag species of the BP Gulf Mexico oil spill.” But many in the “mainstream” media quickly refuted such claims by reporting that a series of necropsies performed by NOAA found no link between the turtle deaths and the spill.

That doesn’t mean Gulf Coast fishermen don’t have a right to blame the media for some part of their troubles, but the most important question is whether or not the state and federal authorities are making wise decisions about when and where to prohibit fishing. Yet another Times article told of a charismatic shrimper who felt that “It’s not oil that is keeping his boats docked – it’s the state.” The man said he would defy a state ban on collecting shrimp in his area because there was no oil there—a seemingly frivolous ban—but the state reopened the area before he had the chance to do so.

Indeed, the state and federal authorities seem to be actively monitoring the spill’s impacts, closing and opening large and small swaths of water as the slick moves. As I finish writing this column, the Louisiana Department of Fish and Wildlife is partially reopening areas to the west of the Mississippi River that were closed when I started. The impacts of the closures and media coverage on the livelihood of fishermen must not be taken lightly, however, and it would be nice to see more thorough and critical analyses of how well fishing authorities are handling their job.

 Subscribe in a reader

Please explain: why Google wants your Wi-Fi data

Google Australia will today be sent a "please explain" letter from two local privacy organisations demanding to know why the company has been collecting personal Wi-Fi network data from Australian homes alongside the images it takes with its Street View cameras.

The letter comes in response to recent reports that the company has been quietly collecting Wi-Fi data around the world when taking pictures of streets and houses for its mapping service.

Street View, which has already rolled out in a number of countries including Australia, displays panoramic street-level photos taken by specially equipped vans which are also equipped with Wi-Fi receivers that scan private network signals as it drives through neighbourhoods.
The Google Street View car.

The Google Street View car. Photo: Ron Erdos

The Street View photos are overlayed onto Google Maps and concerns that Wi-Fi data could potentially be used to match mobile devices to residential addresses has privacy campaigners on alert, and they claim Google has failed to explain adequately the purpose for which the company is collecting this data in Australia.

"The question is why an organisation like Google that already knows so much about individuals, that is driving around and taking photos of every street in Australia, is collecting data that could enable it to physically map that information to a physical street and presumably a physical house," asked Geordie Guy, vice-chairman of Electronic Frontiers Australia.

The EFA and Australian Privacy Foundation are jointly drafting a letter that will be sent to Google today.

Privacy concerns

Google has taken some heat lately about its commitment to privacy after officials from 10 governments - including New Zealand, Canada and France - wrote a letter to chief executive Eric Schmidt to express their concern over data collection for Street View and the implementation of its Buzz social networking tool.

Google claims the Wi-Fi data is only being used to help pinpoint the location of mobile devices on Google Maps and other location services much like a GPS signal, and that no details it collects about the network are published online.

However, privacy advocates are seeking details of exactly what data is being captured by the Street View cars as well as assurances that its use will not extend beyond this application.

"In terms of what they are collecting about Wi-Fi networks, there's a bajillion questions we have that aren't answered there, and we're likely to have more. Google talks about wireless routers at home but what about the printers, computers, mobile phones and other devices that might be sending out wireless information?" Guy said.

The German government was surprised last month to discover that Wi-Fi data was being collected alongside Street View photographs. German newspaper Der Spiegel reported that Germany's Data Protection Commissioner Peter Schaar was "horrified" by the revelations.

The UK Information Commissioner's Office said it was also ignorant of the practice.

"At no point did Google make us aware that it would be scanning Wi-Fi too," ICO spokesman Nick Day told New Scientist magazine.

Little is known about Google's collection of this data. Although the company argues the information is public and therefore not in breach of any laws, it conceded last week that it could have been better publicised.

In response to why Google had not specifically informed governments of its activities, the company's privacy spokesman Peter Fleischer said: "Given it was unrelated to Street View, that is accessible to any WiFi-enabled device and that other companies already collect it, we did not think it was necessary. However it's clear with hindsight greater transparency would have been better."

Wi-Fi data in Australia

Google Australia confirmed yesterday it was collecting Wi-Fi data in Australia. It said the collection of such data was commonplace, although the EFA said it was not aware of any such projects here.

One of the companies gathering this type of data for creation of location-based services is Skyhook Wireless, which operates from the US.

Guy said: "If what Google's doing is an apples-to-apples comparison with Skyhook, and that information is already collected globally by Skyhook, why not buy it off them? Cheaper than driving a van down every street in Australia, right?

"Google is in a position to make inferences about that kind of data. Skyhook doesn't have a year's worth of search history."

Karen Curtis, Australian privacy commissioner, who did not sign the letter from government officials to Google last month, said she had been informed of the Wi-Fi data collection by Google.

"From a privacy perspective, our preliminary inquiries have indicated that the information about Wi-Fi data that Google is collecting would not be considered personal information under the Privacy Act," she said.

However, Guy said more assurances were needed.

"A MAC address on a home wireless connection or any other piece of electronics that uses Wi-Fi is a serial number, it's unique. If Google rang you up - or anyone else - and asked you to read out a serial number of your mobile phone, what would you say? I'd tell them its none of their business. If I saw them on the street with binoculars trying to read it, I'd close the curtains."

