We may need to consider cyber crime regarding policy, law and ethical issues.
Complaints of internet fraud received by a US watchdog last year rose by 33 percent from 2007, its latest report shows. The Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3), which includes the FBI, received 275,284 complaints in 2008, which amounted to losses of USD 265m. The most common complaint was non-delivery of goods followed by internet auction fraud and credit card fraud.
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
Monday, March 16, 2009
HIV/AIDS in D.C.
A report showing that 3 percent of residents are infected with HIV or AIDS is a wake-up call for the District, Mayor Adrian M. Fenty said today.
What these data point out for DC is that we have a serious HIV epidemic right here at home. What we also know is that the right combination of evidence-based interventions, including testing, condoms, and serious decisions around relationships, can make a large prevention difference. I believe strongly that we are entering a time where a strategic increased investment in and accountability for HIV prevention, as well as the platform of healthcare reform to ensure full coverage for persons living with HIV, will have a major impact.
What these data point out for DC is that we have a serious HIV epidemic right here at home. What we also know is that the right combination of evidence-based interventions, including testing, condoms, and serious decisions around relationships, can make a large prevention difference. I believe strongly that we are entering a time where a strategic increased investment in and accountability for HIV prevention, as well as the platform of healthcare reform to ensure full coverage for persons living with HIV, will have a major impact.
HIV/AIDS in D.C.
What these data point out for DC is that we have a serious HIV epidemic right here at home. What we also know is that the right combination of evidence-based interventions, including testing, condoms, and serious decisions around relationships, can make a large prevention difference. I believe strongly that we are entering a time where a strategic increased investment in and accountability for HIV prevention, as well as the platform of healthcare reform to ensure full coverage for persons living with HIV, will have a major impact.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Obama Lifts Bush’s Strict Limits on Stem Cell Research
President Barack Obama said Monday he is allowing federal taxpayer dollars to fund significantly broader research on embryonic stem cells because "medical miracles do not happen simply by accident," and promised his administration would make up for the ground lost under his predecessor."
"President Barack Obama has ordered a review of his predecessor's so-called signing statements, which often told officials how to implement laws."
Because embryonic stem cells are capable of developing into any type of cell or tissue in the body, many scientists believe they hold the possibility for treatments and cures for ailments as varied as diabetes, Parkinson’s and heart disease. Some researchers say stem cells may someday be used to treat catastrophic injuries, such as spinal-cord damage.
The promise that these advances might help bring a cure for Alzheimer’s disease and other afflictions made Nancy Reagan an avid supporter of stem cell research. Her husband, the late president, suffered from Alzheimer’s.
They have been questioning it for decades......all the while science and technologies have only improved. There is proof out there that it is happening, the only questions that really should have any validity is how much and how fast.
"President Barack Obama has ordered a review of his predecessor's so-called signing statements, which often told officials how to implement laws."
Because embryonic stem cells are capable of developing into any type of cell or tissue in the body, many scientists believe they hold the possibility for treatments and cures for ailments as varied as diabetes, Parkinson’s and heart disease. Some researchers say stem cells may someday be used to treat catastrophic injuries, such as spinal-cord damage.
The promise that these advances might help bring a cure for Alzheimer’s disease and other afflictions made Nancy Reagan an avid supporter of stem cell research. Her husband, the late president, suffered from Alzheimer’s.
They have been questioning it for decades......all the while science and technologies have only improved. There is proof out there that it is happening, the only questions that really should have any validity is how much and how fast.
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
White House set to reverse health care conscience clause
Story Highlights
Under rule, health-care workers can refuse services, information for moral reasons
Obama administration plans to reverse the Bush regulation
Supporter praises protection of women's right to health care
Family Research Council: Change would make government the conscience
By Saundra Young
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Obama administration plans to reverse a regulation from late in the Bush administration allowing health-care workers to refuse to provide services based on moral objections, an official said Friday.
The Provider Refusal Rule was proposed by the Bush White House in August and enacted on January 20, the day President Barack Obama took office.
It expanded on a 30-year-old law establishing a "conscience clause" for "health-care professionals who don't want to perform abortions."
Under the rule, workers in health-care settings -- from doctors to janitors -- can refuse to provide services, information or advice to patients on subjects such as contraception, family planning, blood transfusions and even vaccine counseling if they are morally against it.
