News Blog

Propelled by a servo-actuated two-link tails and flapping pectoral fins, a new breed of robofish programmed to swim in schools may soon be used to track oil spills or wildlife such as whales, according to researchers at the University of Washington in Seattle.

By mimicking a fish's natural propulsion mechanics these "autonomous fin-actuated underwater vehicles" are able to swim in any direction, make tight turns, and even go backwards, researchers say. The university is testing three of the vehicles in an indoor freshwater tank equipped with a four-camera tracking system to supplement data collected by onboard sensors.

(Credit: University of Washington)

One of their challenges is how to coordinate the artificial fish so that they work together. But radio signals don't travel well underwater, forcing robots in previous experiments to surface periodically to receive orders from central command or, worse, be being linked by cable.

These fish are more independent--controlling and coordinating their own actions using onboard microprocessor for collecting data and computing control commands, a pressure sensor for gauging depth, and a 3D compass all powered by NiMH rechargeable batteries. When they do need to communicate with one another, they use sonar-like "pings" from acoustic modems.

The three fish in this latest experiment kept it together despite losing roughly half of the information packets, which shows the system is relatively robust. "With a group of vehicles you can get more data collection at the same time than with just one. You get better spatial distribution and cover more area," Kristi Morgansen, a UW roboticist, told New Scientist.

The military thinks it's a good idea too. The U.S. Office of Naval Research wants to fund its own fishy version that would use cameras to gather data and then share the intel via sonar. Eh, herding whales sounds like more fun.

A slick site hasn't connected with its local audience.

(Credit: Washington Post)

It isn't exactly breaking new ground to say many newspapers are struggling. Nor is it breaking new ground to argue that newspapers have to cover the heck out of their local communities--so-called hyperlocalism--in order to win back readers and advertisers.

But what do you do when hyperlocalism doesn't work? The Wall Street Journal Wednesday has a (troubling, if you're in the newspaper business) look at The Washington Post's experiment in hyperlocalism, LoudounExtra.com. The site, despite a slick design and plenty of news about the goings on in Loudoun, an affluent Virginia county, has been a disappointment since it was launched last July (though the article stops short of saying by what measurement the site has been a disappointment).

Seems a few things have gone wrong, according to the Journal. To start, the people building the Post's local site didn't get out into the community enough. They were outsiders trying to cater to a local audience, and they haven't made strong connections to community groups. This isn't a new problem for small newspapers, of course. It's rare that the people covering the town council meeting are actually from that town. More likely, it's a young journalist trying to get some decent clips so they can get the heck out of town and move on to a better job.

There have been other issues: The Post hasn't firmly established basic rules like linking policies between the main WashingtonPost.com site and the localized Web site. Loudoun County is a large area with various communities, so it's difficult to buttonhole residents into a particular interest. And The Washington Post parent company has been reluctant to allow community-building efforts such as an application that could have funneled content from sites such as Flickr and YouTube to LoudounExtra.com.

Does that mean hyperlocalism isn't worth the effort? Not at all. The Post still plans at least one other local news site. Beyond the Post, other more intensely localized efforts, such as a University of Kansas sports site spun out of the Lawrence Journal-World newspaper, have been more successful, according to the Journal.

With some changes and better community outreach, LoudounExtra.com could still be successful. But its struggles so far indicate that bringing outsiders in to do a fancy Web site isn't good enough. You need real community connections, because locals can smell a carpetbagger a mile away.

LOS ANGELES--If Jim Brady had his way, there would be no guaranteed anonymity for those who post comments to Washingtonpost.com.

Brady, executive editor of The Washington Post's online division, said during a panel discussion at the Digital Hollywood conference here that he would like to see a technology that could identify people who violate site standards--and if need be--automatically kick them off for good.

Brady has a notable history with this issue and I'll get to that. First, his position must be made clear. In an interview following the panel discussion, Brady said he doesn't want people's personal information for any other reason but to hold them accountable for what they post. He said he's not--as he has been accused by some--an enemy of free speech. He just wants to oversee a site where readers engage in civil discourse and debate without fear of it degenerating into a "back alley environment."