Social network security

This is not the first time Google has been questioned over its privacy policies. The botched roll-out of its Buzz social network, which made the contact lists of Gmail users public to other subscribers, was highlighted in last month's letter to the company from international privacy officials.

"It is unacceptable to roll out a product that unilaterally renders personal information public, with the intention of repairing problems later as they arise. Privacy cannot be sidelined in the rush to introduce new technologies to online audiences around the world.

"Unfortunately, Google Buzz is not an isolated case. Google Street View was launched in some countries without due consideration of privacy and data protection laws and cultural norms.

"We therefore call on you, like all organisations entrusted with people's personal information, to incorporate fundamental privacy principles directly into the design of new online services," the letter to Google said.

Google responded to that letter this week with assurances that it took personal privacy seriously.

"Respecting privacy is part of every Googler's job. We also have a team of seasoned privacy professionals, including legal, policy, security and engineering experts, to help guide the development of responsible privacy policies across Google," it said.

 Subscribe in a reader

New York nuclear talks

Fiona Cunningham is a Research Associate in Nuclear Issues with the International Security Project at the Lowy Institute.

The Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) Review Conference kicked off on Monday in New York and will involve a month of debate on the future of the nonproliferation regime. Review conferences are held every five years and this time everyone is hoping for a better result this time around — in 2005 the conference ended in deadlock, suggesting an increasingly uncertain future for this crucially important treaty.

The treaty is underpinned by a number of grand bargains — the nuclear weapon states will disarm their nuclear weapons if non-nuclear weapon states not develop their own nuclear weapons, non-nuclear weapon states promise each other not to develop weapons, and non-nuclear weapon states have a right to access the peaceful uses of nuclear energy if they keep those promises. These bargains understandably took a beating in 2005, with the Bush Administration refusing to disarm and the lingering possibility of Iranian and North Korean nuclear weapons being developed within the treaty regime, particularly after North Korea purported to leave the NPT in 2003.

Hopes are higher this year due to the Obama Administration’s commitment to a Nuclear Weapon Free World, backed by a new START treaty with Russia and the reduced role for US nuclear weapons outlined in the recently-released Nuclear Posture Review, though the proliferation headaches of Iran and North Korea remain. A good result would be a re-affirmation of the bargains, though anything better than 2005 would be a positive.

Highlights so far include Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s announcement that the Administration would seek Senate ratification of the Nuclear Weapon Free Zone Treaties in the South Pacific and Africa, US support for a Middle Eastern Nuclear Weapon Free Zone and a $50 million contribution to IAEA initiatives to provide nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. Clinton also announced that the US would release the number of weapons in its arsenal in an effort to make its disarmament efforts more transparent: 5113 warheads, to be exact, according to the fact sheet released on 3 May.

Secretary Clinton was joined by the other five permanent members of the Security Council (not-so-coincidentally also the five official nuclear weapon states in the NPT) in calling for a nuclear weapon free zone in the Middle East yesterday.

Indonesia announced on Monday that it would no longer wait for US ratification of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) and would do so itself, bringing the number of countries who must ratify the treaty before it enters into force down to eight.

But the news is not all rosy, and no major UN meeting in New York would be complete without some US-Iranian verbal jousting, this time with Clinton warning that Iran would do what it can to distract attention from its non-compliance with IAEA safeguards, and President Ahmadinejad accusing the US and other nuclear weapon states of nuclear intimidation, prompting US and European delegates to head for the door and whittling his audience down to one third of the room during his address.
The James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies has a live twitter feed on its homepage direct from the review conference for those wanting to follow both the mundane and the sensational in this month-long nuclear discussion in real time.

 Subscribe in a reader

After Copenhagen: Tim Flannery in conversation with Robert Manne (p3)

At this crucial juncture in the world's response to climate change, Australia's most prominent environmentalist Tim Flannery speaks to leading public intellectual Robert Manne about whether there is reason for hope after Copenhagen.

Presented by La Trobe University, their conversation ranges over the results of the Copenhagen talks; the possibility for coordinated global action now; the changed local political atmosphere resulting from the change of Opposition leader; and the reasons behind the lack of adequate action on climate change generally.

 Subscribe in a reader

After Copenhagen: Tim Flannery in conversation with Robert Manne (p2)

At this crucial juncture in the world's response to climate change, Australia's most prominent environmentalist Tim Flannery speaks to leading intellectual Robert Manne about whether there is reason for hope after Copenhagen.

Presented by La Trobe University, their conversation ranges over the results of the Copenhagen talks; the possibility for coordinated global action now; the changed local political atmosphere resulting from the change of Opposition leader; and the reasons behind the lack of adequate action on climate change generally.

 Subscribe in a reader

After Copenhagen: Tim Flannery in conversation with Robert Manne (p1)

At this crucial juncture in the world's response to climate change, Australia's most prominent environmentalist Tim Flannery speaks to leading public intellectual Robert Manne about whether there is reason for hope after Copenhagen.

Presented by La Trobe University, their conversation ranges over the results of the Copenhagen talks; the possibility for coordinated global action now; the changed local political atmosphere resulting from the change of Opposition leader; and the reasons behind the lack of adequate action on climate change generally.