"We recognize and understand that some providers have objections to providing abortions, according to an official at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The official declined to be identified because the policy change had not been announced. "We want to ensure that current law protects them.
"But we do not want to impose new limitations on services that would allow providers to refuse to provide to women and their families services like family planning and contraception that would actually help prevent the need for an abortion in the first place."
Many health-care organizations, including the American Medical Association, believe health-care providers have an obligation to their patients to advise them of the options despite their own beliefs. Critics of the current rule argue there are already laws on the books protecting health-care professionals when it comes to refusing care for personal reasons.
Dr. Suzanne T. Poppema, board chair of Physicians for Reproductive Choice and Health, praised Obama "for placing good health care above ideological demands."
"Physicians across the country were outraged when the Bush administration, in its final days, limited women's access to reproductive health care," she said. "Hundreds of doctors protested these midnight regulations and urged President Obama to repeal them quickly. We are thrilled that President Obama took the first steps today to ensure that our patients' health is once again protected."
But Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, said, "Protecting the right of all health-care providers to make professional judgments based on moral convictions and ethical standards is foundational to federal law and is necessary to ensure that access to health care is not diminished, which will occur if health-care workers are forced out of their jobs because of their ethical stances.
"President's Obama's intention to change the language of these protections would result in the government becoming the conscience and not the individual. It is a person's right to exercise their moral judgment, not the government's to decide it for them."
An announcement reversing the current rule is expected early next week, the HHS official said. Any final action would have to be taken after a 30-day public comment period.
All AboutHealth Care Policy • U.S Department of Health and Human Services • American Medical Association
Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/27/conscience.rollback/index.html?iref=newssearch
Under rule, health-care workers can refuse services, information for moral reasons
Obama administration plans to reverse the Bush regulation
Supporter praises protection of women's right to health care
Family Research Council: Change would make government the conscience
By Saundra Young
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Obama administration plans to reverse a regulation from late in the Bush administration allowing health-care workers to refuse to provide services based on moral objections, an official said Friday.
The Provider Refusal Rule was proposed by the Bush White House in August and enacted on January 20, the day President Barack Obama took office.
It expanded on a 30-year-old law establishing a "conscience clause" for "health-care professionals who don't want to perform abortions."
Under the rule, workers in health-care settings -- from doctors to janitors -- can refuse to provide services, information or advice to patients on subjects such as contraception, family planning, blood transfusions and even vaccine counseling if they are morally against it.
"We recognize and understand that some providers have objections to providing abortions, according to an official at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The official declined to be identified because the policy change had not been announced. "We want to ensure that current law protects them.
"But we do not want to impose new limitations on services that would allow providers to refuse to provide to women and their families services like family planning and contraception that would actually help prevent the need for an abortion in the first place."
Many health-care organizations, including the American Medical Association, believe health-care providers have an obligation to their patients to advise them of the options despite their own beliefs. Critics of the current rule argue there are already laws on the books protecting health-care professionals when it comes to refusing care for personal reasons.
Dr. Suzanne T. Poppema, board chair of Physicians for Reproductive Choice and Health, praised Obama "for placing good health care above ideological demands."
"Physicians across the country were outraged when the Bush administration, in its final days, limited women's access to reproductive health care," she said. "Hundreds of doctors protested these midnight regulations and urged President Obama to repeal them quickly. We are thrilled that President Obama took the first steps today to ensure that our patients' health is once again protected."
But Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, said, "Protecting the right of all health-care providers to make professional judgments based on moral convictions and ethical standards is foundational to federal law and is necessary to ensure that access to health care is not diminished, which will occur if health-care workers are forced out of their jobs because of their ethical stances.
"President's Obama's intention to change the language of these protections would result in the government becoming the conscience and not the individual. It is a person's right to exercise their moral judgment, not the government's to decide it for them."
An announcement reversing the current rule is expected early next week, the HHS official said. Any final action would have to be taken after a 30-day public comment period.