"I think part of the problem is that people aren't held accountable on the Web," Brady said. "People say things online they would never say when disagreeing with someone at the dinner table. I think heated debate is fine, but when there are (flame wars), many people won't take part for fear they will be attacked and bashed over the head with the (Internet-equivalent) of a steel pipe."

Brady knows how intensely many Internet users disagree with him. He made headlines in January 2006 after shutting down the comments area of a blog where outraged readers gathered to rebuke the Post's ombudsman, Deborah Howell.

Following the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal, Howell erred when she said that the lobbyist gave campaign donations to Democrats as well as Republicans. Abramoff gave only to Republicans. The paper's Web site saw more than 1,000 comments, many from people who accused the Post of conspiring with the Republicans.

Things got worse when Howell posted a clarification. When Brady saw that many of those comments violated the paper's policy against the use of profanity or personal attacks, he blocked users' ability to post. The decision was widely criticized. In defense of his decision, Brady wrote that many of the posts weren't comments at all, but the kind of thing "you might find carved on the door of a public toilet stall."

I reminded Brady that many people feel strongly about their right to privacy online. He responded that he feels strongly about it too, but there are plenty of sites that take an anything-goes approach and that people who want to drop F-bombs and blast each other should go there. "We don't want our site to be sanitized, but we have the right to create a different kind of community," Brady said.

Brady also lamented that closing user accounts doesn't keep bad eggs off a site. They just come back and create new ones. He said that his site can identify someone's IP address, but it's not an elegant solution because blocking them can be tricky. "You don't want to end up blocking the entire Department of Energy or something like that," he said.

Pluck, a company that provides social-networking software, helps maintain some of the Post's blogs and has implemented a "bozo filter," which can isolate comments that include banned words or phrases, according to Brady.

But this isn't a solution. Brady believes that in the next five years people will be required to identify themselves in some way at many sites. "I don't know whether we do it with a credit card number, a driver's license or passport, but I think making people responsible would raise the level of discourse."

Greg Sandoval is a former Washington Post staff writer.

EveryBlock is in the hyper-niche news business.

Don't be misled by the name. EveryBlock doesn't endeavor to tell users what's happening on every block--just their blocks. Users can key in their ZIP codes or street addresses and EveryBlock tells them what's happening in their immediate area. They can learn about local crimes, which businesses have filed for liquor licenses, or whether any nearby streets are closed for construction.

Someone pilfer your laptop? EveryBlock links to lost-and-found Craigslist postings in your area.

EveryBlock offers the kind of information that typically isn't covered in a metropolitan or even a local newspaper. "The kind of information we provide is only news if you live near it," said Adrian Holovaty, the site's founder.

Holovaty, 27, earned some notoriety in 2005 for creating Chicagocrime.org, a mashup of Google maps and crime reports from the Chicago Police Department. For the past two years, Holovaty has worked for the digital unit of The Washington Post.

EveryBlock was born out of Holovaty's journalism background and his desire to improve upon Chicagocrime.org, he said.

Holovaty funded the project with a $1.1 million grant from the Knight Foundation, which promotes innovation in journalism. The site is currently only available in Chicago, San Francisco and New York, but Holovaty said he intends to expand as he's fined-tuned the service some more.

The site focuses on hard-to-find info from public records or data that didn't exist on the Web until posted on EveryBlock, Holovaty said. For example, anytime someone applies for a permit to do construction work on a San Francisco street, or to shoot a movie studio on Chicago's Michigan Avenue, EveryBlock gives users in those areas a heads up.

Since nothing of interest ever occurs in my San Francisco neighborhood (Sunset District), I chose to test EveryBlock with a coworker's hipper ZIP code (Mission).

First, because EveryBlock links to Flickr photos that have been "geocoded" to a particular point, I was led to a series of photo galleries. One included an interesting series on witty messages San Franciscans have scrawled in wet cement.