 Subscribe in a reader

“The People of Greece Are Fighting for the Whole of Europe”: Tariq Ali and Mark Weisbrot Discuss Greece’s Economic Crisis and Popular Uprising

The European Union and the International Monetary Fund have approved a nearly $1 trillion package to stop Greece’s debt crisis from spilling beyond its borders into the rest of the eurozone. Stocks surged in Europe, Asia and the United States Monday after EU leaders agreed to a $960 billion package to contain Greece’s financial troubles. Meanwhile, the austerity measures demanded by the IMF and the European Union as a condition of their loan are continuing to exact their toll. Greece’s two main unions have continued to hold protests against the reforms. In a statement, one of the unions said, “The crisis should be paid by…all those who looted public finances.” Last week nearly 100,000 people participated in a mass demonstration and a twenty-four-hour general strike against the austerity measures.

Guests:

Tariq Ali, longtime political commentator who has written more than two dozen books on world history and politics, seven novels and scripts for the stage and screen. He is an editor of the New Left Review, where his most recent article is about President Obama at war and titled “President of Cant.” His latest book, published last month, is the concluding novel of his Islam Quintet, titled Night of the Golden Butterfly.

Mark Weisbrot, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research and has written on the situation in Greece for the Guardian of London. His latest piece, pending publication, is titled “The European Union’s Dangerous Game.”

Related stories

• Tariq Ali on Britain’s Political Deadlock, Gordon Brown’s Resignation and Pakistan’s Role in the Times Square Bombing Attempt
• Protests in Greece in Response to Severe Austerity Measures in EU, IMF Bailout
• Greek PM George Papandreou on Global Warming, Socialism and Democracy
• Mark Weisbrot: "Greece: Who Needs 'Success Estonian Style'?"
• Mark Weisbrot: "The IMF's Road to Ruin"
•  

SHARIF ABDEL KOUDDOUS: Tariq Ali, we want to ask you to stay with us as we turn to the situation in Greece.

The European Union and the International Monetary Fund have approved a nearly $1 trillion package to stop Greece’s debt crisis from spilling beyond its borders into the rest of the eurozone. Stocks surged in Europe, Asia and the United States on Monday after EU leaders agreed to a $960 billion package to contain Greece’s financial troubles.

Greek Prime Minister George Papandreou said the problem was not just about Greece, but added, quote, “it is a global problem that has to do with the international financial system and there is a need for reforms and change in that system.”

Meanwhile, the austerity measures demanded by the IMF and the European Union as a condition of their loan are continuing to exact their toll. On Monday, the Cabinet approved a sweeping overhaul of the country’s pension system. The Labor Minister Andreas Loverdos said the entire system would have collapsed without them.

AMY GOODMAN: But the two main unions have been holding protests against the reforms. In a statement, one of the unions said, quote, “The crisis should be paid by…all those who looted public finances.” Last week nearly 100,000 people participated in a mass demonstration and a twenty-four-hour general strike against the austerity measures.

In addition to Tariq Ali in London, we’re joined in Washington, DC by Mark Weisbrot. He’s co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research and has written on the situation in Greece for the Guardian of London. His latest piece, pending publication, is called “The European Union’s Dangerous Game.” But we’re going to begin with Tariq.

You were talking about the economy in London. Papandreou was saying this is not just about Greece; it’s about the economic system overall. Talk about what’s happening, though, in Greece and how it relates to where you are, Tariq.

TARIQ ALI: Well, Amy, it’s exploded in Greece, very violently, as many could have predicted, because trade unions in Greece have remained strong. They feel that a lot is at stake, and they know that if these measures, which should never be called reforms—if these measures, anti-working-class measures, are pushed through by the government, their living standards of the average citizen of Greece will just go right down. They will suffer. And people are asking, in Greece and elsewhere, “How come we are being victimized? All the cuts in public spending affect us; they don’t affect the rich. And why are the bankers not being punished? Well, why is this system, the system created by neoliberalism, of deregulation, of actually legalizing financial speculation, why is this not being stopped?”

And we see in Germany, just last night, the ruling coalition suffered very heavy defeats in regional polls, and there’s pressure on Angela Merkel, the—Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, to resign, because she’s now lost a majority in the Senate, and they can’t push through their so-called reforms. And the Social Democrats, who are now in opposition, are saying that the financial system has to be thoroughly reformed. It’s the strongest statement from a Social Democrat in Europe I’ve heard. And it’s an indication that the system is in a complete mess. The reason the EU are putting in so much money is to reassure the markets and to prevent them from carrying out—from similar things happening in Spain and Portugal, which are on the brink.

So the Greeks really—the people fighting on the streets of Greece are fighting for the whole of Europe. And they held up a huge banner a few days ago on the Acropolis, this historic building in the center of Greece, saying, “Europe, join us.” And if the European workers’ movement were to join the Greeks, then we would have serious change.

AMY GOODMAN: Well, Tariq, I want to thank you for being with us. Tariq Ali, joining us from London, as we turn now to Mark Weisbrot in Washington, DC.

Mark, you’ve been writing about Greece, following it carefully. What do you assess has happened there, and what needs to take place?

