'Can I have my house back?' JPMorgan cancels Twitter Q&A after

[Frederick FN Noronha फ्रेड्रिक न]

This is getting to be a strange world! One has to go to Russia Today
to get news of this nature! I'm following @JPmorgan now:

'Can I have my house back?' JPMorgan cancels Twitter Q&A after
receiving 'offensive' questions

'Can I have my house back?' JPMorgan cancels Twitter Q&A after
receiving 'offensive' questions

Published time: November 14, 2013 23:54
Edited time: November 15, 2013 01:13
Get short URL

AFP Photo / Timothy A. Clary / Files

Share on tumblr

Tags

Banking, Internet, USA

JPMorgan canceled a question-and-answer session on Twitter Wednesday
after receiving a barrage of critical questions skewering the
multinational banking company for legal problems, foreclosure
practices, and other ethical transgressions.

Starting at least since last week, JPMorgan, the investment and
services portion of financial behemoth JPMorgan Chase & Co, asked
followers and others on Twitter to send questions about the bank’s
operations for veteran investment banker and company vice chairman
Jimmy Lee using the hashtag #AskJPM ahead of the planned Thursday
session.

Few had used the hashtag until Wednesday afternoon, after JPMorgan
sent a follow-up tweet on Tuesday promoting the event.

After the reminder tweet, the floodgates opened. Questions - or,
often, heckling - ranged from highly critical of the bank’s practices
to complete non sequiturs. Company CEO Jamie Dimon was a particularly
popular target among the taunters. Twitter users also criticized the
bank’s billions of dollars of fines to mortgage regulators and its
connection to low quality mortgage securities tied to the 2008
financial crisis.

Among the “questions” posed to JPMorgan:

JPMorgan cut its losses and canceled the Thursday Q&A on Wednesday evening.

The tweet barrage inspired a dramatic reading of some of the tweets by
actor Stacy Keach.

Following the cancellation, David Dayen, a longtime progressive
blogger, announced he would - tongue in cheek - answer #AskJPM
questions in place of JPMorgan.

http://rt.com/usa/jpmorgan-twitter-q&a-canceled-745/

-- 
FN Phone +91-832-2409490 Mobile +91-9822122436
Blog: The View From My Window http://wp.me/1c1F
About.me: http://about.me/noronhafrederick
Goa,1556: http://bit.ly/Goa1556Books2


#  distributed via : no commercial use without permission
#is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
#  more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l
#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nett...@kein.org

[drone_roundup] Weekly Roundup

[Center for the Study of the Drone]

  [orig To: drone_roun...@sympa.bard.edu -- mod(tb)]

Somebody you know may have added you to our mailing list because they
thought you'd be interested. If you know someone who would like to receive
the Weekly Roundup, please have them write to us at c...@bard.edu, or just
send us their emails yourself!


At the Center for the Study of the Drone

Drones are heating up the territorial
disputebetween
China and Japan over the Senkaku Islands. At the same time, China
is expanding research and production of their own drones and Japan is
considering political and military reforms. These developments could bring
about a major shift in the regional strategic dynamic.



News

The Federal Aviation Administration released a ?road map? for the
integration
of
unmanned aerial systems into U.S. airspace. The document
discusses the status of the
selection process for drone test sites and announces a new aviation-control
system called ?NextGen.? The FAA acknowledged that the integration of
drones might take longer than expected. (Washington Post)

In response to the FAA roadmap, which prompted
criticismfrom
politicians and commentators, Senator Markey introduced a bill that
would require law enforcement
agencies
to obtain a warrant before using an unmanned aircraft. The Association for
Unmanned Vehicle Systems International (AUVSI) criticized the bill as
unfairly targeting drones. ?Who cares if the pilot is on the ground versus
in the actual aircraft,? said Ben Gielow, the government-relations manager
of AUVSI. (Wall Street Journal  and National Journal)

In a closed session, the Senate Intelligence Committee voted to increase
Congressional
oversight of the administration?s targeted killing program. If both the
Senate and the House approve the bill, the President will have to release a
yearly report on the number of drone strikes and the numbers of civilian
casualties caused by strikes. (Reuters)

The Pakistani political party Tehreek-e-Insaf has voted to block NATO
supplies
to
Afghanistan until the United States ends drone strikes. Tehreek-e-Insaf
controls the Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa province in northwest Pakistan, where a
critical supply line connects Karachi to Kabul. Imran Khan, chairman of the
party and outspoken critic of the strikes, blamed American targeted
killings for the breakdown of peace talks between Islamabad and the
Taliban. (New York Times)

Writing for Foreign Policy magazine, Gordon Lubold and Shane Harris
reported that efforts to transfer drone operations
from
the Central Intelligence Agency to the Pentagon have stalled. According to
officials, the process has been marred by logistical difficulties,
differences in operational approaches, and an unwillingness to ?fix a
program that [the CIA and DoD] don't think is broken.?


Commentary, Analysis and Art

In a podcast on Lawfare
blog,
Matthew Waxman and Kenneth Anderson discuss autonomous weapons and ?killer
robots? at Stanford University?s Hoover Institution.

