Matthew

For cyclists, the road can be a nasty place to be at night, so we're all for technologies that can help draw drivers' attention in order to reduce the number of accidents. The latest of such attempt is the Lumos helmet, which not only comes with turn...

Have you ever walked by a window outside of a restaurant where plates of food are displayed? They're meant to catch your attention and make you want to eat at the restaurant. But how exactly do they make those plates of food? Is it actually real food, or something ... else?

Here's how display food is made in Japan. It's seriously mind-blowing.

READ MORE »

Earlier this year, there were some questions raised when it appeared that UK Prime Minister David Cameron was suggesting that he wanted to undermine all encryption on the internet. Later, some suggested he was looking more at undermining end point security. However, after being re-elected, and apparently believing that this gave him the mandate to go full Orwell, Cameron is making it clear that no one should ever have any privacy from government snoops ever.

Responding to a somewhat nonsensical question about if he believed the recent attacks in Tunisia meant that the big internet companies need to "understand that their current privacy policies are completely unsustainable?" Cameron insisted that the UK always needed to be able to read communications. It is, of course, not at all clear what the privacy policies of Google, Facebook and Twitter (the three named by the questioner) have to do with the price of tea in China, let alone the attacks in Tunisia, but... alas:

"We just want to ensure that terrorists do not have a safe space in which to communicate. That is the challenge, and it is a challenge that will come in front of the House.

"We have always been able, on the authority of the home secretary, to sign a warrant and intercept a phone call, a mobile phone call or other media communications, but the question we must ask ourselves is whether, as technology develops, we are content to leave a safe space—a new means of communication—for terrorists to communicate with each other.

"My answer is no, we should not be, which means that we must look at all the new media being produced and ensure that, in every case, we are able, in extremis and on the signature of a warrant, to get to the bottom of what is going on."

Of course, he also insisted that you regular people shouldn't worry:

"Britain is not a state that is trying to search through everybody’s emails and invade their privacy..."

Except, well, it is. This whole thing seems to be based on the idea that it's blatantly obvious who is a "terrorist" and who is a good citizen of the UK. Cameron can't really be so naive as to think that "terrorists" are somehow easily differentiated from everyday people, can he? Then again, this is the same guy who once pushed for this Snooper's Charter by talking about how fictional TV crime dramas proved it would be a useful tool.

This is extremely troubling. Cameron's desire to undermine encryption is dangerous for the privacy and security of everyone, especially those in the UK that Cameron is supposed to be helping to protect, because lots of people really do need "safe spaces in which to communicate." The only way to take those away for "terrorists" is to take them away for everyone, and that means not just for the purpose of government snooping, but for others as well. Introducing backdoors breaks security and makes everyone much, much, much more vulnerable to all sorts of attacks.

And, again, this is the same guy who said:

For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens: as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone.... This government will conclusively turn the page on this failed approach.

Does that really sound like someone who will only use such snooping powers to track down terrorists? He's blatantly admitting that he will use it against law abiding citizens, admitting that merely "obeying the law" should not leave you free from being hassled by the government.

These kinds of statements are cartoonishly evil. They're the kind of ridiculous statements one would have hoped you'd only see in late night TV fictional TV dramas, not coming from an actually elected leader of a major western power.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Most of us are addicted to caffeine. We drink it every morning out of habit, but also to give us a much-needed boost to get us going or to help us face the day. Caffeine is a stimulant targeting the central nervous system and it does a really good job of combating drowsiness and helping us feel more awake.

However, past a certain time in the day, many of us avoid caffeine for fear it may lead to a sleepless, restless night, so we turn to decaf. Let's explore some of the ways that caffeine is removed from coffee.

READ MORE »

Amnesty International has been heavily engaged in fights against mass surveillance, recognizing that many of the people it communicates with need an expectation of privacy in their communications with the group. Last year, Ed Snowden revealed that the NSA specifically spied on Amnesty International and other human rights organizations. And, while Amnesty International was unable to gain standing by the US Supreme Court, since it couldn't prove that the NSA had spied on its communications, the story appears to be somewhat different over in the UK.

Last year a legal challenge was filed in the UK via the Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT) concerning Amnesty International. And now, the group has been informed that, yes, it was spied on by GCHQ in the UK.

