March 28, 2017

No Image

Today in Movie Culture: 'Justice League' Easter Eggs, Deadpool Parodies 'Ghost in the Shell' and More

Here are a bunch of little bites to satisfy your hunger for movie culture:

Easter Eggs of the Day:

Mr. Sunday Movies shows us all the Easter eggs and other things we might have missed in the new Justice League trailer:

[embedded content]

Movie Poster Parody of the Day:

Deadpool has hijacked another movie’s poster, this time Ghost in the Shell, helped by BossLogic:

Continuing the #ThisIsAPosterJacking series #BreakThe4thWall@deadpoolmovie@VancityReynolds@robertliefeldpic.twitter.com/LrbnGw7kWX

— BossLogic (@Bosslogic) March 28, 2017

Movie Science of the Day:

Speaking of Ghost in the Shell, MatPat of The Film Theorists looks at the science of the movie and how people can live forever:

[embedded content]

Supercut of the Day:

Do you already miss Hugh Jackman’s Wolverine? Well, here’s a supercut of him slashing through 17 years of X-Men movies (via Geek Tyrant):

[embedded content]

Movie Food of the Day:

The latest episode of Binging with Babish shows us how to make the Cubano sandwiches from Chef:

[embedded content]

Vintage Image of the Day:

Dianne Wiest, who was born on this day in 1948, with Mia Farrow, Barbara Hershey and Woody Allen, who directs the women for a scene in Hannah and Her Sisters in 1984:

Movie Takedown of the Day:

Honest Trailers has trouble finding any magic in the Harry Potter spinoff Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them:

[embedded content]

Blooper Reel of the Day:

Whether you like Passengers or not, you should enjoy Chris Pratt and Jennifer Lawrence goofing around on set:

[embedded content]

Film History Lesson of the Day:

John P. Hess of Filmmaker IQ details the history of the blockbuster copycat, or “mockbuster,” in this informative video:

[embedded content]

Classic Trailer of the Day:

Today is the 40th anniversary of the London premiere of Terry Gilliam’s Jabberwocky. Watch the original trailer for the fantasy classic below.

[embedded content]

and

Let’s block ads! (Why?)


No Image

Wage Deal Averts Threatened Boycott By U.S. Women's Hockey Team

U.S. women’s national hockey team captain Meghan Duggan, seen playing in the 2014 Olympics, says her teammates have won a better pay deal, averting a boycott of the world championships.

Mark Humphrey/AP

hide caption

toggle caption

Mark Humphrey/AP

USA Hockey says it has a pay deal with players on the women’s team, averting a threatened boycott of the world championships, which start Friday near Detroit.

Before the agreement team captain Meghan Duggan told NPR’s All Things Considered that she and her teammates were paid poorly:

“USA Hockey pays us, as the women’s players, only during a six-month period of time out of the four-year Olympic cycle. During that six months, USA Hockey pays the players $1,000 a month for a six-month period. The remaining three and a half years, USA Hockey pays the players virtually nothing.”

The players said Tuesday that they now have a four-year agreement that pays players outside the six months before the Olympics. Duggan said players “stood up for what we thought was right and USA Hockey’s leadership listened,” according to the Associated Press.

The women have been very successful despite the low pay, reports the Two-Way’s Camila Domonoske:

“The existing U.S. national team is a dominant player in women’s ice hockey — they’ve medaled in all five Olympic Games that featured women’s hockey and won the world championships seven times since 2000. (Over the same time frame, the men won two Olympic and two World Championship silvers.) …

“Approximately half of the national team players hold ‘second or third jobs,’ according to a press release from the lawyers representing the team.

“Players on the men’s national team can also play on the NHL — where the minimum salary is more than half a million dollars. The NWHL, meanwhile, recently slashed its salaries, which were $10,000-$26,000 before the pay reduction.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)


No Image

As Congress Repeals Internet Privacy Rules, Putting Your Options In Perspective

Both chambers of the U.S. Congress have voted to overturn the Federal Communications Commission’s privacy rules for Internet service providers.