This was followed by a listing of 46 crimes in and around the neighborhood. Then came a link to a news story about a police car that crashed into a local liquor store and blog post about a man who attempted to holdup an area bar but was thwacked by patrons wielding pool cues.

Who wouldn't want to know that their local bar was the scene of this kind of neighborhood unity?

Google invited hundreds of folks, mostly from D.C.'s tech policy set, to nibble on hors d'oeuvres at the opening of its new Washington digs, which temporarily took on a nightclublike glow.

(Credit: Anne Broache/CNET News.com)

WASHINGTON--I now know the real reason why Google just moved its 20-person crew here into a 22,000-square-foot work space: to host sprawling, glowing parties, of course.

On Thursday night, a few hundred familiar faces in the technology policy scene--a slew of think tank, advocacy group, and trade association folks; abundant congressional staffers; a smattering of government officials; journalists and public-relations flacks--braved unrelenting sleet and rain to see the search giant's new downtown digs awash in dim lighting that changed from one rainbow hue to another as the hours passed.

Google employees, on the whole, may be overwhelmingly Democratic Party donors (excepting the runaway popularity of Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul), but this shindig turned out to be a bipartisan affair.

FCC Commissioner Deborah Taylor Tate, a Republican, was among the government officials who dropped by Google' D.C. kickoff party.

(Credit: Anne Broache/CNET News.com)

My party guest informants and I spotted at least four of the five Federal Communications Commission members ambling around--Republicans Kevin Martin, Robert McDowell, and Deborah Taylor Tate, and Democrat Jonathan Adelstein--with buzz, confirmed Friday morning, that Democrat Michael Copps also made an appearance.

We also noticed Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), a former chairman of the Consumer Electronics Association. (We press members weren't privy to a VIP reception before the real party got under way, but we heard that a handful of congressmen, including present and past House Judiciary Committee Chairmen John Conyers (D-Mich.) and James Sensenbrenner (R-Wisc.), showed up there.) D.C.'s chief technology officer, Vivek Kundra, showed up, but Democratic Mayor Adrian Fenty couldn't make it, as he was attending a somber candlelight vigil for a local tragedy involving the alleged murders of four children.

CEO Eric Schmidt, who'd been in town to speak to NASA officials, was on hand to offer a quick welcome speech to the partygoers and espouse the importance of his company's Washington presence, but we didn't see much of him after that. We glimpsed "Father of the Internet" turned-Google-executive Vint Cerf meeting and greeting too.

Among the offerings at Google's shindig: open bars, twisty straws in the company colors, and glowing cups bearing its logo.

(Credit: Anne Broache/CNET News.com)

The atmosphere that Google's enterprising party planners assembled was part ultralounge, part disco--minus the dancing, that is (this is D.C., and some things, like congregating in small clumps to swap business cards, are still sacred).

Conference tables had been moved out to make way for lounging furniture, though the dark-suited crowd seemed to prefer to stand, anyway. People nibbled from spreads of mini hamburgers, sushi, and coconut shrimp; downed made-to-order cocktails from glowing cups supplied by multiple open bars; and, for the road, plucked baseball caps and business card holders emblazoned with the company logo. With all the space, the event never felt particularly crowded. (For those keeping score at home, the entire Google office space actually measures 27,000 square feet, but for now, a 5,000-square-foot chunk is literally vacant, awaiting future hires. It came in handy Thursday night.)

Even the cubicle pod area, which was off-limits to anyone not getting a private tour from a badged employee, was decked out with paper ball lanterns. And about a dozen people at any given moment were trying out the D.C. 'plex's game room, which was open for rounds of ping pong, foosball, and Rock Band. (If you browsed our photo gallery earlier this week, you'll recall that it's also a favorite spot for Google employees to unwind on Friday afternoons.)