In a shocking revelation, the UK’s Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT) today notified Amnesty International that UK government agencies had spied on the organization by intercepting, accessing and storing its communications.

In an email sent today, the Tribunal informed Amnesty International its 22 June ruling had mistakenly identified one of two NGOs which it found had been subjected to unlawful surveillance by the UK government. Today’s communication makes clear that it was actually Amnesty International Ltd, and not the Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights (EIPR) that was spied on in addition to the Legal Resources Centre in South Africa.

As you may recall, a little over a week ago, the IPT had ruled that the GCHQ had erred in holding onto emails too long -- but had named that Egyptian organization as the one whose emails were held. However, that's now been corrected to Amnesty International.

The actual email sent by the IPT basically says that GCHQ told them that the IPT made a mistake. What you won't see anywhere is an apology from GCHQ. Amnesty is rightfully incensed about the whole thing:

“How can we be expected to carry out our crucial work around the world if human rights defenders and victims of abuses can now credibly believe their confidential correspondence with us is likely to end up in the hands of governments?

“The revelation that the UK government has been spying on Amnesty International highlights the gross inadequacies in the UK’s surveillance legislation. If they hadn’t stored our communications for longer than they were allowed to by internal guidelines, we would never even have known. What’s worse, this would have been considered perfectly lawful.”

Both issues raised here are significant. The only reason Amnesty now knows about this is because GCHQ held onto the emails too long. If it had done its usual purge, then the IPT likely would never have revealed that, and Amnesty's communications would have continued to go on being compromised without anyone knowing.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Oregon’s much-anticipated per-mile driving fee, called OReGO, launches today. Instead of paying the normal gas tax embedded in the price of fuel, OReGO drivers will pay 1.5 cents for every mile on the road. The initial public rollout is limited to 5,000 vehicles, but the implications of the program are vast: if all goes well, state and federal leaders might have an answer to the transportation funding crisis that’s hampered American infrastructure for years.

Here’s 18 reasons the whole country should give per-mile fees a chance.

1. The Highway Trust Fund keeps running out of money

The federal Highway Trust Fund that pays for America’s roads (and to a lesser extent rails) is expected to run out of money at the end of July. We’ve seen this movie before, so we know that Congress will find a way to keep the fund afloat—even if that involves the legally dubious maneuver of transferring money from the general taxpayer treasury. But the past trends and future projections of the Highway Trust Fund make clear that it’s a badly bent spending model that’s routinely on the cusp of badly breaking.

2. Yet Congress and some states refuse to raise the gas tax

The federal gas tax hasn’t been raised since 1993. (And the last President to truly achieve that task was Ronald Reagan.) Some states have raised it recently out of desperation, though others remain desperately opposed; New Jersey’s gas tax is about half what it was in 1927. Elected officials on both sides of the aisle generally refuse to touch the issue for fear of political damage, despite polls showing that many voters would accept a hike.

3. The truth is the gas tax is totally busted anyway

Preach.

4. For one thing, cars are much more fuel-efficient

The gas tax is a decent proxy for car travel: for the most part, the more you spend at the pump, the more you drive on the road. But that relationship has become weaker and weaker as American vehicles have gotten more fuel-efficient. That means on the average tank of gas, a car does a lot more damage to roads today than it’s done in the past.

5. Also construction costs are soaring

Transportation funding aside, better fuel-efficiency is a great thing, and should be encouraged. So an arguably bigger problem with the gas tax is soaring construction costs. The Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy has estimated that these costs have increased 335 percent since 1972, contributing to much more of the decline in the purchasing power of the gas tax than new fuel-efficiency standards.

6. Plus, people aren’t driving as much as they used to

MPG and construction costs aside, Americans just aren’t driving as much as they once did. Per-capita vehicle mileage is well off its peak in the mid-2000s—a new normal of driving that suggests we can’t think about funding (or building) highways the same way we did in the past.

7. A per-mile fee is a true “user” fee

Ideally every driver would cover their own individual costs of using the road—a true “user” fee that seems only fair. Practically that’s never been the case. Driver fees like the gas tax once accounted for about 70 percent of road costs, but that link declined over the decades for many of the reasons mentioned above. The result is that not only are road costs distributed unequally among drivers, they’re distributed among non-drivers, too. A per-mile driving fee would be a return to this “user pay” ideal.