Stefan Zaklin/Getty Images

hide caption

toggle caption

Stefan Zaklin/Getty Images

President Trump is expected to sign into law a decision by Congress to overturn new privacy rules for Internet service providers.

Passed by the Federal Communications Commission in October, the rules never went into effect. If they had, it would have given consumers more control over how ISPs use the data they collect. Most notably, the rules would have required explicit consent from consumers if sensitive data — like financial or health information, or browsing history — were to be shared or sold.

These rules wouldn’t have applied to the likes of Google or Facebook — massive data collectors and digital advertisers — and that’s been a major point of contention for ISPs. But consumer groups argue that’s no reason to roll back restrictions on Internet providers. Plus, they point out, you could abandon those companies in favor of other websites, if you disagree with their policies; switching Internet providers is not so easy.

ISPs have long attempted to break into the ad-targeting and online marketing world, where the competition is intense. For context on what that market looks like, I turned to Jules Polonetsky, privacy expert and CEO of the Future of Privacy Forum, a nonprofit organization promoting responsible data collection.

Below are excerpts of the interview, edited for clarify and length.


Interview Highlights

On what’s going on and what changes

For the average consumer, just about every site they visit online is sharing data with other ad networks, with other third parties, for the purpose of either measuring or targeting ads. … Even most privacy organizations end up using Google Analytics or some other basic tools. …

For better or worse, the predominant business model online has become ad-supported. … So for the average user, the experience isn’t likely to change one way or another — today they see ads targeted based on their activity; tomorrow they’ll see ads based on their activity.

Now, what choices people have maybe has gotten a little bit more complicated. … ISPs have historically played a very small role in (the ad targeting) market for a range of reasons. The most interesting and valuable data is search, social media data — and that is typically only available to the big portals that have that data. The ISPs don’t have it if it’s encrypted.

… The big challenge for big advertisers is that their audience is dispersed across laptop, and mobile, and tablet, and TV and elsewhere. And linking that user’s identity is a challenge. … And this is a place where ISPs are able to play a role. … They now have something to offer — cross-device capabilities — that others can do, but others have to do it differently. …

On existing opt-out options

The ad networks of the world offer an opt-out of ad targeting today. If there’s a triangle ‘i’ on your banner ad, that means that that company is tailoring ads based on your Web surfing and is offering you an opt-out.

Mobile devices offer a bunch of options to allow or not allow information about apps to be used. My iPhone lets me clear my ad ID if I don’t want apps to be able to track me or work with their ad network partners to track me. … Apps don’t support cookies, but the ad ID supplied by the operating system — Apple now lets you wipe that out, Google lets you reset it. So that’s a pretty effective opt-out system for apps at least. Use of location, similarly.

On ISPs’ argument that Google, Facebook, et al. are collecting more data and yet have less stringent regulation

For better or worse, online data has been democratized and there are third-party ad exchanges where anybody can show up and have access to a big swath of your Web surfing.

The BlueKai Bluebook, which is provided to potential advertisers, has 80 sources of data where Oracle’s BlueKai data exchange has linked together data from Web surfing, from offline purchases, from all sorts of providers who have pulled data about you that they have online. …

So I’ve kind of looked at some of this debate with a bit of bemusement because I see the activity in these third-party data markets and that horse is out of that barn. I think for consumers who a more privacy-protective experience, there are a number of options, none of them are perfect — other than, perhaps using a VPN, which may not be easy for everyone to use. …

The good news that an increasing amount of the activity online is encrypted, due to lots of advocacy. … Increasingly, much of what you do is shielded from third parties because of encryption in place.

The ISPs typically — in their efforts to use this data even before this (FCC) rule — have been providing consumers with ISP-level opt-outs. … People should look for emails — typically they do push out an announcement when they roll out an ad-targeting program.