MARK WEISBROT: Well, I think Tariq is right in terms of the injustice of trying to restructure these economies on the basis on, you know, really punishing the workers and the vast majority of people. But there’s also an irrationality to it, even from the point of view of the bondholders themselves and the financial sector and the, you know, whole system, because what they’re doing is they’re making the recession worse in Greece. And this is quite deliberate.

The economic theory which they’re using is called an internal devaluation, because they’re keeping the euro, and they want to keep the euro, and so what they’re trying to do is create enough unemployment so that wages and prices will fall, and then Greece can become competitive, even keeping the same nominal exchange rate with the euro. So this is a process that goes on quite a long time, and it’s very brutal, and it doesn’t usually work. In fact, the projections from the Greek government say that, you know, their debt is now 115 percent of GDP, and if they go through the program and it works, then two-and-a-half years from now they have a debt of 149 percent of GDP. So this is really irrational, and you can really see the irrational—irrationality of the financial markets, because they’re demanding more cuts, which of course make the economy worse. And the same is true for Spain and Portugal and Ireland and Italy, which all have similar problems, and they’re all being pushed further into recession by this kind of program. So it’s really wrong.

And, you know, I was debating the former finance minister of Greece, who was responsible for the so-called reforms of the 1990s, which prepared Greece to adopt the euro. And he ended up saying, “Well, we can’t leave the euro, because Greece is culturally incapable of managing its own economic affairs.” And so, this is the kind of attitude I think you have. And they’re punishing Greece. I wouldn’t call it a bailout; I think they’re more being thrown overboard. And they’re doing it—you know, it’s really not even rational from the point of view of trying to resolve the crisis, because you’re still—you’re making it worse there, and you’re making it worse in Spain and in Portugal and in Ireland, as well, and also Italy. So this is a problem they’re going to have to resolve, and they’re not resolving it.

AMY GOODMAN: I wanted to turn to a clip of an interview I did with the Greek Prime Minister George Papandreou when we were in Copenhagen. He was there at the climate talks. And I asked him—the protests were just beginning then.

AMY GOODMAN: Prime Minister Papandreou, you have talked about the economy of Greece very much in trouble right now. There have been protests in the streets. What does the head of the Socialist International say to the Prime Minister of Greece—you have—being both?

PRIME MINISTER GEORGE PAPANDREOU: We have conversations every day. We—I would say that I need—on the one hand, we need to turn around our economy. I would say make this crisis an opportunity, moving towards a green economy. We need to make important structural changes, because we—I see the core of the problem in Greece as a state which was—had a lot of corruption, systemic corruption, a lot of clientelism—that is, political favors, money to go into political favors. And this undermined the sense of citizenship and rule of law. We had, therefore, a lot of tax evasion. And that also—

AMY GOODMAN: The euro economy—are you talking about pulling out?

PRIME MINISTER GEORGE PAPANDREOU: No, we’re not talking about pulling out of it. Actually, euro has helped us quite a bit in staving off some of the more negative possibilities of the crisis, the world crisis, the financial crisis. We are—so we have our homegrown problems. They are being made worse by the international financial recession, because if we had a higher GDP and tourism and so on, we wouldn’t be in this situation as badly. But we do have our own homegrown problems.

And that is where I, as prime minister, am focusing on making these changes, but in doing so, helping out those that are unemployed, helping out those that have lower wages, helping out the middle class. So, they are not to blame for this crisis. And therefore, it’s a difficult path of making cuts, but at the same time making sure that we move on a path of growth and protecting those that are weaker in our society.


AMY GOODMAN: That’s Prime Minister George Papandreou when I was speaking to him in Copenhagen in December. He’s the prime minister of Greece, also the head of the Socialist International. Mark Weisbrot, your response?

MARK WEISBROT: Well, again, they’re making cuts. They’re making these reforms. If you want to reduce the size of the state sector, which I’m not sure it needs to be, but if you did, you don’t do that during a recession. We didn’t do that here, you know. I mean, you do have that problem. It’s similar in the state and local governments, and that’s, you know, one of the reasons why our stimulus program, again, which is the opposite of the policy that they’re prescribing for Greece and Spain and Portugal and Ireland, is—you know, our stimulus program gives money to the state and local governments so that they don’t make these kinds of cuts. We didn’t have nearly enough of that, and it’s one of the reasons why our recovery is as slow as it is and unemployment remains high. But at least we went in the right direction. They’re telling these countries to go in the actual opposite direction that we went in. And this is the fundamental problem. Once you go down that road, you don’t know where the end is going to be.

They did that in Latvia, for example, and in Estonia. These countries—Latvia has already lost more than 25 percent of its economy, and it still has a very slow and painful recovery ahead, if it recovers. Again, this is not the kind of—this makes really no economic sense. And they’re going to have to change. Something is going to have to give.

SHARIF ABDEL KOUDDOUS: And Mark Weisbrot, you’ve pointed to the experience of Baltic countries like Latvia, like Estonia, as—who have followed EU and IMF policy in the past, as a warning of what would happen to Greece in the future. Explain what you mean.