All AboutHealth Care Policy • U.S Department of Health and Human Services • American Medical Association
Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/27/conscience.rollback/index.html?iref=newssearch
Facebook invites users to help set policy
Story Highlights
• Facebook is inviting its 150 million users to help decide how the site is run
• New approach will give users more control over Facebook policies and practices
• Over the next month, the site will host virtual "Town Halls" to collect user comments
• News comes a week after a Facebook policy-change blunder sparked protests
By Brandon Griggs
CNN
(CNN) -- In keeping with the democratic nature of user-generated media, Facebook is inviting its 150 million users to help decide how the online gathering place is run.
A week after a policy-change blunder sparked widespread protests, the Web's most popular social-networking site announced a new approach Thursday to give users more control over future Facebook rules and practices.
Site managers published the Facebook Principles, a set of 10 values they hope will make Facebook more transparent, along with a proposed statement of rights and responsibilities governing privacy, content ownership and other issues. Users will be able to comment and vote on the wording of the documents.
"As people share more information on services like Facebook, a new relationship is created between Internet companies and the people they serve," Mark Zuckerberg, founder and CEO of Facebook, said in a statement. "The past week reminded us that users feel a real sense of ownership over Facebook itself, not just the information they share."
Facebook became caught in a content-rights battle after revealing this month that it was granting itself permanent rights to users' photos, wall posts and other information, even after a user closed an account. Member backlash was swift and severe, as tens of thousands of angry users either canceled their accounts or created online petitions.
To quell the uprising, Facebook hastily announced last week it was reverting to its old terms of use policy on member information "while we resolve the issues that people have raised."
Thursday's announcement seemed aimed at further reassuring users that they, not Facebook, will retain rights to their postings.
"You own all of the content and information you post on Facebook, including information about you and the actions you take," reads the proposed statement of rights and responsibilities, which condenses almost 40 pages of legal jargon into fewer than six pages.
Facebook said Thursday it will continue to make independent decisions about the timing and rollout of products. But users will now help determine future changes to Facebook policies through online voting.
Over the next month, the fast-growing site will host virtual "Town Halls" to collect user comments on the proposed new principles and statement of rights and responsibilities.
As of Friday morning, more than 8,600 users had joined a Facebook group to solicit feedback regarding the proposed Facebook Principles, while more than 7,800 had joined a group that was set up to review the proposed statement of rights and responsibilities.
Facebook says that after the comment period ends March 29, it will review users' submissions, then republish its policies to incorporate feedback. All future policy changes would be subject to similar notice and comment periods.
Facebook also plans to establish a user council to participate more closely in the development of future policies and practices.
"Companies like ours need to develop new models of governance," Zuckerberg added. "Rather than simply reissue a new Terms of Use, the changes we're announcing today are designed to open up Facebook so that users can participate meaningfully in our policies and our future." iReport.com: iReporter feels like a 'citizen of Facebook' now
Initial reaction to Facebook's more open approach appeared to be positive.
"The idea that a major company like Facebook would give its users a vote in how the service is governed is remarkable," user Julius Harper, co-founding administrator of the People Against the new Terms of Service group, said in a statement posted on Facebook. "This decision should go far in restoring people's trust, and I hope it sets a precedent for other online services to follow."
But other members had concerns about section 2.3 of the proposed statement of rights and responsibilities, which states that users will grant Facebook license "to use, copy, publicly perform or display, distribute, modify, translate, and create derivative works of ... any content you post" until a member deletes the content or closes an account.
"This is precisely why I pulled one of my photos and why I'm now considering the deletion of my account," Bertha Chambers of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, wrote in a Facebook post Thursday afternoon.
"If Facebook wants to make money through advertising ... that's fine with me. BUT, I'm not giving Facebook permission to use my words or my art for their profit or in ways or reasons that I might not personally support."
All AboutFacebook Inc. • Mark Zuckerberg
Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/02/27/facebook.democracy/index.html?iref=newssearch
• Facebook is inviting its 150 million users to help decide how the site is run
• New approach will give users more control over Facebook policies and practices
• Over the next month, the site will host virtual "Town Halls" to collect user comments
• News comes a week after a Facebook policy-change blunder sparked protests
By Brandon Griggs
CNN
(CNN) -- In keeping with the democratic nature of user-generated media, Facebook is inviting its 150 million users to help decide how the online gathering place is run.
A week after a policy-change blunder sparked widespread protests, the Web's most popular social-networking site announced a new approach Thursday to give users more control over future Facebook rules and practices.