On the regulatory oversight of privacy

The FTC has generally been the lead privacy enforcer, and I think has been very aggressive at doing so. If you look at the recent Vizio case, they were able to take very strong action against sharing of your viewing history. …

At the end of the day, the willingness of the FCC and the FTC to use their authority effectively is what will determine whether the consumers are protected. The FCC (has in the past) used even its high-level authority very aggressively, and the FTC certainly historically has. We obviously don’t know exactly how the new chairs will. …

On how ISPs’ data collection compares to that of Google, Facebook and others

The ad networks of the world typically share, swap and trade data via various exchanges. Google and Facebook have policies that to some degree use your data for ad targeting, but may limit the further use of it. For instance, Facebook does not want your Facebook data being shared — they’d like advertisers to come to Facebook to (place) ads on Facebook.

That may be a nuance because … to a consumer, data being used to tailor their experience is probably what makes a difference — whether it’s being sold or used in a way that tracks and targets them.

So theimplementations that we see in the market of ISPs have focused on allowing the ISP to help ad network partners to do a better job of recognizing users. …

I think at the end of the day, for consumers, it ends up being parsing hairs. So the question is … do the sites I visit get information that allows ads to be targeted based on other information about me? And that information isn’t just Web browsing — a big part of ad-targeting today involves pinging on offline data, my actual purchases at a supermarket, my actual transactions. …

So what the advertisers are often looking to do is to work with partners who are able to put them and their offers in front the users they want to reach. Sometimes, that’s “here’s the Web browsing history,” which they can get from an exchange, or they can get by going on one of the big portals, or presumably they’ll be able to get by going to ISPs.

The market doesn’t think about it in terms of selling data — the market thinks about it in terms of “how does an advertiser find the audience that it thinks it wants.” … And different providers in the market will create those audiences.

On what users can do to restrict or entirely limit their data from being collected

It pays to opt out of the behavioral advertising, when you see that triangle ‘i’ because thousands of companies will at least not target you — they may still be collecting data, but they’re not gonna be tailoring the ads that you see.

I think turning on Do-Not-Track on your browser, despite the fact that only a small number of companies respect it — a significant number of companies like Twitter, Medium and others do respect it. … Choosing encrypted tools when you use email or make decisions about what sites and services (to use) — far less information about what you do during the day is going to be available.

For the changes that have been made today, those tools are going to be effective, because the uses that the ISPs are likely to be interested are, frankly, these tailoring and targeting uses — and so (these tools) for most people are going to be reasonable. They’re not going to promise you absolute privacy, but neither would have the FCC rule. …

If you’re really looking to disengage from the commercial world, it’s hard to take advantage of much of the Web without being fairly technically savvy. … If today’s vote allows ISPs broader latitude with how they can use data, primarily for advertising and marketing uses, most of these tools will turn off those functions. And consumers should look for the options that the ISPs should offer in addition.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)


No Image

Through Regulation, Trump Could Dismantle Parts Of Obamacare

NPR’s Ari Shapiro talks with Sarah Kliff of Vox about how Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price could dismantle parts of the Affordable Care Act through regulations.

ARI SHAPIRO, HOST:

Now that the Republican health care bill is dead, President Trump says his plan is to let Obamacare explode. There are lots of ways his administration can chip away at the Affordable Care Act, which is the official name for Obamacare.

Sarah Kliff covers health policy for vox.com. And she has made a list of things the administration could do by itself to undermine the system.

Welcome to the program.

SARAH KLIFF: Thanks for having me.

SHAPIRO: First, is the Affordable Care Act already exploding, or does it require Republicans taking steps to make the system fail?

KLIFF: I don’t think it’s exploding. It’s not performing as well as Democrats would like. It certainly has its problems. But it is working. It’s covering about 20 million people. But there are certainly policy decisions the Trump administration will need to make that will really determine if it goes into explosion mode like Trump is predicting.

SHAPIRO: You’ve listed more than a dozen policy decisions the administration can or will have to make. In your opinion, what would be the single most consequential one that could undermine the Affordable Care Act?

KLIFF: So right now there is this lawsuit pending over Obamacare’s cost-sharing reductions. These are payment to insurance companies to offset the co-pays and deductibles for especially low-income Obamacare enrollees. The…

SHAPIRO: You’re talking about people who don’t make a lot of money, who get coverage under the insurance exchanges, get basically underwritten by the government.