Others flocked to Nintendo Wii and Xbox consoles and stations, set up throughout the party space, where they could try out YouTube videos, Google Earth, and other company products projected onto facing walls.

The bash was noticeably thinning out by the time I departed, around 8:30 p.m. EST. The caterers had begun peddling the last of the miniature ice cream cones and thumb drive-size brownie-and-ice cream sandwiches, and the check-in table in the lobby had been dismantled. But even though the party had been scheduled to end by 8, some appeared content to sip their drinks and chatter away in the newest Googleplex until dawn.

Update at 8:48 a.m. PST: Editor-at-large Garrett Graff of Washingtonian magazine, which has covered a party or two in its day, deemed the soiree "the swankiest 'office' party Washington has seen in years." He also noted the presence of Washington Post Co. CEO Donald Graham--"not exactly a regular at these types of events," he wrote. Perhaps Graham was trying to soak up some of the secrets to Google's ad sales success by osmosis.

The Washington Post has backed off a story that erroneously accused the recording industry of trying to criminalize ripping CDs to a computer.

The Post issued a correction Saturday, more than a week after the paper triggered a wave of media coverage by claiming that the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) was trying to outlaw the very common practice of copying music from a CD onto a computer or iPod.

"A Dec. 30 Style and Arts column incorrectly said that the recording industry maintains that it is illegal for someone who has legally purchased a CD to transfer that music into his computer," the Post's correction reads. "In a copyright infringement lawsuit the industry's lawyer argued that the actions of an Arizona man, the defendant were illegal because the songs were located in a shared folder on his computer for distribution on a peer-to-peer network."

The reference to "shared folder" was key. In the Post's story, the writer quoted from a legal brief filed by the RIAA in the case of Jeffrey Howell, an Arizona man accused by recording companies of illegal file sharing. The author of the Post's story said that the RIAA maintained "that it is illegal for someone who has legally purchased a CD to transfer that music into his computer."

But anyone reading the brief will see that in all such references, the RIAA was arguing that it was illegal for someone to make copies and then distribute those copies over file-sharing networks.

Soon after the story appeared, several high-profile blogs, including Techdirt, Gizmodo, and Engadget, wrote that something was amiss.

Mike Masnick at Techdirt noted that other previous stories about the RIAA's legal brief had been debunked.

"Unfortunately (and for reasons unclear to me), the Washington Post has revived the story," Masnick wrote on Jan. 2. "That's simply not true."

Nonetheless, dozens of other media sites repeated the Post's claims. The Web was filled with headlines like "RIAA Goes After 'Personal Use' Doctrine," "We're All Thieves to the RIAA," and "RIAA Equates Ripping With Stealing."

In response to the Post's decision to correct the story, the RIAA issued a brief statement on Monday: "We appreciate that the Washington Post cleared the record."

Editor's note: Greg Sandoval is a former Washington Post staff writer.

An executive with the music industry's lobbying group engaged in a verbal sparring match on Thursday with the Washington Post columnist who alleges that the organization is trying to outlaw the practice of copying CDs to a computer.

National Public Radio hosted in on-air debate between Marc Fisher, the Post columnist, and Cary Sherman, president of the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA). The way I saw it, Fisher was ill advised to debate. What was exposed was a reporter who doesn't want to admit to making a mistake and has dug his heels in. Meanwhile, according to Sherman, Fisher has misled consumers.

Early in the debate, Fisher was on the defense as Sherman picked apart his story, which appeared on Sunday. In the piece Fisher quoted from a court document, filed in the case of an Arizona man accused by the RIAA of illegal file sharing. Fisher wrote that the quotes demonstrated that the lobbying group was now challenging the right of music fans to rip CDs to their computers.

Copying CDs to a computer or an iPod is common all over the world and if Fisher's claims were correct, the RIAA would be painting millions of people as criminals. The story became national news and scores of publications repeated Fisher's claims.

But as numerous bloggers and copyright experts have noted, the quotes cited by Fisher are incomplete. Fisher wrote that the RIAA had argued in the brief that MP3 files created from legally bought CDs are "unauthorized copies" and violate the law.

