Chris Christie Is Right About Parents and Violent Video Games—But His Policy Is Wrong

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie has fashioned himself as a GOP maverick of late, upsetting people in his own party almost as often as political opponents. From praising President Obama’s response to Hurricane Sandy last year, to seeking a ban on the .50 caliber Barrett rifle more recently, he keeps managing to ruffle Republicans’ feathers.

His push to restrict violent video games, however, part of his plan to deal with gun violence, is likely to please the right. Christie wants to require parental consent in New Jersey in order for minors to purchase “Mature” rated video games. The idea aligns with the NRA’s own suggestions for curbing school shootings and has broad appeal. It’s not actually a ban, but rather another layer of regulation. 

“This is just common sense,” the governor said of his plan, “and means that parents and legal guardians are actively engaged and aware of the kinds of games their kids are buying and renting.” Christie’s reasoning is actually pretty sound—even if his legal thinking isn’t. (More on that in a minute.)

When I’ve written about violence in video games in the past, I’ve argued that the most important thing a parent can do is be actively engaged in what their kids are playing. (That goes for any kind of media consumption.) Play games with your kids, and make sure the content they’re zapping into their impressionable young minds is something you approve of. I don’t think most kids will be transformed into violent monsters by video games—and to date, there is no solid research indicating that’s a serious possibility—but that doesn’t mean each game out there is appropriate for every kid.

The problem with Christie’s plan is that it runs afoul of the right to free speech; attempts to ban violent video games or restrict their sale have already been overturned by the Supreme Court.

Moreover, the video game industry has actually done a vastly improved job at self-regulating over the last decade. Even though M-rated games aren’t backed by laws limiting their sale to minors, that doesn’t mean it’s easy for children to buy these games. A recent report from the Federal Trade Commission found that only 13 percent of minors were able to purchase M-rated titles in 2012, dramatically down over the last 12 years. The FTC sent undercover “mystery shoppers” between the ages of 13 and 16 into retail shops to gather this data. By comparison, the FTC found that minors were able to purchase CDs with explicit content nearly half of the time, and buy R-rated movie tickets nearly a quarter of the time.

FTC

In other words, the video game industry and the retailers who sell video games are leading the pack, effectively keeping minors from buying M-rated titles like Call of Duty and Grand Theft Auto. Most of the kids with these games get them from their parents, legal guardians, or other people over the age of 18.

The real trick is ensuring that parents are actually, well, parenting—overseeing or playing the games with their kids in the confines of their own homes, or in the homes of their friends. This is beyond the scope of government regulation.

Christie may have great intentions, but his legislation will almost certainly not hold up in court, and even if it did it’s unlikely that we’d see a significant change in video game sales to minors. And it requires another leap from there to assume that stricter regulations on video games would have any impact on real world violence, including school shootings. It would be better for Christie and other leaders to continue pushing for better gun control laws—even though that may allow their opponents to score political points against them.

Speaking of gun control and “political suicide,” I’ll leave you with this hilarious yet deeply troubling segment from The Daily Show‘s John Oliver:

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart	Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c
Gun Control & Political Suicide
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Indecision Political Humor The Daily Show on Facebook

Politics | Mother Jones

Chris Christie Is Right About Parents and Violent Video Games—But His Policy Is Wrong

Chris Christie Is Right About Parents and Violent Video Games—but His Policy Is Wrong

New Jersey governor Chris Christie has fashioned himself as a GOP maverick of late, upsetting people in his own party almost as often as political opponents. From praising President Obama’s response to Hurricane Sandy last year, to seeking a ban on the .50 caliber Barrett rifle more recently, he keeps managing to ruffle Republicans’ feathers.

His push to restrict violent video games, however, part of his plan to deal with gun violence, is likely to please the right. Christie wants to require parental consent in New Jersey in order for minors to purchase “Mature” rated video games. The idea aligns with the NRA’s own suggestions for curbing school shootings and has broad appeal. It’s not actually a ban, but rather another layer of regulation. 

“This is just common sense,” the governor said of his plan, “and means that parents and legal guardians are actively engaged and aware of the kinds of games their kids are buying and renting.” Christie’s reasoning is actually pretty sound—even if his legal thinking isn’t. (More on that in a minute.)