8. Better still, it’s not a hidden fee

Unlike the gas tax, a per-mile fee isn’t hidden away in the larger cost of fuel. Right now many drivers think they pay much more in gas taxes than they truly do—a disconnect that contributes to their frustration over rising fuel prices, despite the fact that Americans pay relatively little at the pump. With a per-mile fee, drivers could see exactly what they spend on the road each month, just as they do on their cable or phone bill, and change their behavior accordingly.

9. It would raise a gargantuan amount of money

The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials has estimated that a mileage-based road fee would produce an astonishing $246.31 billion by 2020. That’s enough to cover the Highway Trust Fund shortfall many times over, and that’s assuming just a penny per mile—below the per-mile OReGO rate of 1.5 cents. The windfall stands to get weaker over time as people drive less, but if and when that’s the case local government won’t have as much road maintenance or expansion to do, either.

10. It can be adjusted to reduce traffic and promote transit

A per-mile fee is also remarkably flexible. Heavily congested metro areas can add a surcharge during rush-hour (which would incentivize transit use, telecommuting, or new work patterns) or within a certain boundary (similar to the congestion pricing zones in London, Singapore, and Stockholm). They can also shift some of that money toward transit improvements in particularly crowded corridors—giving the per-mile fee an equity basis as well.

A per-mile fee is flexible enough to slap gas-guzzling clunkers with a surcharge and squeaky clean EVs with a discount.

11. And adjusted to cover truck damage

One of the big arguments against any flat transportation tax is that not all vehicles rough up the road the same way. Fair enough. A per-mile fee is far easier than the gas tax to adjust for the size of a vehicle, from 18-wheelers to Smart cars.

12. And adjusted to discourage pollution

Electric vehicle owners often oppose a per-mile fee because they say it offers a disincentive to go green. That’s a fair if tenuous argument: EVs still save money at the pump, they still damage the road, and if they draw from a coal-based energy grid they can even create more pollution than gas cars. Still a per-mile fee is flexible enough to slap gas-guzzling clunkers with a surcharge and squeaky clean EVs with a discount as local governments see fit.

13. Look, it’s just really adjustable, okay?

Touché. In theory, a per-mile fee is elegant and nimble enough to capture more or less every social cost of driving. It’s the Baryshnikov of transportation funding.

14. Millennials dig it

In a new public opinion poll for the Mineta Transportation Institute, Asha Weinstein Agrawal and Hilary Nixon report that 59 percent of respondents age 18 to 24 “strongly” or “somewhat” supported a mileage tax (provided it was adjusted for vehicle pollution). So Millennials seem more on board with the idea than older age groups. And we should listen, because according to them, they’ve never been wrong.

15. It doesn’t actually invade your privacy

---

CityFixer

Solutions for an Urbanizing World

---

The single biggest concern voiced about a per-mile driving fee is privacy. But there’s no need to worry. Oregon has developed several tiers of mileage tracking, from low-tech options (such as an annual fee or odometer reading) to higher-tech ones (e.g. cell tower dings or full GPS). In other words, there’s a tracking program to suit everyone’s comfort level. Even libertarians aren’t concerned about per-mile privacy. In recent Congressional testimony supporting a mileage fee, Bob Poole of the Reason Foundation said “privacy need not be a serious obstacle” to its adoption.

16. It’s been tested—with success

Oregon has been developing and testing and improving the concept for years now. And it’s not alone. Other pilots around the country have been a success. An Iowa trial found that vehicle trackers can capture the vast majority of actual miles traveled (92 percent). Simulations in Sacramento and Washington, D.C., as well as real-world trials in Atlanta and Seattle, have shown that per-mile taxes can lead to reduced car travel. A Portland study showed it works best when it includes a rush-hour surcharge.

Best of all, people like it more as they try it. In the Iowa trial, for instance, about 41 percent of participants had “very” or “somewhat” positive feelings toward the trial beforehand, rising to 70 percent afterward.

17. Lots of states have shown an interest

Though Oregon is the only state to launch a per-mile program so far, many others are keeping a close eye on the concept. California recently authorized a pilot program of its own; in late 2013, Florida’s transportation secretary predicted the state could shift to a mileage-based fee within 10 to 15 years; and several Western states have joined a consortium to monitor road-usage charges. A recent report from the Council of State Governments lists 26 states that have dipped their toe in the waters of per-mile pricing in some form or another.