KLIFF: Exactly. So these are people who earn maybe $20,000 or so a year. And if the co-pay is normally $10, they might pay a $3 co-pay because the government is paying the other $7.

There is a lawsuit right now brought by House Republicans saying that these cost-sharing reductions are illegal. The biggest thing the Trump administration could do right now to undermine the Affordable Care Act is just stop defending the lawsuit, to say, we agree with House Republicans; they’re illegal. And that would wipe out a $7 billion fund that provides these cost-sharing reductions to low-income Americans.

SHAPIRO: You write that the Trump administration could stop enforcing the individual mandate, the requirement that everybody have health insurance. Didn’t President Trump sign an executive order basically saying this when he first took office?

KLIFF: Not exactly. So he did sign an executive order that told the whole Trump administration to get rid of whatever regulations, whatever mandates you can. Just try and cut them out.

The hard thing about the individual mandate is it’s part of the Affordable Care Act. You can’t really get rid of it entirely through regulation. But what the Trump administration can do is essentially change the rules around the individual mandate.

They could say, the fine seems to be too onerous, so we are going to scale it back this year, or we’re going to create more exemptions from the mandates so fewer people have to pay.

So they do want to get rid of the mandate. But what they need to do next if they’re going to do that is write the rules around the mandate and essentially clarify if they’re going to enforce it or not.

SHAPIRO: Also on this list of ways the Trump administration could undermine the Affordable Care Act, there has been a lot of debate about essential health benefits. Those are 10 categories of services that insurers must cover under the Affordable Care Act, like maternity or pediatric care. What would it look like if the Trump administration decided to narrow the definition of these services?

KLIFF: So you would have much skimpier health insurance plans. Things like you mentioned, Ari, maternity care, for example, used to not be covered in most individual market plans. The Trump administration is a little bit restricted on how much it can do on the essential health benefits here. They’re actually written into law. So in the Affordable Care Act, it says that all insurance plans must cover maternity care, these other sets of 9 benefits.

But we’re waiting to see right now, do they think there are things they can do through regulation to narrow that down or narrow down within maternity care – for example, what counts as covering maternity care? – or turn more of a blind eye towards health insurance plans that aren’t covering those benefits.

SHAPIRO: Can you give us an example of, for example, if they scaled back maternity care, what that might look like?

KLIFF: Yeah, so they might take out, like, certain prenatal benefits, for example. Or they might try and target certain services related to breastfeeding after birth. So right now we don’t really know. We haven’t seen a proposal from the Trump administration.

But what they could do is say that fewer services count as coverage, essentially, to say, you know, as long as you’re covering the actual delivery, that counts as maternity care. And we won’t make you cover all the rest of the things associated with the pregnancy.

SHAPIRO: If we imagine the Trump administration doing everything within its power to undermine the Affordable Care Act, how significant will the likely impact be? Could the administration basically make Obamacare fail by implementing all these changes?

KLIFF: I think so. If they put them all together, if we take together, for example, not defending the cost-sharing subsidies, not advertising the marketplaces, scaling back the essential health benefits however they can through regulation, not trying to get more insurers into the market, I think you would definitely see some marketplaces collapse.

One of the things that’s important to remember about Obamacare is it really varies a lot state by state. You have states like California that has a very active board running its marketplace. They’ll be fine. They will make this work because they want to make it work. But you have big, rural states, like Alaska and Tennessee and a lot of states in the South, that could teeter into collapse if you make the policy decisions that are generally going to decrease enrollment and make insurance companies less excited to be part of the marketplace.

SHAPIRO: Sarah Kliff is senior policy correspondent at Vox. Thanks for joining us.

KLIFF: Thank you.

Copyright © 2017 NPR. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use and permissions pages at www.npr.org for further information.

NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by Verb8tm, Inc., an NPR contractor, and produced using a proprietary transcription process developed with NPR. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)