When Melissa Harris-Perry refused to host her eponymous MSNBC talk show in late February, she said she was stepping back because over the past few weeks she had been “silenced.” Shortly afterward, she and her network confirmed they had parted ways.

From the start, Harris-Perry and her employers had very different explanations for why things went south. Harris-Perry said her show was being undermined; MSNBC says it, like other shows, was temporarily affected by the election season.

The talk show host described her perspective in a letter to colleagues that was later posted on Medium. As the Two-Way reported at the time:

“In the letter, Harris explains why she objects to hosting … after weeks of having her show preempted “without comment or discussion or notice,” she says:

” ‘After four years of building an audience, developing a brand, and developing trust with our viewers, we were effectively and utterly silenced. Now, MSNBC would like me to appear for four inconsequential hours to read news that they deem relevant without returning to our team any of the editorial control and authority that makes MHP Show distinctive.

… Perry also described the ‘insulting absurdity’ of her exclusion from MSNBC’s election coverage, alleging that she was traveling for the election season just like other MSNBC journalists — even staying in the same hotels — but wasn’t included on air.”

On All Things Considered today, NPR’s David Folkenflik provides some context for the dispute:

“Under new NBC News President Andy Lack, the cable network shifted toward a newsier sensibility — as though, during the daytime, it was NBC News on cable. Several liberal opinion shows went by the wayside, though prime-time stayed the same.

“MSNBC rebranded itself the place for politics and has won stronger daytime ratings as a result. Melissa Harris-Perry says she didn’t want to be another political anchor reading the latest polls.”

David spoke both to the host and to MSNBC President Phil Griffin. Where Harris-Perry saw a change in direction, away from questions of racial and social justice and toward “horse-race coverage,” Griffin describes a temporary impact of rolling election coverage.

Many shows on MSNBC were affected by the election coverage, Griffin said, and Harris-Perry’s show was safe.

“We had a four-year relationship with Melissa where we created this really terrific program that we loved and that brought different voices and was really part of the MSNBC sensibility,” he told David.

Harris-Perry had objections beyond election-year scheduling shifts, David reports.

“It appears to be an air that is now more homogenous, less concerned with questions of racial and social justice, and less interested in highlighting a variety of concerns that shows like mine and others had been quite focused on over the last couple of years,” she said,

She also said she believed MSNBC officials had failed to publicly support her during periods of public criticism.

You can hear the full story on All Things Considered.

This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service – if this is your content and you’re reading it on someone else’s site, please read the FAQ at fivefilters.org/content-only/faq.php#publishers.

Download

This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service – if this is your content and you’re reading it on someone else’s site, please read the FAQ at fivefilters.org/content-only/faq.php#publishers.

A jury awarded Fox sportscaster Erin Andrews $55 million Monday in a civil lawsuit she filed against a Nashville Marriott hotel after a stalker filmed her nude through her door’s peephole in 2008.

The video was put online, where it was viewed millions of times, and Andrews sued the hotel and the stalker for $75 million for negligence, emotional distress and invasion of privacy.

The man who recorded her, Michael Barrett, admitted stalking Andrews and was sentenced to 2 1/2 years in prison. He confessed that he arranged with the hotel to stay in the room next to hers and altered the peephole in order to record her nude.

The defense team argued that Andrews’ career had improved because of the video. The Chicago Tribune writes:

“The defense team’s flawed premise in this case is basically that women in sports broadcasting are commonly sexualized, so of course Andrews would benefit from being exposed like this.”

Andrews, meanwhile, countered that the video could make a mockery of her career. She testified in court, saying tearfully that the incident has negatively impacted her life.

“I feel so ashamed,” she said in her testimony. “This happens every day of my life. Either I get a tweet, or somebody makes a comment in the paper, or somebody sends me a still of the video to my Twitter, or somebody screams it at me in the stands. And I’m right back to this.”

This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service – if this is your content and you’re reading it on someone else’s site, please read the FAQ at fivefilters.org/content-only/faq.php#publishers.

Raymond Tomlinson, the inventor of modern email and selector of the “@” symbol, has died.

Raytheon Co., his employer, on Sunday confirmed his death; the details were not immediately available.

Email existed in a limited capacity before Tomlinson in that electronic messages could be shared amid multiple people within a limited framework. But until his invention in 1971 of the first network person-to-person email, there was no way to send something to a specific person at a specific address.

The first email was sent on the ARPANET system, a computer network that was created for the U.S. government that is considered a precursor to the Internet. Tomlinson also contributed to its development.

At the time, few people had personal computers. The popularity of personal email wouldn’t take off until years later but has become an integral part of modern life.