MARK WEISBROT: Well, the idea, again, is this internal devaluation process. So, instead of trying to grow your way out of a recession, which we’re trying to do—again, you know, not with a sufficient stimulus, but with some stimulus—they’re trying to actually shrink their way out. So the idea is, they literally shrink the economy and try and push down wages and prices. And that’s, of course, because, you know, in Latvia, Estonia, they have a currency that’s pegged to the euro, and in Greece they actually have the euro. And, you know, a lot of people have written about the fundamental problem of having these countries like Greece in the euro, because it’s an overvalued currency for them. And that is a problem. And, you know, that’s why, you know, they should really consider getting out of the euro as one option.

If the European Union and the IMF and the European Central Bank, which are the parties that they’re negotiating with, if they’re not willing to give them a program that allows them to grow out of it, but instead they’re telling them they have to shrink until some day the rest of the world economy will rescue them by, you know, providing demand for their exports or by a huge inflow of capital, which is not on the horizon, by the way—I mean, the European Union is only projected to grow by one percent over this year—so if, in fact, you know, they’re not willing to allow them to grow out of the recession, then the Greek government should just not accept it, and they could devalue their currency and renegotiate their debt, which is what Argentina did, for example, at the end of 2001, and it was very successful for them. The economy shrank for only one quarter, and then it grew by 63 percent over the next six years. So—

AMY GOODMAN: Finally, Mark, I wanted to ask—

MARK WEISBROT: —there are alternatives.

AMY GOODMAN: The alternatives, quickly?

MARK WEISBROT: Well, that’s one alternative, to get out of the euro and renegotiate your debt and start over, rather than dragging this out for years and ending up with a bigger debt than you’re starting out with right now.

AMY GOODMAN: I want to just finally ask you about Goldman Sachs, the New York Times reporting that Wall Street tactics akin to those that fostered the subprime mortgages in America have worsened the European financial crisis by enabling governments to hide their mounting debts. One deal created by Goldman Sachs helped Greece obscure billions in debt from the budget overseers in Brussels. Goldman Sachs is said to be the most important of more than a dozen banks used by the Greek government to manage its national debt using derivatives. Quickly comment on that.

MARK WEISBROT: No, I think it’s true, they did some of the same kind of accounting tricks that they did here. I don’t think it was a major cause of the problems we’re looking at, but it definitely was there.

AMY GOODMAN: Mark Weisbrot, we want to thank you for being with us, economist and co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, joining us from Washington, DC.

 Subscribe in a reader

Israeli Hypocrisy: Talking Peace While Preparing for War and Institutionalizing Dire Conditions in Gaza

Israeli Hypocrisy: Talking Peace While Preparing for War and Institutionalizing Dire Conditions in Gaza - by Stephen Lendman

On May 8, Haaretz Service and Reuters headlined, "PLO executive committee approves new peace talks with Israel," saying:

"The Palestinian Authority on Saturday got the green light to restart peace talks with Israel after the PLO's executive voted to approve indirect negotiations," excluding Hamas - the legitimate government after Palestinians overwhelmingly elected them in January 2006. Instead, coup d'etat leader (whose presidential term expired in January 2009) Mahmoud Abbas and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will participate, PLO spokesperson Yasser Abed Rabbo saying that "negotiations will take one form: shuttling between President Abu Mazen (Abbas) and the Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu." Talks have now begun.

Obama's Middle East special envoy, former Senator and Walt Disney chairman, George Mitchell will do the honors, trying to force Palestinian negotiators to accede to Israeli demands and declare success, until inevitable new violence forces a restart of the whole process at some future time. The charade continues.

Recurrent negotiations have gone on for decades, always with the same result. Rita Mae Brown (in her book "Sudden Death"), and some say Albert Einstein, called it insanity, or the practice of "doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." In this case, results are what Israel predetermines, Palestinians having no say whatever about a process designed to fail.

For a detailed analysis, see this writer's article titled, "Peace Process Hypocrisy: Stillborn from Inception."

http://sjlendman.blogspot.com/2010/03/peace-process-hypocrisy-stillborn-from.html.

Justifiably, Hamas objected to being left out, calling the proximity talks "absurd" because they'll "give the Israeli occupation an umbrella to commit more crimes against the Palestinians. Hamas calls on the PLO to stop selling illusions to the Palestinian people and announce the failure of their gambling on absurd talks."

On May 7, the Chinese Xinuah news agency said that the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) also rejected talks as "ill and absurd, whether direct or indirect," given numerous earlier failures, or as honest peace brokers explain: besides excluding its legitimate government, how can Palestinians negotiate in good faith without a willing partner.

They've never had one in Israel, nor do they this time. As a result, expect another round of peace process hypocrisy, producing rhetoric but nothing else, or what this writer earlier called the tragedy and travesty at Annapolis, the last bogus November 2007 effort.

Negotiations are one-sided. Israel makes demands and offers nothing. Abbas has been co-opted to go along, so failure is again assured. Yet President Shimon Peres claims Israel is "committed to peace" and a sovereign Palestinian state, a cantonized one encroached on for as much West Bank land as Israel wishes and all East Jerusalem, an international city under a UN Trusteeship Council, as much a rightful Palestinian capital as for Israel.

A topic not to be discussed, nor the right of return, a legitimate state, the preferable one-state solution, and the end to 43 years of oppressive military occupation. Not important enough to be on the agenda nor the legitimate rights and concerns of a sovereign people, set up again to be betrayed.

