Perspective: A summer garden of tech delights

(continued from previous page)

Maybe we're all suffering from the late-summer blues, but I'm astonished at the general apathy that greeted the congressional vote to update the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Sure, there was predictable howling from extreme leftist loonies and ultra-right-wing whackos. But the vital center that's supposed to hold things together in this nation seemed more concerned with Bonds' assault on Hank Aaron's home run record.

The critics said this pre-Internet statute was long overdue for an update. Congress passed FISA in 1978 in the aftermath of an investigation into CIA excesses. Maybe I'm splitting hairs, but the provision was already updated many times--especially since the passage of the Patriot Act. The administration argued that Congress had to modernize FISA to account for technology changes, such as the use of the Internet to make phone calls.

Since the FISA court approves nearly every eavesdropping request from the administration, was going through proper channels such a bureaucratic hardship?

So it was that both houses of Congress this summer were ready with bills that would include what I thought were reasonable provisions governing the interception of Internet communications.

But then the Democrats went on to grant President Bush even wider powers to eavesdrop without a warrant. (Since the FISA court approves nearly every eavesdropping request from the administration, was going through proper channels such a bureaucratic hardship?) I suppose that in the run-up to the pre-primary silly season, nobody wants to get labeled as soft on terrorism.

***

Just say no.

I'm as meshuga about blogs as the next columnist, but the public feuding between so-called A-bloggers over the various and sundry has attained farce status. This is getting oh so tired. The good news is that the world at large couldn't give a fig. In the small cyber echo chamber that is the blogosphere (and we need a better noun) the manic-depressive mutterings of grumpy hacks simply aren't relevant.

Guys, push away from the keyboard, and smell the flowers. It can be a wonderful world.

***

After years of frenetic deal making, AT&T has grown into a $165 billion colossus. Even though consumer advocates hoped that antitrust regulators would take action, the Department of Justice nonetheless gave the company the green light. But has AT&T returned the favor in the coin of muzzling criticism of the Bush administration?

It turns out that AT&T bleeped out anti-Bush lyrics from a Pearl Jam concert streamed from AT&T's Blue Room Web site. The company claimed that it edited Blue Room Web casts only for profanity. That explanation fell by the wayside after a not-for-profit music organization called the Future of Music Coalition said it had counted 20 instances of curse words being used during the Pearl Jam Webcast that were not censored by the content monitor.

AT&T ultimately issued a public mea culpa, saying it did not intend to edit political comments. At the same time, though, the company acknowledged censoring statements in an unspecified "handful" of performances.

Was it a mistake, or did AT&T set out to silence political criticism of a friendly administration in Washington? Ultimately, it comes down to a question of credibility, and it's too much of a stretch to believe that the people who manage this megacompany had no idea what they were doing.

AT&T has gotten its way from the political powers that be. But along the way, it's forgotten the age-old lesson that with great power also comes great responsibility.

Biography
Charles Cooper is CNET News.com's executive editor of commentary.

More Perspectives

[nhidealist]

Re AT&T "censoring"...

Maybe I am missing something, but if AT&T streams content from one of its own web sites, why shouldn't they be able to edit that content? TV stations, radio stations, etc. screen out content they deem objectionable all the time. And last I checked, AT&T was not a government entity, so again, why shouldn't they "censor"? (Disclosure: I don't do any business with them)

Moreover, I think the word "censor" is overused. There's a big difference between state-sponsored censorship (like when Congress passes, the President signs, and the Supreme Court upholds a ban on saying a politician's name in an ad I buy sixty days before an election and back that ban with law enforcement and jail) and AT&T screening content, in which case I am free to go elsewhere for it, stop doing business with AT&T, and Pearl Jam is free to not work with this particular corporate behemoth (in fact I'm kind of surprised to see them so mainstream given their general attitude) in the future.

[dchasejra]

Finally

Finally someone gets it. For days after this happened (and honestly, Pearl Jam? Can you be less relevant in terms of decent music right now?) I had to wade through comments about censorship, the end of freedom, whatever, and just shake my head in disbelief that no one could recongnize a companies choice to display the content they choose (or screen said content) as well as the viewers option to BOYCOTT that company should they not agree with what they do and furthermore the performers choice to have their performance broadcast with a company who explicitly informs them no censorship is going to happen. The only reason Pearl Jam (or any of us) should have a problem with what happened is if AT&T told them no censorship would happen.