“It wasn’t an assignment at all, he was just fooling around; he was looking for something to do with ARPANET,” Raytheon spokeswoman Joyce Kuzman said of his creation of network email.

Tomlinson once said in a company interview that he created email “mostly because it seemed like a neat idea.” The first email was sent between two machines that were side-by-side, according to that interview.

He said the test messages were “entirely forgettable and I have, therefore, forgotten them.” But when he was satisfied that the program seemed to work, he announced it via his own invention by sending a message to co-workers explaining how to use it.

Tomlinson chose the “@” symbol to connect the username with the destination address and it has now become a cultural icon.

Why that symbol? Kuzman said Tomlinson was looking at the keyboard and needed something that would not otherwise be part of the address and that seemed to be a logical solution.

“It is a symbol that probably would have gone away if not for email,” she said.
MoMA’s Department of Architecture and Design added the symbol into its collection in 2010, with credits to Tomlinson.

Tomlinson held electrical engineering degrees from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Tomlinson was an inductee to the Internet Hall of Fame and recipient of numerous awards and accolades but was described as humble and modest.

“People just loved to work with him,” Kuzman said. “He was so patient and generous with his time … He was just a really nice, down-to-earth, good guy.”

Tomlinson was hired by Bolt Beranek and Newman, known as BBN, in 1967. It was later acquired by Raytheon Co., where he still worked at the time of his death, as a principal scientist.

He lived in Lincoln, Massachusetts where he raised miniature sheep. Attempts to contact his family were unsuccessful.

While more general email protocols were later developed and adopted, Tomlinson’s contributions were never forgotten.

“He was pretty philosophical about it all,” Kuzman said. “And was surprisingly not addicted to email.”

This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service – if this is your content and you’re reading it on someone else’s site, please read the FAQ at fivefilters.org/content-only/faq.php#publishers.

Download

This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service – if this is your content and you’re reading it on someone else’s site, please read the FAQ at fivefilters.org/content-only/faq.php#publishers.

With a July 1 deadline looming, Congress was scrambling this week to quickly set a national standard for labeling food products that contain genetically modified ingredients.

While most lawmakers mentioned polls showing the majority of Americans support GMO labeling, they differed on whether a national system should be voluntary or mandatory. A measure passed in the U.S. House last summer sets voluntary labeling standards.

The first mandatory GMO labeling law is set to go into effect in Vermont in July – Kansas Republican Sen. Pat Roberts has called it a “wrecking ball” headed the food industry’s way. Roberts, the chair of the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee, won first-round approval on Tuesday for his own GMO labeling bill – which would preempt Vermont’s law.

Roberts’ bill would create a voluntary USDA labeling standard for GMO foods. Perhaps more importantly, it specifically prevents states from creating their own labeling standards.

The labeling issue has created a conundrum for lawmakers. They must weigh the competing interests of activists who want more transparency in the food system, industrial agriculture, and large food companies, while also maneuvering the always-tricky issue of state rights. Pro-GMO forces worry that such labels would inherently imply that something is wrong with these foods.

Given the complicated dynamics involved, Sen. Heidi Heitkamp, a North Dakota Democrat, chastised her fellow committee members for passing the Roberts bill “in a pretty cavalier way.” Although she, too, voted for the measure, Heitkamp worried that the committee had essentially voted to “preempt a state law.” As she put it, lawmakers were telling Americans “we know better than they do” about their right to know what’s in their food.

“That’s a tough sell,” Heitkamp told her colleagues. “It’s a tough sell in a political environment where people think that Washington, D.C., doesn’t listen to them.”

Roberts’ bill now moves to the Senate floor, but he doesn’t believe he has the 60 votes needed to get it passed, so a compromise will have to be crafted.

Earlier this year, U.S. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack oversaw negotiations on labeling rules between organic companies and conventional food manufacturers. But those talks broke down, and Vilsack said the issue is now in the hands of Congress.

Meanwhile, a competing labeling measure popped up this week: Democratic Sen. Jeff Merkley of Oregon introduced a bill that would make it mandatory for companies to disclose GMO ingredients as part of nutrition facts labels.

Campbell Soup Co., which announced in January that it would begin disclosing GMO ingredients on its products, applauded Merkley’s bill via Twitter.

“Provides clear & consistent info consumers seek,” the Tweet reads.

A fourth potential plan, a possible compromise from Sen. Joe Donnelly, an Indiana Democrat, was offered as an amendment during the ag committee meeting this week. It would create a voluntary disclosure program, which could become mandatory in three years if less than 85 percent of companies were listing GMO ingredients.

Donnelly characterized his plan as setting “ambitious goals” for companies to be more transparent.