18. Oregon has been been down this Trail before

Yes, we just did that. (It’s been a long list, all right?) But it’s also the truth. Back in 1919, Oregon became the first state to implement a gas tax. The state’s funding vision has served American roads well for this long. Why not follow it in a new direction?

The TSA runs a fairly entertaining Instagram account, if you're the sort of person who is impressed by pictures of weapons seized from stupid passengers. That would be the extent of its social media prowess. Its blog is pretty much a 50/50 mix of Yet Another Thing You Can't Take Onboard and Blogger Bob defending the TSA's latest gaffe.

One of the TSA's official Twitter flacks tried to loft a lighthearted "hey, look at this thing we came across!" tweet. She couldn't have picked a worse "thing" to highlight, considering the ongoing outrage over civil asset forfeiture.

For those who can't see the embed, the tweet says:

If you had $75,000, is this how you'd transport it? Just asking! TSA @ #RIC spotted this traveler's preferred method

Pictured was someone's carry-on bag, opened to expose the cash contained in it.

First: should the TSA be broadcasting the contents of someone's luggage -- especially considering the contents are a large amount of cash -- along with broadcasting the airport where it was discovered and the baggage's appearance? There may not be any recognizable privacy violations here, but it's certainly bad form. And it does no favors to the person carrying it.

Second: unless the traveler was attempting to take the money out of the country without reporting it to Customs, it's none of the TSA's business how a traveler carries money from place to place. It may be careless, but it is not illegal and it is certainly not something government agencies should spend too much time obsessing over. (But of course they will, because travelers' cash can quickly become the government's cash, thanks to civil asset forfeiture.)

Third: the TSA's public interest in this member of the public's cash is flat-out unseemly. Not only does the tweet portray the unnamed person as some sort of idiot/criminal (or both!), but it led many to the obvious assumption that this cash was seized.

But, you know, LOL #otherpeoplesmoney and all that.

The foregone conclusion that this money had been seized was (momentarily) dispelled by another tweet from the TSAmedia_Lisa account.

TSA didn't seize/confiscate/take it. It alarmed the x-ray machine as an unknown and we spotted it. It's just a curiosity

So, somehow a passenger managed to walk through airport security with a large amount of cash and managed to still be in possession of it on the DEPARTURE side of the checkpoint?

No. This is AMERICA, land of the somewhat free and home of the brave drug warrior.

A followup email to the Washington Post's Chris Ingraham proved TSAmedia_Lisa's (Farbstein) response was technically true and completely disingenuous.

Asked about the incident via e-mail, Farbstein said that "the carry-on bag of the passenger alarmed because of the large unknown bulk in his carry-on bag. When TSA officers opened the bag to determine what had caused the alarm, the money was sitting inside. Quite unusual. TSA alerted the airport police, who were investigating."

It seems the police didn't just "investigate." They worked with another federal agency to take the money:

In this case, the cash was seized by a federal agency, most likely the Drug Enforcement Administration, according to Richmond airport spokesman Troy Bell. "I don't believe the person was issued a summons or a citation," he said. "The traveler was allowed to continue on his way."

So Farbstein's claim about how it was "just a curiosity" is completely bogus. Not only was the photograph and putting it on social media a questionable invasion of privacy, but then they handed it off to another federal agency to take the money... and then the TSA clearly implied the opposite on social media once the story blew up.

It's not entirely clear which "federal agency" took the money, but a good guess is that the DEA is likely in possession of this "curiosity" now, thanks to its willingness to troll mass transportation departure points in search of "guilty" money.

Also ridiculous is the airport spokesperson noting that the traveler was allowed to "continue on his way," $75,000 lighter. As if that makes everything OK? If this money is completely unrelated to criminal activity, the government has just stolen money from one of its citizens. If it is linked to criminal activity, the traveler is probably in for a world of hurt if it belonged (or was owed) to someone else. Either way, the citizen loses, the government wins and the TSA badly mishandles another social media interaction.