When I’ve written about violence in video games in the past, I’ve argued that the most important thing a parent can do is be actively engaged in what their kids are playing. (That goes for any kind of media consumption.) Play games with your kids, and make sure the content they’re zapping into their impressionable young minds is something you approve of. I don’t think most kids will be transformed into violent monsters by video games—and to date, there is no solid research indicating that’s a serious possibility—but that doesn’t mean each game out there is appropriate for every kid.

The problem with Christie’s plan is that it runs afoul of the right to free speech; attempts to ban violent video games or restrict their sale have already been overturned by the Supreme Court.

Moreover, the video game industry has actually done a vastly improved job at self-regulating over the last decade. Even though M-rated games aren’t backed by laws limiting their sale to minors, that doesn’t mean it’s easy for children to buy these games. A recent report from the Federal Trade Commission found that only 13 percent of minors were able to purchase M-rated titles in 2012, dramatically down over the last 12 years. The FTC sent undercover “mystery shoppers” between the ages of 13 and 16 into retail shops to gather this data. By comparison, the FTC found that minors were able to purchase CDs with explicit content nearly half of the time, and buy R-rated movie tickets nearly a quarter of the time.

FTC

In other words, the video game industry and the retailers who sell video games are leading the pack, effectively keeping minors from buying M-rated titles like Call of Duty and Grand Theft Auto. Most of the kids with these games get them from their parents, legal guardians, or other people over the age of 18.

The real trick is ensuring that parents are actually, well, parenting—overseeing or playing the games with their kids in the confines of their own homes, or in the homes of their friends. This is beyond the scope of government regulation.

Christie may have great intentions, but his legislation will almost certainly not hold up in court, and even if it did it’s unlikely that we’d see a significant change in video game sales to minors. And it requires another leap from there to assume that stricter regulations on video games would have any impact on real world violence, including school shootings. It would be better for Christie and other leaders to continue pushing for better gun control laws—even though that may allow their opponents to score political points against them.

Speaking of gun control and “political suicide,” I’ll leave you with this hilarious yet deeply troubling segment from The Daily Show’s John Oliver:

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart	Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c
Gun Control & Political Suicide
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Indecision Political Humor The Daily Show on Facebook

Politics | Mother Jones

Chris Christie Is Right About Parents and Violent Video Games—but His Policy Is Wrong

Supporters Say All The Wrong Things to Try and Pass CISPA

Tweet

Ever since reintroducing CISPA, the so-called “cybersecurity bill,” its supporters promote the bill with craftily worded or just plain misleading claims.

By Mark M. Jaycox
EFF
April 9, 2013

Such claims have been lobbed over and over again in op-eds, at hearings, and in press materials.  One “fact sheet” by Rep. Rogers and Ruppersberger titled “Myth v. Fact” is so dubious that we felt we had to comment. To stop this type of misinformation—and to stop CISPA—we urge you to tell your members of Congress to stand up for privacy.

Here are some of the statements supporters of CISPA are pushing and why they’re false:

Supporters of CISPA say, “There are no broad definitions”

Supporters are keen to note that the bill doesn’t have broad definitions. In the “Myth v. Fact” sheet, the authors of CISPA specifically point to the definition of “cyber threat information.” Cyber threat information is information about an online threat that companies can share with each other and with any government agency—including the NSA. In hearings, experts have said that they don’t need to share personally identifiable information to combat threats. But the definition in the bill allows for any information related to a perceived threat or vulnerability—including sensitive personal information—to be shared. Cyber threat information should be a narrowly defined term.

Another example of a broad (or missing) definition is the term “cybersecurity system.”  Companies can use a “cybersecurity system” to “identify or obtain” information about a potential threat (“cyber threat information”). The definition is critical to understanding the bill, but is circular.  CISPA defines a “cybersecurity system” as “a system designed or employed” for a cybersecurity purpose (i.e. to protect against vulnerabilities or threats). The language is not limited to network security software or intrusion detection systems, and is so broadly written that one wonders if a “system” involving a tangible item—e.g., locks on doors—could be considered a “cybersecurity system.”  In practical terms, it’s unclear what is exactly covered by such a “system,” because the word “system” is never defined.