“Instead of pitting conventional farmers versus organic [farmers], or concerned parents versus biotech companies, we need to quickly enact legislation that ensures consumers can get the information they want, without sticking misleading labels on every food product,” he told the committee.

This issue wasn’t so controversial in the House, where a voluntary labeling measure — sponsored by Kansas Republican Rep. Mike Pompeo — passed easily last July on a bipartisan vote of 275-150.

That both bills seeking a voluntary labeling system were sponsored by Republicans based in Midwest farm country shouldn’t come as a surprise. The majority of crops grown in the U.S. have been genetically engineered. According to the USDA, in 2015, 94 percent of soybean acreage and 92 percent of corn acreage are GE seeds.

And most of the large farm groups support Roberts’ bill, including the National Corn Growers and the American Soybean Association.

On the other side of the issue are environmentalists like Food & Water Watch and a group called Just Label It. They call Roberts’ and Pompeo’s bills the “Deny Americans the Right to Know” or DARK Act.

Peggy Lowe is investigations editor for Harvest Public Media and KCUR.

This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service – if this is your content and you’re reading it on someone else’s site, please read the FAQ at fivefilters.org/content-only/faq.php#publishers.

Apple’s legal battle with the FBI over iPhone encryption continues: A federal magistrate, at the FBI’s request, has ordered the tech giant to write software to help investigators circumvent iPhone security features to access a phone used by one of the San Bernardino shooters. Apple is fighting the order, calling it dangerous, illegal and unconstitutional.

Today was the deadline for amicus briefs, or “friend of the court” filings in the case.

Some big names are throwing their weight behind Apple — Intel and AT&T have filed briefs, as well as Google, Facebook, Amazon, Microsoft, Snapchat, Box, Slack and Yahoo.

Relatives of some of the victims of the San Bernardino shooting, meanwhile, have filed to support the federal government’s position. Several law enforcement associations also oppose Apple, according to the Department of Justice.

The briefs filed on behalf of Apple (which have been shared by the company) reveal a wide swath of concerns affected by the question of smartphone security.

Here’s a sampling:

The Risk To Dissidents’ Lives

International human rights and technology nonprofit Access Now, along with Wickr Foundation, a nonprofit group affiliated with the messaging app Wickr, looked at the international implications, particularly the risk for dissidents facing oppressive governments:

“Deliberately compromised digital security would undermine human rights around the globe. Pursuant to international law, the United States has a duty to foster basic human rights such as freedom of expression and privacy. The assistance sought by the government not only diminishes the commitment of the United States to uphold those fundamental rights in the digital age, but also keeps Apple from fulfilling its own responsibilities to respect the human rights of users.

“Technology and connectivity have empowered millions around the world to demand social and political change — but criminals and authoritarian regimes exploit the same technology to identify and persecute protesters, democracy activists, bloggers and journalists. In some countries, reliable security tools such as encryption can be the difference between life and death. The relief sought by the government endangers people globally who depend on robust digital security for their physical safety and wellbeing.”

Infringement On Safety, Unraveling Of Trust

A group of individual security experts, represented by lawyers from the Stanford Law School Center for Internet and Society, described what they saw as a threat to public safety. The group — including Stanford cryptography professor Dan Boneh, independent researcher (and former NSA employee) Charlie Miller, and security expert Bruce Schneier, among others — described a practical risk (the technology could be used on other phones), a future risk (a precedent set for risky cybersecurity bypasses) and damage to public trust in software updates.

The last item, they said, represented a concrete threat — not just a change in feelings:

“Regular, silent, automatic updates are crucial for software security. The belief that such an update could be spyware that a company was forced by the government to sign and distribute might lead people to turn off automatic updates. This would render software patches less effective and the general public less secure.”

The Rights And Needs Of Users

The American Civil Liberties Union highlighted the rights of Americans and what it identified as disproportionate impact on the poor:

“While the government can in some circumstances require private parties to support law-enforcement investigations—for example, by requiring them to produce relevant evidence or give truthful testimony—the government does not hold the general power to enlist private third parties as its investigative agents to seek out information they do not possess or control. In other words, law enforcement may not commandeer innocent third parties into becoming its undercover agents, its spies, or its hackers. …

“If the government prevails, then this case will be the first of many requiring companies to degrade the security and to undermine the trust in their products so essential to privacy in the digital age. For the many users who rely on digital devices to secure their information and communications, including members of vulnerable populations who rely on mobile devices to access the Internet, this burden would be severe.”

The Nature Of The Internet — And Our Lives

A coalition of Internet-centric companies — including Airbnb, eBay, reddit and Twitter — got a little philosophical, arguing that the FBI’s request “threatens the core principles of privacy, security, and transparency that underlie the fabric of the Internet.”