"The Post picked up one sentence in a 21-page brief and then picked the part of the sentence about ripping CDs onto the computer," Sherman said during the radio show. "(The Post) simply ignored the part of the sentence about putting them into a shared folder."

The "shared folder" omission is at the center of what's wrong with Fisher's story. Anyone who reads the brief can see that the RIAA says over and over again what it considers to be illegal activity: the distribution of music files via peer-to-peer networks.

Fisher didn't address this issue during the debate. Instead he moved on to testimony given by Jennifer Pariser, a Sony BMG lawyer, who said during an earlier court case: "when an individual makes a copy of a song for himself, I suppose we can say he stole a song."

This is when Sherman really went to work on Fisher's story.

"The Sony person who (Fisher) relies on actually misspoke in that trial," Sherman said. "I know because I asked her after stories started appearing. It turns out that she had misheard the question. She thought that this was a question about illegal downloading when it was actually a question about ripping CDs. That is not the position of Sony BMG. That is not the position of that spokesperson. That is not the position of the industry."

Sherman said that other reporters and bloggers had called about Pariser's quotes and chose not to write about them after learning she had erred.

Why wasn't Fisher offered this information? Well, he would have been had he spoken to anyone at the RIAA, Sherman said.

Prior to writing the story Fisher called the RIAA for a statement once and left a message, according to Sherman. When the RIAA's spokesman returned the call two hours later, he missed Fisher. But Fisher never called back to get the RIAA's statement even though the story wasn't published until nine days later.

It's customary for journalists to give the subject of a story a chance to be quoted--especially when they're slamming them.

Again, Fisher declined to address Sherman's accusations. He moved on to statements that appear on the RIAA's Web site, which he claims show that the group considers copying music to a computer as unlawful.

But Sherman suggested that Fisher was once again being selective with the RIAA's statements. Sherman showed the location on the site where the RIAA says that people can typically copy music for personal use without any problems.

"They go on to equivocate and say, 'Well, usually it won't raise concerns if you go ahead and transfer legally obtained music to your computer,'" Fisher said during the debate, "but they won't go all the way and say that it's a legal right."

Here was an opportunity for Sherman to declare once and for all that copying CDs for personal use is lawful. He stopped short of that, saying that copyright law is too complex to make such sweeping statements. He did state that there is one foolproof way of discovering the RIAA's policy on personal use: check the record.

"Not a single (legal) case has ever been brought (by the RIAA against someone for copying music for personal use)," Sherman said. "Not a single claim has ever been made."

In the final analysis, this is really a story about journalism ethics more than it is about technology. Fisher is a respected journalist who probably should remember one of the first things they teach cub reporters: when someone challenges you over a story, it's smart to think of worst-case scenarios.

Reporters are reminded to ask themselves whether they could defend everything they did during the reporting and writing process if ever sued? If the RIAA ever took the Post to court over the issue, Fisher might have to explain why he omitted important sections of the RIAA's legal brief. He would have to justify not trying harder to get RIAA comment.

If a reporter's work doesn't stand up, the typical remedy at most media organizations is to issue a correction. That's what the Post should do in this case.

Greg Sandoval is a former Washington Post staff writer.

It's late on Wednesday evening and the Washington Post has yet to correct a story that accused the recording industry of trying to paint law-abiding music fans as criminals.

But the paper should make things right and soon.

Marc Fisher, a Post columnist, wrote on Sunday that the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) asserted in a legal brief that anyone who copies music from a CD onto their computer is a thief. The document, filed last month, was part of the RIAA's copyright suit against Jeffrey Howell, an Arizona resident accused of illegal file sharing.

Quoting from the brief, Fisher wrote that the RIAA had argued that MP3 files created from legally bought CDs are "unauthorized copies" and violate the law. If it were true, the move would represent a major shift in strategy by the RIAA, which typically hasn't challenged an individual's right to copy CDs for personal use.