So, the TSA's attempt at cheery lightheartedness did nothing more than once again expose its dark, humorless center. The tweet may as well have read "If you had $75,000, you don't have it any more! Just saying! #freemoney" One of the nation's most tone deaf agencies continues to prove it simply won't be outdone in this category. And the trickle of details confirmed what everyone was thinking the moment this picture hit the internet: that the person carrying that money was last in possession of it shortly before the photo was taken. The government gets its man money and the TSA delivers the news as a punchline at the expense [pretty much literally] of some random traveler whose misfortune is the government's gain.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Last August, 25-year-old Kajieme Powell, who was wandering around outside of a St. Louis convenience store from which he had just stolen two energy drinks and a pack of pastries, was shot to death by police shortly after they arrived on the scene. It's clear, from video of the incident,...More »

Courtney shared this story from Super Opinionated.

---

Despite the growing national conversation about campus sexual assault, researchers still haven’t come up with all that many proven ways to reduce its prevalence. But a new study of a prevention program targeting college women published in The New England Journal of Medicine offers some very tantalizing results.

For the study, lead-authored by...More »

There's more to making quality iced tea than meets the eye. On the surface, you can ice any old tea any way you want and get a refreshing drink, but the way I see it, "refreshing" and "drinkable" are just the starting point. Read More

Read 14 remaining paragraphs | Comments

View

By now you may be familiar with the popular Internet meme, "women laughing alone with salad." If you're not familiar, the concept is easy to understand: Picture a stock photo of a woman all by herself, eating a boring-looking salad and laughing hysterically. Salad deserves better PR than this. Because honestly, laughing by yourself with a bowl full of raw vegetables should be outlawed. It's just wrong.

This meme sparked an investigation into other crimes against salad that are widespread on the Internet. I turned to a collection of stock photos to find the worst offenders. Prepare your eyes, my friends. No food deserves this kind of treatment – especially poor ol' salad.

READ MORE »

Hovertext: I think, therefore... wait... do I think? Why do I think that?

New comic!
Today's News:

 SUBMISSIONS ARE OPEN FOR BAHFEST(s) 2015!

Way back in October 2013, we told you that Vancouver-based animation firm Rainmaker was planning on reviving the cult classic ReBoot – and now, binomes, it’s actually happening. The project has been pulled from the clutches of the Nulls, and us Users will be granted a glorious 26 episodes in Mainframe. Alphanumeric!

At the Banff World Media Festival yesterday, Corus Entertainment announced they had greenlit the new series, ReBoot: The Guardian Code, with 26 new episodes that will be a mix of live-action and animation distributed worldwide by TWC/Dimension. “The new ReBoot will feature the same action and comedy mix viewers loved in the original series,” said Corus Kids content director Jamie Piekarz, “but with an updated technological universe that will fascinate a new generation of kids,” and will somehow be multi-platform.

We already knew that The Guardian Code will attempt to resolve the show’s season four cliffhanger, and that all the major characters from the original series will feature in more than just cameo roles (though some of the minor characters might be just cameos to deal with older tech-jargon”). But now we also know that the new series is about (emphasis our own):

four teens (Austin, Parker, Grey and Tamra) who discover that they’re next-gen Guardians with a mission to save the world, by defending it in cyberspace. The Internet revolutionized the world, but it also left it vulnerable to attack. With the help of VERA, the last surviving cyberbeing from the original Guardian Program, our heroes stream into cyberspace where they use their awesome code-based powers to battle viruses that have been unleashed by a ruthless hacker. Known only as the Sourcerer, he seeks to rule the world by controlling cyberspace. Original fans of the show will be happy to hear that Megabyte will be back and he’s getting a major upgrade. ReBoot will showcase leading edge technologies and bring coding into the mainstream for kids.

When Austin, Parker, Grey and Tamra are not trying to stop viruses from overloading a nuclear power station, or remotely opening a dam to flood a city, or playing Criss Cross Crash Hour with a city’s transportation grid, our heroes are being typical teens: arguing with their parents over curfews; dealing with crushes; or trying to avoid getting suspended for skipping class when they’re really on a cyber mission to save the world!

According to Rainmaker president Michael Heffron, the show “will deliver mass appeal with a technology focus, empowering kids with the tools and confidence to chart their own course in a world that is increasingly dependent on and powered by technological knowledge.”