With new peace talks underway, the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights (PCHR) reported that from April 29 - May 5:

-- Israeli security forces continued to attack Palestinian civilians and property in the West Bank and Gaza;

-- seven Palestinian civilians, including two children and a journalist, were shot and wounded;

-- nonviolent West Bank protesters were assaulted;

-- the IDF fired at Palestinian farmers in Gaza border areas;

-- their forces conducted 23 incursions in West Bank communities and one in Gaza;

-- in the West Bank, they arrested 40 civilians, including eight children, three journalists, and two human rights workers;

-- Gaza remains under siege while West Bank free expression and movements are restricted;

-- home and other Palestinian demolitions continue;

-- Separation Wall construction continues a process of separation, isolation, and annexation of 12% of Palestinian West Bank land;

-- East Jerusalem ethnic cleansing continues;

-- West Bank and Gazan agricultural lands are being destroyed;

-- regular settler attacks on Palestinians occur; and

-- settlement expansion goes on unabated.

In this environment, peace talks have resumed, but there's more. On May 7, Jerusalem Post writer Caroline Glick headlined, "Column One: Time to plan for war," saying that Obama's "repeated abdication of responsibility (for) preventing nuclear non-proliferation leaves it on Israel's shoulders" to prepare for the:

"coming war (in which) Israel will have only one goal: to destroy or seriously damage Iran's nuclear installations. Every resource turned against Iran's proxies must be aimed at facilitating that goal. That is, the only thing Israel should seek to accomplish in contending with Syria, Hizbullah and Hamas is to prevent them from diverting Israeli's resources away from attacking Iran's nuclear installations."

It gets worse, advocating a "preemptive strike against Hizbullah's missiles and missile launchers, Syria's missiles, artillery and launchers, and Hamas's missiles and launchers....These are dangerous times. Iran, which seeks to position itself as a regional superpower, has been emboldened by the Obama administration's abdication of US global leadership. Only Israel can prevent Iran from endangering the world. But time is of the essence."

Glick advocates all-out war at a time Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas and Syria pose no threat. Only Israel and America's presence do, a topic unaddressed in her article nor are new proposed peace talks.

However, her column serves a purpose. Besides highlighting Israel's belligerency, she acknowledges its "undeclared nuclear arsenal (that) only threatens those who would attack the Jewish state with the intention of annihilating it." She assumes because Israel never used it, or failed to sign the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) as Iran did, that it "has the right to develop a nuclear program," weapons, of course, because Dimona doesn't generate electricity.

Israel's Foreign Minister, Avigdor Lieberman, is hard line on Iran, demanding unspecified action if it won't abandon its nuclear ambitions, besides:

-- once wanting all Israeli Arabs and Arab Knesset members who met with Hezbollah and/or Hamas executed;

-- favoring Israeli Arab loyalty to a Jewish state as a condition for citizenship or face expulsion otherwise;

-- assassinating "militant" Palestinian leaders, ones committed to equality and freedom;

-- abandoning the peace process and earlier agreements like Camp David and Oslo; and

-- on his first day as foreign minister said "those who want peace should prepare for war."

Suffering Palestinians in crisis aren't his concern, nor Gaza's siege, its electricity crisis, and its humanitarian impact, the topic addressed below.

Under Siege, Gaza's Humanitarian Crisis - One of Many Problems is its Deteriorating Electricity Supply

Under nearly three years of siege, inadequate power supply persists, now less than earlier since January 2010 as the "UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs occupied Palestinian territory" reported.

On May 7, it explained that:

"Since January 2010, there has been a serious deterioration in the supply of electricity in the Gaza Strip. (It's because) Gaza's sole power plant, the Gaza Power Plant (GPP), is able to produce only half the electricity that it did (earlier), due to a lack of funds (for required) industrial fuel," after the European Commission's subsidy ended despite the great need.

Worse still, Israel limits amounts of all goods and services entering Gaza, including essential to life foods, medicines, and fuel.

Pre-2010, most parts of Gaza got from 8 - 12 hours of electricity most days. Now it's 6 - 8, so more than ever, "all aspects of daily life (are impeded), including household chores, health services, education, and water and sanitation services."

The situation is chronic, serious, and deteriorating, dating from June 2006 when Israel bombed and destroyed six GPP transformers. Five months later, production resumed at a 65 MW capacity compared to 140 MW or more previously.

Under siege since June 2007, the ability to get spare parts, needed equipment and fuel was greatly impeded, the result being inadequate electricity for 1.5 million people, including for essential facilities like hospitals.

Currently, GPP operates one turbine producing about 30 MW of electricity, half its 2009 amount and less one-fourth prior to June 2006. Gazans lucky enough to have them use generators, but if operated improperly they can be dangerous, causing fires, explosions, or carbon monoxide poisoning.

Inadequate electricity also hampers hospitals that also use back-up generators. However, they can't run non-stop. Doing so causes damage, and spare parts are hard to get. As a result, elective surgeries are postponed or not done, deferring to critical ones or emergencies.

Water and sanitation facilities are also impacted. For example, Gaza City's sewage treatment plant requires 14 days of uninterrupted power to properly complete the treatment cycle. Without it, 60 - 80 million liters of raw or partially treated sewage is discharged into the Mediterranean Sea daily.