The problem with Fisher's story is that nowhere in the RIAA's brief does the group call someone a criminal for simply copying music to a computer. Throughout the 21-page brief, the recording industry defines what it considers to be illegal behavior and it boils down to this: creating digital recordings from CDs and then uploading them to file-sharing networks.

A sentence on page 15 of the brief clearly spells out the RIAA's position: "Once (Howell) converted plaintiff's recording into the compressed MP3 format and they are in his shared folder, they are no longer the authorized copies distributed by Plaintiff."

The key words there are "shared folder" and it's an important distinction. It means that before the RIAA considers someone a criminal, a person has to at least appear to be distributing music.

The Post story, which followed similar pieces in Ars Technica and Wired.com, has spurred scores of other media outlets to repeat the paper's erroneous assertion. Ironically, even typically anti-RIAA blogs, such as Engadget, Gizmodo and TechDirt have jumped in on the side of the RIAA.

"The Washington Post story is wrong," said Jonathan Lamy, an RIAA spokesman. "As numerous commentators have since discovered after taking the time to read our brief, the record companies did not allege that ripping a lawfully acquired CD to a computer or transferring a copy to an MP3 player is infringement. This case is about the illegal distribution of copyrighted songs on a peer-to-peer network, not making copies of legally acquired music for personal use."

After reading Lamy's statement, Fisher didn't back down.

He responded in an e-mail to CNET News.com: "The bottom line is that there is a disconnect between RIAA's publicly stated policy that making a personal copy of a CD is ok and the theory advanced by its lawyers that in fact, transferring music to your computer is an unauthorized act."

He took one more shot before signing off: "Rather than suing its customers and slamming reporters, the RIAA might better spend its energies focusing on winning back the trust of an alienated consumer base."

Still, Fisher received little support from respected and independent copyright experts. William Patry, the copyright guru at Google--not exactly known as a lackey for copyright holders--wrote on his blog that the RIAA is being "unfairly maligned" in the Post story.

Patry does, however, caution that recent statements made by the RIAA and included in Fisher's story reflect the group's growing tendency to use language as a means of control.

Fisher quoted Sony BMG's chief of litigation, Jennifer Pariser, who testified recently in court that "when an individual makes a copy of a song for himself, I suppose we can say he stole a song."

Patry disagreed.

"This new rhetoric of 'everything anyone does without (RIAA) permission is stealing' is well worth noting and well worth challenging at every occasion," Patry wrote. "It is the rhetoric of copyright as an ancient property right, permitting copyright owners to control all uses as a natural right; the converse is that everyone else is an immoral thief."

Greg Sandoval is a former Washington Post staff writer.

There's already a federal indictment of a woman accused of running a call girl ring in Washington D.C. A deputy secretary of state, Randall Tobias, has resigned. Tobias admits to using the services of Pamela Martin & Associates only for back rubs. Deborah Palfrey, the woman who ran Pamela Martin services, is gaining some notoriety in the blogosphere.

Palfrey is threatening to call many prominent D.C. men into court to testify on her behalf. Clearly, Tobias would happily back up Palfrey's claim that her service was about massage and fantasy, not prostitution.

So where are the names? ABC News was apparently given all of Palfrey's phone records from years of transactions in Washington. Yet so far ABC has only hinted about the men found in those records. ABC does say a Bush administration economist, a prominent CEO, some military officials, lobbyists and the head of a conservative think tank are on the list. There are two things to keep in mind: First, ABC wants to carefully confirm names and phone numbers.

Second, the May ratings period began April 26 and ends May 23. The more public curiosity about the names, the bigger the ratings when ABC does finally release them. There are numerous e-mails from ABCNews.com readers asking for the names; inquiring e-mailers want to know. Sadly for Internet users, most of the names will appear on TV before they appear on the ABC Web site. ABC's TV profits are still far greater than what they make off the Internet. Bet we see most of the best big names before May 23.