Site managers published the Facebook Principles, a set of 10 values they hope will make Facebook more transparent, along with a proposed statement of rights and responsibilities governing privacy, content ownership and other issues. Users will be able to comment and vote on the wording of the documents.
"As people share more information on services like Facebook, a new relationship is created between Internet companies and the people they serve," Mark Zuckerberg, founder and CEO of Facebook, said in a statement. "The past week reminded us that users feel a real sense of ownership over Facebook itself, not just the information they share."
Facebook became caught in a content-rights battle after revealing this month that it was granting itself permanent rights to users' photos, wall posts and other information, even after a user closed an account. Member backlash was swift and severe, as tens of thousands of angry users either canceled their accounts or created online petitions.
To quell the uprising, Facebook hastily announced last week it was reverting to its old terms of use policy on member information "while we resolve the issues that people have raised."
Thursday's announcement seemed aimed at further reassuring users that they, not Facebook, will retain rights to their postings.
"You own all of the content and information you post on Facebook, including information about you and the actions you take," reads the proposed statement of rights and responsibilities, which condenses almost 40 pages of legal jargon into fewer than six pages.
Facebook said Thursday it will continue to make independent decisions about the timing and rollout of products. But users will now help determine future changes to Facebook policies through online voting.
Over the next month, the fast-growing site will host virtual "Town Halls" to collect user comments on the proposed new principles and statement of rights and responsibilities.
As of Friday morning, more than 8,600 users had joined a Facebook group to solicit feedback regarding the proposed Facebook Principles, while more than 7,800 had joined a group that was set up to review the proposed statement of rights and responsibilities.
Facebook says that after the comment period ends March 29, it will review users' submissions, then republish its policies to incorporate feedback. All future policy changes would be subject to similar notice and comment periods.
Facebook also plans to establish a user council to participate more closely in the development of future policies and practices.
"Companies like ours need to develop new models of governance," Zuckerberg added. "Rather than simply reissue a new Terms of Use, the changes we're announcing today are designed to open up Facebook so that users can participate meaningfully in our policies and our future." iReport.com: iReporter feels like a 'citizen of Facebook' now
Initial reaction to Facebook's more open approach appeared to be positive.
"The idea that a major company like Facebook would give its users a vote in how the service is governed is remarkable," user Julius Harper, co-founding administrator of the People Against the new Terms of Service group, said in a statement posted on Facebook. "This decision should go far in restoring people's trust, and I hope it sets a precedent for other online services to follow."
But other members had concerns about section 2.3 of the proposed statement of rights and responsibilities, which states that users will grant Facebook license "to use, copy, publicly perform or display, distribute, modify, translate, and create derivative works of ... any content you post" until a member deletes the content or closes an account.
"This is precisely why I pulled one of my photos and why I'm now considering the deletion of my account," Bertha Chambers of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, wrote in a Facebook post Thursday afternoon.
"If Facebook wants to make money through advertising ... that's fine with me. BUT, I'm not giving Facebook permission to use my words or my art for their profit or in ways or reasons that I might not personally support."
All AboutFacebook Inc. • Mark Zuckerberg
Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/02/27/facebook.democracy/index.html?iref=newssearch
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Facebook backs down, reverses on user information policy
Story Highlights
Facebook this month changed its policy to say user content belonged to Facebook
Outraged members canceled their accounts or created online petitions
On Wednesday, Facebook reviewed user "feedback," and reverted to its old policy
(CNN) -- Under fire from tens of thousands of users, the social networking site Facebook said early Wednesday it is reverting to its old policy on user information -- for now.
The site posted a brief message on users' home pages that said it was returning to its previous "Terms of Use" policy "while we resolve the issues that people have raised."
The "Terms of Use" is the legalese tacked on to the bottom of most Web sites that details what the site's owners can do with the information that users provide.
Facebook, the Web's most popular social networking site, has been caught in a content-rights battle after revealing earlier this month that it was granting itself permanent rights to users' photos, wall posts and other information even after a user closed an account.
The popular site allows users to create personal profiles where they can then connect with one another, upload photos and share links. The site boasts more than 150 million active users.
Member backlash against Facebook began over the weekend after a consumer advocate Web site, The Consumerist, flagged a change made to Facebook's policy earlier in the month.