The best example of a dangerous undefined term in the bill is found within the overly broad legal immunity for companies. The clause grants a company who acts in “good faith” immunity for “any decisions made” based off of the information it learns from the government or other companies. Does this cover decisions to violate other laws, like computer crime laws? Or privacy laws intended to protect users? Companies should not be given carte blanche immunity to violate long-standing computer crime and privacy law. And it is notoriously hard to prove that a company acted in bad faith, in the few circumstances where you would actually find out your privacy had been violated. 

Supporters of CISPA say, “The bill is not a government surveillance program”

Supporters are adamant CISPA doesn’t create a wide-ranging “government surveillance program.” It’s true the bill doesn’t create such a surveillance program like the one described in the ongoing warrantless wiretapping lawsuits.

But the trick here is what is meant by “government surveillance.”  We think that if the bill aims at having our information flow to the government, it’s tantamount to government surveillance, whether or not the government initially collected the information.   

The bill creates a loophole in the privacy laws that prevented companies from disclosing your information to the government and gives companies broad legal immunity for sharing information with the government. As a result, CISPA makes it more likely that companies will surveil their own users and then disclose that information.  The sly wording dodges the key issue: that CISPA encourages companies to conduct surveillance on their networks and hand “cyber threat information” to the government. In short, the bill encourages a de facto private spying regime, with the same end result.

Supporters of CISPA say, “The government can’t read your private email”

Reps. Rogers and Ruppersberger are adamant CISPA doesn’t grant the government access to read private emails. The claim was recently repeated by James Lewis, a fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. But the broad definitions do allow for personal information to be gathered by companies and then sent to the government without any mandatory minimization of personal information. And under the vague definitions an aggressive company could claim that private messages are related to the threat, obtain them, and share then with the government.  If Reps. Rogers and Ruppersberger did want content of emails disclosed under CISPA, it would be easy enough to exclude them explicitly.

Supporters say, “CISPA follows advice from privacy and civil liberty advocates”

In his introduction of the bill, Rep. Rogers assured the audience that he has listened to the privacy and civil liberties community.

This year’s CISPA does contain some language added after privacy and civil liberties advocates complained in 2012.  But those changes didn’t address some big issues that were raised last year, and this year’s privacy and civil liberties complaints about CISPA remain unaddressed.

Let’s Stop CISPA

Reps. Rogers and Ruppersberger are on a strong publicity offensive to make sure the bill passes. The American public deserves full explanations and clear meanings about what CISPA can do and the extent to which it can do it. The public doesn’t need carefully worded messaging materials that obfuscate and mislead a discussion on CISPA. The issues at stake—like the broad legal immunity and new spying powers that allow for companies to collect private, and sensitive, user information—are too serious.

Powered By WizardRSS.com | Full Text RSS Feed | Amazon Plugin WordPress | Android Forums | WordPress Tutorials
Intellihub.com

Supporters Say All The Wrong Things to Try and Pass CISPA

Supporters Say All The Wrong Things to Try and Pass CISPA

Tweet

Ever since reintroducing CISPA, the so-called “cybersecurity bill,” its supporters promote the bill with craftily worded or just plain misleading claims.

By Mark M. Jaycox
EFF
April 9, 2013

Such claims have been lobbed over and over again in op-eds, at hearings, and in press materials.  One “fact sheet” by Rep. Rogers and Ruppersberger titled “Myth v. Fact” is so dubious that we felt we had to comment. To stop this type of misinformation—and to stop CISPA—we urge you to tell your members of Congress to stand up for privacy.

Here are some of the statements supporters of CISPA are pushing and why they’re false:

Supporters of CISPA say, “There are no broad definitions”

Supporters are keen to note that the bill doesn’t have broad definitions. In the “Myth v. Fact” sheet, the authors of CISPA specifically point to the definition of “cyber threat information.” Cyber threat information is information about an online threat that companies can share with each other and with any government agency—including the NSA. In hearings, experts have said that they don’t need to share personally identifiable information to combat threats. But the definition in the bill allows for any information related to a perceived threat or vulnerability—including sensitive personal information—to be shared. Cyber threat information should be a narrowly defined term.