Pumping water also requires electricity, but because pumps can't operate continuously, households especially can't get enough (at most from 5 - 7 hours a day), raising hygiene and health concerns.

Education is affected by darkened classrooms, inadequate refrigeration to store food for schools with canteens, dirty rest rooms, the inability to run equipment like computers, and other impediments. Agriculture as well for irrigation, fodder production, adequate lighting for hens to lay eggs, and various other functions.

Gaza needs from 240 - 280 MW of electricity daily. About 42% is bought from Israel, around 7% from Egypt, and the rest depends on GPP that can only supply 13% of the Strip's needs, far short of enough. The Gaza Electricity Distribution Company then apportions output through scheduled service outages in some areas to feed others. The situation in untenable and deteriorating, short of committed outside help. Israel and Washington have impeded it or cut it off entirely to make all of Gaza scream - a slow-motion genocide agenda affecting 1.5 million people.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.

http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour/.

 Subscribe in a reader

Indonesia: Australia's blind spot?

The few days I have spent here in Jakarta talking with journalists, diplomats and businesspeople have given me a new appreciation for something ABC broadcaster Geraldine Doogue wrote on The Interpreter in March: for Australians to get a fairer picture of Indonesia, the country needs to be 'normalised' in their eyes, rather than being seen as strange and exotic.

Geraldine Doogue's argument was that, to improve people-to-people links, Australians need to be more aware of what they have in common with Indonesians. But maybe Australian businesses also need to hear that Indonesia is a normal country.

That's a difficult task. As Fergus Hanson has written, the Australia-Indonesia relationship is defined overwhelmingly by negative issues: people smuggling, terrorism and Islamic radicalisation, illegal fishing, East Timor, Australians imprisoned or on death row in Indonesia.
I can imagine all of these factors weighing on how Australian businesses judge the risks of operating in Indonesia. And there are constant reminders for foreigners travelling here — you need to pass through checkpoints and metal detectors to get into hotels and even shopping malls. Then there's the red tape and corruption.

Yet Australian business faces huge obstacles in other countries too. To again cite Fergus, 'Although Indonesia and Australia are very different in terms of wealth, political institutions, religion and culture, similar differences have not stopped Australians developing strong and broad ties with China, Japan or Singapore.'
Whatever the reasons, the result is an economic relationship weaker than the one we have with New Zealand, which has 2% of Indonesia's population. That's rather pathetic.

I was told yesterday that in banking and other parts of the service sector, Indonesia is one of the most open economies in the region to foreign investment. I also heard that Australian businesses which do take the trouble to invest here are doing very well.
You can't help but think a big opportunity is being missed.

 Subscribe in a reader

Cleantech revolution – hit or miss for Australia?

Cleantech is the word of the moment. Everywhere you turn it is being used. Law firms, accountants and banks all have cleantech groups. Governments have cleantech taskforces.

These groups often fail to define the term they are using. One definition adapted from the US research group, CleanEdge, encapsulates the spirit of cleantech:

Economically viable products, services and processes that harness renewable materials and energy sources, dramatically reduce the use of natural resources and cut or eliminate emissions and wastes.

More concisely cleantech contains products and services that have ‘economic and environmental benefits’. The sub-sectors of cleantech include renewable energy, water, waste and recycling, construction materials, energy efficiency, carbon trading and environmental services.

The cleantech sector in Australia has been profiled recently in the Australian Cleantech Review. The analysis provides some interesting patterns in the sub-sectors with the greatest activity levels and the regions in which they are based. As a sector, the companies had a combined revenue of $9.2 billion and employed over 13,000 people. They raised a total of $2.3 billion in new funds during the 2009 calendar year.

Internationally, the growth of the cleantech sector over the last four years has been meteoric. This growth is being driven in Europe by regulatory measures and the EU Emissions Trading Scheme and in the United States by the voracious appetite of the venture capital industry, combined with Government stimulus spending. In China the massive ‘green stimulus’ package is being complemented with far reaching regulatory measures. Other countries, such as Korea, see a great economic opportunity to leapfrog other developed countries through securing a leading position in cleantech.

Australia appears to be lagging on all of these fronts. The government stimulus is fragmented and small, the regulatory measures are providing only limited assistance and the venture capital industry is under-funded.

Yet Australian research and innovation is producing some of the world’s leading technologies which are ‘at the edge’ of progress. Companies such as BluGlass with its platform technology that is seeking to produce both cheap LEDs and ultra-high efficiency photovoltaic cells have struggled to get funded at home. Other Australian technologies leading the world include Dyesol, with its solar dye technology, CMA Corp with its zinc recycling technology and Carnegie with its wave technology.

All of these have the potential to change the way the world works and all have originated in Australia.

Cleantech also however encompasses some mainstream type businesses. Water, waste, photovoltaic and wind and the sectors that are tipped to grow most in Australia in the next two years. These are being driven by increasing regulations on water quality, recycling and renewable energy uptake.

During the 18 months in which the global capital markets were frozen saw this increase in regulatory regimes driving cleantech demand and large amounts of stimulus spending focussed at cleantech commercialisation. The confluence of these events has led to a unique situation for cleantech. Market demand is being forced up through regulation and increasing community sentiment whilst, at the same time, the many technologies have been pushed closer to being market-ready.