The company deleted a sentence from the old Terms of Use. That sentence said Facebook could not claim any rights to original content that a user uploaded once the user closed his or her account.
It replaced it with: "You may remove your User Content from the Site at any time. ... (H)owever, you acknowledge that the Company may retain archived copies of your User Content."
In response, Chris Walters wrote in the Consumerist post, "Make sure you never upload anything you don't feel comfortable giving away forever, because it's Facebook's now."
Thousands of indignant members either canceled their accounts or created online petitions. Among them were more than 64,000 who joined a group called "The People Against the new Terms of Service." iReport.com: Too much information posted online?
On Monday, Facebook Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg tried to quell the controversy by saying the company's philosophy is that "people own their information and control who they share it with."
But members were not appeased because the site did not fix its Terms of Use. The company, in its post Wednesday, said it was returning to its previous Terms of Use because of the "feedback" it had received.
"As Mark expressed in his blog post on Monday, it was never our intention to confuse people or make them uneasy about sharing on Facebook," company spokesman Barry Schnitt said in a blog post. "I also want to be very clear that Facebook does not, nor have we ever, claimed ownership over people's content. Your content belongs to you." iReport.com: Your thoughts on Facebook's about-face
Schnitt said the company is in the process of rewording its Terms of Use in "simple language that defines Facebook's rights much more specifically."
"Well that worked pretty fast," wrote member Al Reford of Vancouver, British Columbia. "Numbers count when giving feedback :)"
And Shahrzad Grami of St. Paul, Minnesota, added: " YAYYYYYYYYYYY!!!!! nice job guys! i won't be canceling my account after all."
Facebook this month changed its policy to say user content belonged to Facebook
Outraged members canceled their accounts or created online petitions
On Wednesday, Facebook reviewed user "feedback," and reverted to its old policy
(CNN) -- Under fire from tens of thousands of users, the social networking site Facebook said early Wednesday it is reverting to its old policy on user information -- for now.
The site posted a brief message on users' home pages that said it was returning to its previous "Terms of Use" policy "while we resolve the issues that people have raised."
The "Terms of Use" is the legalese tacked on to the bottom of most Web sites that details what the site's owners can do with the information that users provide.
Facebook, the Web's most popular social networking site, has been caught in a content-rights battle after revealing earlier this month that it was granting itself permanent rights to users' photos, wall posts and other information even after a user closed an account.
The popular site allows users to create personal profiles where they can then connect with one another, upload photos and share links. The site boasts more than 150 million active users.
Member backlash against Facebook began over the weekend after a consumer advocate Web site, The Consumerist, flagged a change made to Facebook's policy earlier in the month.
The company deleted a sentence from the old Terms of Use. That sentence said Facebook could not claim any rights to original content that a user uploaded once the user closed his or her account.
It replaced it with: "You may remove your User Content from the Site at any time. ... (H)owever, you acknowledge that the Company may retain archived copies of your User Content."
In response, Chris Walters wrote in the Consumerist post, "Make sure you never upload anything you don't feel comfortable giving away forever, because it's Facebook's now."
Thousands of indignant members either canceled their accounts or created online petitions. Among them were more than 64,000 who joined a group called "The People Against the new Terms of Service." iReport.com: Too much information posted online?
On Monday, Facebook Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg tried to quell the controversy by saying the company's philosophy is that "people own their information and control who they share it with."
But members were not appeased because the site did not fix its Terms of Use. The company, in its post Wednesday, said it was returning to its previous Terms of Use because of the "feedback" it had received.
"As Mark expressed in his blog post on Monday, it was never our intention to confuse people or make them uneasy about sharing on Facebook," company spokesman Barry Schnitt said in a blog post. "I also want to be very clear that Facebook does not, nor have we ever, claimed ownership over people's content. Your content belongs to you." iReport.com: Your thoughts on Facebook's about-face
Schnitt said the company is in the process of rewording its Terms of Use in "simple language that defines Facebook's rights much more specifically."
"Well that worked pretty fast," wrote member Al Reford of Vancouver, British Columbia. "Numbers count when giving feedback :)"
And Shahrzad Grami of St. Paul, Minnesota, added: " YAYYYYYYYYYYY!!!!! nice job guys! i won't be canceling my account after all."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