Questions of privacy are personal, their filing says:

“An ever growing range of services delivered to devices as diverse as mobile phones, tablets, computers, appliances, and cars have become an increasingly important and integral part of our daily lives, in ways that could never have been envisioned as recently as five or ten years ago. These services provide the ability to communicate with friends, family, colleagues, external advisers and the world at large; to share and read live news from around the world or in-depth works of commentary and expression; and to engage in commerce whether shopping online, starting a business, or planning your next vacation or tonight’s dinner. In sum, today the devices and the software that power them touch every aspect of our lives.”

The Future Of Devices

A group of trade associations from the tech industry objected that the government’s demand would “effectively dictate product design” — not just affecting users’ security immediately but laying the groundwork for altered products well into the future.

That could be bad for users, if privacy is weakened — and bad for law enforcement, the associations suggest, if companies are pushed into an arms race to try to make ever more impossible-to-unlock devices.

The Cost To Businesses

ACT/The App Association, which represents software companies, focused on the burdens the government’s request would place on developers.

It also made an argument that will be familiar to anyone who has groaned in frustration after installing a brand-new software update:

“[T]he Government’s position borders on the absurd in the context of software development. Not only are the burdens imposed extraordinary (i.e., diverting resources from company’s actual business to being a tool of government), but the goals the Government seeks to achieve are far from assured. As any computer user knows, many software patches, which are far more basic than what the Government seeks to compel here, fail to fix problems, make other things worse, or simply necessitate more patches.”

Standing With The Investigators

On the other side of the question, attorney Stephen Larson who represents some family members of some of the victims killed in San Bernardino sided with the FBI, saying the phone could reveal a possible accomplice. The Los Angeles Times reports:

“The 41-page amicus brief includes a letter from Mark Sandfeur, whose son was slain in the conference room where Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik opened fire on Dec. 2, 2015.

” ‘Recovery of information from the iPhone in question may not lead to anything new. But, what if there is evidence pointing to a third shooter? What if it leads to an unknown terrorist cell?” Sanfeur wrote in a letter to Apple Inc. Chief Executive Tim Cook that was included in the brief. ‘What if others are attacked, and you and I did nothing to prevent it?’ “

This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service – if this is your content and you’re reading it on someone else’s site, please read the FAQ at fivefilters.org/content-only/faq.php#publishers.

Download

This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service – if this is your content and you’re reading it on someone else’s site, please read the FAQ at fivefilters.org/content-only/faq.php#publishers.

The U.S. Postal Service is in dire financial straits. If the price of stamps goes down as scheduled in April, it could cost the already hemorrhaging post office $2 billion per year, according to a statement released by USPS.

The planned cost reduction from 49 cents to 47 cents marks the expiration of legislation passed in 2014 that raised the price of stamps for two years in order to ease the post office’s financial woes. The law imposed an “exigent surcharge for mailing products and services,” which raised the price of stamps by three cents to help USPS raise $4.6 billion in revenue. (If the price of stamps does drop in April, the Postal Service will get to keep a one cent increase to account for inflation.)

The Postal Service is desperate for Congress to maintain current stamp prices.

“The exigent surcharge granted to the Postal Service last year only partially alleviated our extreme multi-year revenue declines resulting from the Great Recession, which exceeded $7 billion in 2009 alone,” Postmaster General and CEO Megan J. Brennan said in the statement. “Removing the surcharge and reducing our prices is an irrational outcome considering the Postal Service’s precarious financial condition.”

According to CNN Money, the last time stamp prices fell was 97 years ago in July 1919, when first-class stamp prices dropped from three cents to two cents.

This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service – if this is your content and you’re reading it on someone else’s site, please read the FAQ at fivefilters.org/content-only/faq.php#publishers.

Consider this: Frank Lloyd Wright was a procrastinator. Google founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin are afraid of taking risks. Most of Beethoven’s compositions are pretty awful. Conventional wisdom suggests these originals were successful despite their hemming and hawing, their hedging, and their many flops. But Wharton professor Adam Grant says these defects are actually fundamental to originality. In his new book, Originals: How Non-Conformists Move the World, Adam investigates who comes up with great ideas, how, and what we can do to have more of them. This week, we bring you our conversation with him.

The Hidden Brain Podcast is hosted by Shankar Vedantam and produced by Kara McGuirk-Alison, Maggie Penman and Max Nesterak. To subscribe to our newsletter, click here. You can also follow us on Twitter@hiddenbrain,@karamcguirk,@maggiepenman and @maxnesterak, and listen for Hidden Brain stories every week on your local public radio station.

This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service – if this is your content and you’re reading it on someone else’s site, please read the FAQ at fivefilters.org/content-only/faq.php#publishers.