The private capital market will now have to play ‘catch-up’ and 2010 is likely to see a large increase again in investments in new clean technologies. 2009 saw large amounts of secondary capital raised by Australian listed companies looking to reduce debt and shore up their balance sheets. 2010 however will instead see a number of larger IPOs and increasing venture capital and private equity investments. For example, these week see the listing of the $100m Chinese plastics recycling company, Novarise.

Cleantech is indeed the word of the moment and will continue to be for some time to come. Australia has the ability to contribute significantly to the global cleantech sector and there are many potential long term benefits from becoming a cleantech innovation hub. These benefits derive from the fact that cleantech encompasses innovation that occurs in both the ‘mainstream and at the edge’ of industrial progress. By working on both fronts simultaneously, cleantech innovation can produce a balanced economy that will help transition Australia into a sustainable future.


 Subscribe in a reader

Airbrushing reality

A recent report entitled “The Impact of Media Images on Body Image and Behaviours: A Summary of the Scientific Evidence,“ signed by 45 academics, doctors, and psychologists from around the world, places the issue of digitally enhanced images back in the spotlight. And it doesn’t look pretty.
According to this report, we’re consuming, on average, 3,000 advertising images a day that feature heavily airbrushed men and women, portraying an idealised and completely unrealistic notion of beauty. The cumulative effects of this exposure are potentially very serious.
For example, a 15-month subscription to a women’s magazine can induce psychological and physical problems such as low self-esteem, bulimia and extreme dieting in adolescent girls with low social support.

The report concludes by recommending that all digitally altered images be labeled; that none be used in advertising aimed at under 16s, that a diversity of body sizes and shapes be shown, and that media education programs be introduced.

None of this is actually new and neither does it sound too difficult to make mandatory and yet, despite pleas from various bodies, which have grown since 2007, and public criticism of the overuse of airbrushing, very little has changed.
Instead, magazines and fashion houses have very publicly used non-digitally enhanced images, or “normal women” in targeted ways to raise their own profile, stem the backlash and demonstrate that they’re in tune with their audience. But even this has backfired. “One-offs” don’t work, especially when profits are being pocketed. From “plus-size” models on catwalks, to Sarah Murdoch appearing on the cover of the Australian Women’s Weekly, to Jennifer Hawkins in Marie Clarie. All of these provoked controversy, debate and disappointment in equal measures.

Women (and men) didn’t feel relief, we felt cheated.
These shoots weren’t about addressing concerns, change or acknowledging flaws in practice – they were about fiscal strategy. 

A similar accusation was leveled at the Dove campaign for “Real Beauty”  a few years ago.
On the one hand, Dove was praised for revealing what occurs in a typical photo session, while on the other, skeptics noted that Dove is a product of Unilever, a company that sells an enormous number of beauty products (among other things), completely undermining the message behind ‘real beauty’.
It wasn’t altruism or a belief in real and long-lasting change to advertising that produced the campaign, but pandering in a superficial way to consumer demands. It was another form of commercialism.

So can the superficial become deeper than skin? Because it’s clear, it has to and soon.
According to a study done at the University of Queensland, 80 per cent of Australian women are dissatisfied with their own body image, while 90 per cent claim they know other women who are unhappy with their shape.

The Women's Forum, Australia published, “Faking It: The Female Image in Young Women's Magazines” a report which claimed that thin, sexualised and digitally-enhanced images of women were tied to women's experiences of depression, anxiety, eating disorders, and poor body image. Something the UK report also identifies.

Are airbrushed/digitally-altered images alone to blame for young women’s and men’s poor self-esteem issues?

No. But they contribute in an enormous way. If they existed in isolation, we may be able to accept them for the fantasy and marketing tool they clearly are. But they don’t. They exist in a world where facades have too much emphasis, where cosmetic surgery is on the rise, where stories about diet, make-up, skin care, fashion does and don’ts scream from screens and pages. Where even little girls are being taught to compare themselves with their dolls, their televisual and film idols, each other, and despair.
Men too are falling victim to this struggle for a perfection that has never existed. 

Whereas digital enhancing/retouching has been around for a long time, it has become so extreme it’s no longer about removing a blemish, stray hair or piece of unruly fabric. These days, wrinkles are erased as if they’re symptoms of disease, necks and legs are elongated, cellulite has become the eighth deadly sin, waists are shrunk, breasts are pumped, so not only bodies but expectations are disproportionate and unhealthy.
It’s no wonder that one photo re-toucher told Newsweek magazine that he felt “like Frankenstein.”
Studies also reveal that we’re sick of these defaced faces and craving ‘normality’, diversity and wrinkles in our visual diet – not at the expense of the digital ‘perfection’, but alongside it – to create balance.
But do photos need to carry a warning?

Legislation is not the answer – education is – about the media, about what they do to images and how they circulate and for what purpose – for all ages. The younger this starts and the more age-appropriate the lessons, the better.

So is shoring up resilience and self-esteem in our young people – by ensuring they have, as the UK report suggests, solid social support. This means being ready to intervene in the messages they receive and, to the best of our ability, set boundaries around what young people access. Most of all, we can provide enormous support through our own behaviours and attitudes, becoming ‘perfect’ role models in the process.
 

 Subscribe in a reader