Another example of a broad (or missing) definition is the term “cybersecurity system.”  Companies can use a “cybersecurity system” to “identify or obtain” information about a potential threat (“cyber threat information”). The definition is critical to understanding the bill, but is circular.  CISPA defines a “cybersecurity system” as “a system designed or employed” for a cybersecurity purpose (i.e. to protect against vulnerabilities or threats). The language is not limited to network security software or intrusion detection systems, and is so broadly written that one wonders if a “system” involving a tangible item—e.g., locks on doors—could be considered a “cybersecurity system.”  In practical terms, it’s unclear what is exactly covered by such a “system,” because the word “system” is never defined.

The best example of a dangerous undefined term in the bill is found within the overly broad legal immunity for companies. The clause grants a company who acts in “good faith” immunity for “any decisions made” based off of the information it learns from the government or other companies. Does this cover decisions to violate other laws, like computer crime laws? Or privacy laws intended to protect users? Companies should not be given carte blanche immunity to violate long-standing computer crime and privacy law. And it is notoriously hard to prove that a company acted in bad faith, in the few circumstances where you would actually find out your privacy had been violated. 

Supporters of CISPA say, “The bill is not a government surveillance program”

Supporters are adamant CISPA doesn’t create a wide-ranging “government surveillance program.” It’s true the bill doesn’t create such a surveillance program like the one described in the ongoing warrantless wiretapping lawsuits.

But the trick here is what is meant by “government surveillance.”  We think that if the bill aims at having our information flow to the government, it’s tantamount to government surveillance, whether or not the government initially collected the information.   

The bill creates a loophole in the privacy laws that prevented companies from disclosing your information to the government and gives companies broad legal immunity for sharing information with the government. As a result, CISPA makes it more likely that companies will surveil their own users and then disclose that information.  The sly wording dodges the key issue: that CISPA encourages companies to conduct surveillance on their networks and hand “cyber threat information” to the government. In short, the bill encourages a de facto private spying regime, with the same end result.

Supporters of CISPA say, “The government can’t read your private email”

Reps. Rogers and Ruppersberger are adamant CISPA doesn’t grant the government access to read private emails. The claim was recently repeated by James Lewis, a fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. But the broad definitions do allow for personal information to be gathered by companies and then sent to the government without any mandatory minimization of personal information. And under the vague definitions an aggressive company could claim that private messages are related to the threat, obtain them, and share then with the government.  If Reps. Rogers and Ruppersberger did want content of emails disclosed under CISPA, it would be easy enough to exclude them explicitly.

Supporters say, “CISPA follows advice from privacy and civil liberty advocates”

In his introduction of the bill, Rep. Rogers assured the audience that he has listened to the privacy and civil liberties community.

This year’s CISPA does contain some language added after privacy and civil liberties advocates complained in 2012.  But those changes didn’t address some big issues that were raised last year, and this year’s privacy and civil liberties complaints about CISPA remain unaddressed.

Let’s Stop CISPA

Reps. Rogers and Ruppersberger are on a strong publicity offensive to make sure the bill passes. The American public deserves full explanations and clear meanings about what CISPA can do and the extent to which it can do it. The public doesn’t need carefully worded messaging materials that obfuscate and mislead a discussion on CISPA. The issues at stake—like the broad legal immunity and new spying powers that allow for companies to collect private, and sensitive, user information—are too serious.

Powered By WizardRSS.com | Full Text RSS Feed | Amazon Plugin WordPress | Android Forums | WordPress Tutorials
Intellihub.com

Supporters Say All The Wrong Things to Try and Pass CISPA

Sprott: Why SocGen Is Wrong About Gold"s Imminent "Demise"

Tweet

Submitted by David Franklin and David Baker via Sprott Group,

A Retort to SocGen’s Latest Gold Report

Société Générale (“SocGen”) recently published a special report entitled “The end of the gold era” that garnered far more attention than we think it deserved.  The majority of the report focused on SocGen’s “crash scenario” for gold wherein they suggest that gold could fall well below their 2013 target of US$ 1,375/oz. It also included a classic criticism that we’ve heard so many times before: that the gold price is in “bubble territory”. We have problems with both suggestions.