For those of you unfamiliar with ReBoot, the show originally aired from 1994 to 2001, and was the world’s first-ever half-hour fully-CGI animated series. Set inside a computer, ReBoot followed the adventures of Bob (a Guardian), and siblings Enzo and Dot Matrix, as they attempt to both defeat games uploaded by the mysterious User, and fight off evil in the form of twin viruses Megabyte and Hexadecimal.

As time went on, the series got pretty intense, ultimately ending on a terrible cliffhanger where Megabyte had taken control of Mainframe. Obviously, ReBoot was incredibly important and groundbreaking for animated television – but it was also just a really good show.

I don’t want to be dramatic about this, but I’m crying actual tears of joy about this. Now go watch “Wizards, Warriors, and a Word from our Sponsors,” and listen to this series summary on repeat:

UPDATE: Guys. Guys. GUYS.

(via HuffPo Canada)

—Please make note of The Mary Sue’s general comment policy.—

Do you follow The Mary Sue on Twitter, Facebook, Tumblr, Pinterest, & Google +?

Ever since regulators blocked AT&T's acquisition of T-Mobile, T-Mobile has responded by lighting a fire under the wireless industry. With an amusing CEO and consumer-friendly policies, the company is currently adding more new subscribers per quarter than any of the other big four carriers, once again shockingly highlighting how not treating your customers like the enemy can pay notable dividends. But no matter how well T-Mobile has been doing, German owner Deutsche Telekom has made it repeatedly clear that it wants out of the U.S. market.

However, getting a sale done has proven harder than the company expected. After the AT&T deal was blocked by regulators, they also indicated they wouldn't approve a sale to Sprint, in order to keep four large, viable competitors in the market. Rumored for a while, indications now are that satellite TV provider Dish Network is in talks to acquire T-Mobile in a deal worth more than thirty billion:

"The two sides are in close agreement about what the combined company would look like, with Dish Chief Executive Charlie Ergen becoming the company’s chairman and his T-Mobile counterpart, John Legere, serving as the combined company’s CEO, the people said. Tougher questions about a purchase price and the mix of cash and stock that would be used to pay for a deal remain unresolved, the people said. One of the people characterized the talks as at “the formative stage,” and said an agreement might not ultimately be hammered out."

The deal would join a wave of consolidation in the telecom sector, including Frontier's acquisition of Verizon's California, Texas, and Florida fixed-line assets, Verizon's acquisition of AOL, Charter's acquisition of Time Warner Cable and Bright House Networks, and AT&T's acquisition of DirecTV. And while Dish is rumored to be a horrible place to work and boss Charlie Ergen has a reputation for being a pain in the ass to work with, the deal makes quite a bit of sense and should probably have no problems getting past regulators.

Whereas T-Mobile has been a thorn in the side of AT&T and Verizon, Dish has been similarly disruptive on the TV front, whether that's via its ad-skipping Hopper DVR, or the launch of its new Sling TV Internet video service. Dish has also been slowly accumulating a ton of spectrum over the last few years, insisting it was pondering a solo or joint wireless play. And while combined it's believed that the new T-Mobile under Dish would have even more spectrum than AT&T or Verizon, it wouldn't be enough to trip the FCC's "spectrum screen" used to determine competitive harm:

$DISH/$TMUS would fit under @FCC spectrum screen and have more spectrum than $T and $VZ http://t.co/cRH87kaWMg pic.twitter.com/vEv3r1Fqxb

— Walt Piecyk (@WaltBTIG) June 4, 2015

There had been some worry that Dish was just acquiring spectrum in order to sit on it, flipping it down the road for additional cash to AT&T and Verizon. Instead, a Dish buy could result in an even stronger T-Mobile with the spectrum and resources to shore up the one area where it still lags behind AT&T and Verizon: total network coverage. Telecom writers everywhere also win under this deal, as entertaining f-bomb dropping T-Mobile CEO John Legere is expected to remain at the helm of the new, tougher company. Should Sprint finally be able to get things together under new owner SoftBank, we might actually start seeing something vaguely resembling real, sustained price competition in the wireless sector.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Earlier today, Science magazine published an "advice" column — scare quotes included because the columnist, virologist Alice Huang, offered some questionable solutions to the letter writer's problem. After an outcry on Twitter, the magazine unpublished the column, but the editors at the blog Retraction Watch managed to find...More >>