Jens Iverson continues the discussion

about the Amnesty and Human Rights Watch reports on drone strikes by
questioning their interpretation of international humanitarian law. ?Even
if one has never directly participated in hostilities, they may still be
targeted, if one?s function involves (potential) direct participation,?
writes Iverson. (Opino Juris)

Also on Opino Juris, Deborah Pearlstein questions why the CIA
haltedthe
plan to transfer drone strikes from Langley to the Pentagon. ?It is
thus just such suggestions of different processes surrounding targeting
that are most concerning,? Pearlstein writes.

Thomas Gibbons-Neff, a Marine veteran of Afghanistan, considers the high
levels of post-traumatic stress disorder among drone
pilots.
?There is no struggle, nothing anchoring him to the reality of war. There
is only the killing,? writes Gibbons-Neff at War on the Rocks blog.


Writing f

Google wins book-scanning case: judge finds “fair use,” cites many benefits

[Felix Stalder]

[I'm somewhat conflicted about this. While I'm generally glad to see
fair use expanded, I think the judge misunderstood Google's business
model when citing in favor of favor of that Google "does not sell the
scans" as evidence of its benign character. They clearly wouldn't do it
if they were not convinced that making these books searchable is adding
to their bottom-line by refining user profiles. Felix]

http://gigaom.com/2013/11/14/google-wins-book-scanning-case-judge-finds-fair-use-cites-many-benefits/


Google wins book-scanning case: judge finds “fair use,” cites many benefits
By Jeff John Roberts

The long-running copyright fight between Google and the Authors Guild is
over: Judge Denny Chin issued a resounding ruling in favor of fair use.
tweet this

Google has won a resounding victory in its eight-year copyright battle
with the Authors Guild over the search giant’s controversial decision to
scan more than 20 million books from libraries and make them available
on the internet.

In a ruling (embedded below) issued Thursday morning in New York, US
Circuit Judge Denny Chin said the book scanning amounted to fair use
because it was “highly transformative” and because it didn’t harm the
market for the original work.

“Google Books provides significant public benefits,” Chin wrote,
describing it as “an essential research tool” and noting that the
scanning service has expanded literary access for the blind and helped
preserve the text of old books from physical decay.

Chin also rejected the theory that Google was depriving authors of
income, noting that the company does not sell the scans or make whole
copies of books available. He concluded, instead, that Google Books
served to help readers discover new books and amounted to “new income
from authors.”

The ruling is being hailed on Twitter by librarians and scholars, who
intervened in the case to urge the court to declare that Google Books
was fair use — a four-part test that seeks to balance the rights of
authors against broader interests of society.

“This has been a long road and we are absolutely delighted with today’s
judgement. As we have long said Google Books is in compliance with
copyright law and acts like a card catalog for the digital age – giving
users the ability to find books to buy or borrow,” Google said in an
emailed statement.

Author’s Guild Executive Director Paul Aiken said by email that the
group would appeal the decision. He added:

“We disagree with and are disappointed by the court’s decision today.
This case presents a fundamental challenge to copyright that merits
review by a higher court. Google made unauthorized digital editions of
nearly all of the world’s valuable copyright-protected literature and
profits from displaying those works. In our view, such mass digitization
and exploitation far exceeds the bounds of the fair use defense.”

The decision itself comes as a volte-face for Judge Chin, who expressed
major skepticism about the project in a highly-publicized 2010 ruling
that blew up a three-part deal between Google, publishers and the
Authors Guild that would have created a market for the scanned books.
Chin also agreed last year to allow the cases to proceed as a class
action — but the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals reversed that
decision and ordered Chin to instead rule on the fair use question.
Thursday’s ruling is effectively an acknowledgment by Chin that the
higher court (on which he now sits) wanted him to find fair use.

The ruling is unlikely to sit well with some authors, including Scott
Turow, who have decried Google’s scanning as an indignity and a money grab.

The latter idea — that Google is profiting off the books at the expense
of authors — has been a rallying cry for opponents of the book scanning.
Chin’s ruling, however, takes care to reject the notion in detail, and
states that Google “does not engage in the direct commercialization of
copyrighted works.”

<...>

Chin’s ruling is also likely to be decisive in a companion case between
the Authors Guild and the HathiTrust, a group of university libraries
that have created a shared corpus of digital books for scholars and
students. The HathiTrust case is on appeal, but the group’s victory at
the lower court stage may have paved the way for today’s decision:

The HathiTrust case really clinched this. "If there is no liability…
on the libraries' part, there can be no liability on Google's part."—
Tim Carmody (@tcarmody) November 14, 2013

The ruling is below with key portions underlined. For more perspective,
see Mathew Ingram’s “Whatever you think of Google, the book-scanning
decision is the right one.” (For more background, see my ebook The
Battle for the Books: Inside Google’s Gambit to Create the World’s
Biggest Library.)


-- 

 | http://felix.openflows.com
 |OPEN PGP: 056C E7D3 9B25 CAE1 336D 6D2F 0BBB 5B95 0C9F F2AC



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

#  distributed via : no commer