This seems to happen all too often, but a local judge has forgotten about the whole 1st Amendment thing. Last week, Bergen County Superior Court Judge Jane Gallina-Mecca ordered the Bergen Dispatch to take down a news article. The article was about a specific family court case, involving custody of a child. It's not surprising that there might be some concern over privacy rights in such cases, but even so, that does not allow a judge to flat out order a newspaper to take down an article -- even more so when the order came out of a closed hearing where no one from the newspaper was even present. In response, the Bergen Dispatch posted a fairly snarky article that reiterates some of the details from the case, and concludes with this wonderful paragraph:

While the Bergen Dispatch reviews its options we have confirmed that Bergen County does currently remain part of the State of New Jersey and that currently New Jersey is still part of the Union of states that is governed by the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights. As such, Bergen County citizens continue to enjoy the right to freedom of speech and the right to a free press.

Informed of this little tidbit of information, the judge has since vacated the original order, but it's still astounding that it had to go that far in the first place.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

We've all been there at some point or another…
You just lost your phone and want to wipe your personal information.
You attend an event, and you want to share your photos with some people (but not everyone).
You hesitate as you download another app that's asking for a lot of information.

Everyday, we make choices that affect our privacy and security online. Most people, however, don’t feel they have the right level of control to make these important decisions. According to a recent Pew study, 93 percent of people think it’s important to control access to their personal information, and 90 percent care about the type of information that’s collected about them. But only 9 percent feel they have “a lot” of control over it. We want to change that.

Google builds simple, powerful privacy and security tools that keep your information safe and put you in control of it. At Google I/O, we announced that people will have more control over the information they provide to mobile apps in the M release, the next version of Android. Today, we’re rolling out two significant improvements to our privacy and security tools: a new hub for managing your Google settings called My Account, and a new site that answers important questions about privacy and security on Google.

Privacy and security controls, all in one place
Privacy and security are two sides of the same coin: if your information isn’t secure, it certainly can’t be private. My Account gives you quick access to the settings and tools that help you safeguard your data, protect your privacy, and decide what information is used to make Google services work better for you. It also provides more context to help you understand your options and make the right choices for you.
Here are some of the things you can do with My Account:

• Take the Privacy Checkup and Security Checkup, our simple, step-by-step guides through your most important privacy and security settings.
• Manage the information that can be used from Search, Maps, YouTube and other products to enhance your experience on Google. For example, you can turn on and off settings such as Web and App Activity, which gets you more relevant, faster search results, or Location History, which enables Google Maps and Now to give you tips for a faster commute back home.
• Use the Ads Settings tool to control ads based on your interests and the searches you’ve done.
• Control which apps and sites are connected to your account.

We built My Account to be a resource for everyone, even if you don't have a Google Account. Check out your controls at myaccount.google.com.

Answering your questions about privacy and security
We listen to feedback from people around the world to better understand their concerns about privacy and security. In addition to My Account, we want to help people find answers to common questions on these topics, such as: "What data does Google collect? What does Google do with the data it collects? What tools do I have to control my Google experience?"

Our new site, privacy.google.com, candidly answers these questions, and more. We also explain how we show relevant ads without selling your personal information, how encryption and spam filtering help keep your data safe, and how your information helps customize your experience on Google. Visit this site often to learn about new tools, features, and information that can help you make the choices that are right for you.
When you trust your personal information with us, you should expect powerful controls that keep it safe and private as well as useful answers to your questions. Today’s launches are just the latest in our ongoing efforts to protect you and your information on Google. There’s much more to come, and we look forward to your feedback.

Posted by Guemmy Kim, Product Manager, Account Controls and Settings

The exposure of one of the biggest scientific frauds in recent memory didn’t start with concerns about normally distributed data, or the test-retest reliability of feelings thermometers, or anonymous Stata output on shady message boards, or any of the other statistically complex details that would make it such a bizarre...More >>

Whatever the reason you started drinking tea, chances are you have some questions about it. Fortunately there are many, many sources out there that simplify the vast world of tea into digestible nuggets of knowledge. Unfortunately, a lot of those sources—often the very companies selling you their tea—get some basic points pretty wrong. Read More