To begin, the report’s authors appear to view gold as a commodity, rather than as a currency. This is a common misconception that continues to plague most gold market analysis. Gold doesn’t really work as a commodity because it doesn’t get consumed like one. The vast majority of gold mined throughout history remains in existence today, and the total global gold stockpile grows in small increments every year through additional mine supply. This is also precisely why gold works so well as a currency. Total gold supply can only grow marginally, while fiat money supply can grow exponentially through printing programs. This is why gold’s monetary value is so important – it’s the only “currency” in play that is immune to government devaluation. 

Chart A illustrates the relationship between the growth of central bank balance sheets in the US, EU, UK and Japan and the price of gold. This relationship has an extremely high correlation with an R² of about 95%. As central banks increase the size of their balance sheets through ‘open market operations’ to buy bonds, mortgage-backed securities (“MBS”) and the like, they inject more fiat dollars into their respective banking systems. As gold has a relatively stable supply, if there are more dollars available, the price of gold should rise in dollar terms. It’s really a very simple and intuitive relationship – as it should be.

Source: Bloomberg and Sprott Asset Management LP

This relationship between central bank printing and gold has existed since the beginning of the gold bull market in 2000. In fact, this relationship shows that for every US$ 1 trillion increase in the collective central banks’ balance sheets, the price of gold has generally appreciated by an average of US$ 210/oz.

Somewhat surprisingly, it turns out that the collective central bank balance sheets have actually shrunk over the past three months – by approximately US$ 415 billion. The biggest drop was seen in the ECB’s balance sheet, which shrunk by the equivalent of US$ 370 billion, while other central banks also experienced small declines. Based on our simple model above, a decrease of US$ 415 billion should produce a gold price decline of roughly US$ 87/oz. And as it turns out, gold fell by US$ 76/oz over the first quarter of 2013. Does this sound like a bubble to you? It certainly doesn’t appear to be. Gold is performing almost exactly as it should – by acting as a currency barometer for the amount of money being injected into or withdrawn from the economy… which leads us to Japan.

Japan’s recent QE announcement is a thing of wonder. It represents an absolutely massive injection of yen relative to the size of the Japanese economy. The Bank of Japan’s US$ 75 billion equivalent per month of yen printing, coupled with the US Federal Reserve’s $ 85 billion per month (through its current QE program) will addUS$ 1.97 trillionto the collective central bank balance sheets over the next 12 months. Given Japan’s considerable contribution, we seriously question how SocGen believes gold can drop to US$ 1,375/oz by the end of the year. For that to happen, we would need to see a collective balance sheet decline of roughly 15%. Does SocGen seriously believe the US Fed (or any other central bank for that matter) is going to reverse its QE accumulation and then start aggressively selling balance sheet assets over the next year?

The only gold ‘crash scenario’ that makes sense to us at Sprott is if governments begin to balance their budgets and return to sound money practices. There is no question that gold could lose its utility if western governments made a concerted effort to fix their fiscal imbalances, but who honestly believes that’s going to happen any time soon? We certainly don’t – especially in the US. While US deficit spending may diminish in scale, it will remain well above $ 1 trillion per year after factoring in unfunded obligations. We don’t know of any creditable forecaster who believes otherwise.

We also don’t see a chance of the US Federal Reserve ending its QE programs, despite the continual jaw-boning by various Fed officials of a planned QE exit strategy. There is simply too much risk to the US bond market for the Fed to cut the US$ 85 billion in monthly Treasury and MBS purchases that the current program employs. After all – remember that those purchases are what keep interest rates close to zero today. If the Fed were to remove that flow of capital, the free market would once again dictate US bond yields and stock prices. There’s not a chance the Fed will take the risk of finding out what US bonds or stocks are worth to the market without a perpetual government-induced backstop. Why take the risk?  Especially since the cumulative QE programs to date have not caused a drastic increase in inflation expectations.

While we expect the Fed to continue to threaten to lower its monthly QE purchases, we believe the chances of even a mild decrease to its current US$ 85 billion per month rate are negligible. Four years into it this grand QE experiment, money printing has become the backbone of the US bond market, and the unsung driver of the US equity market. In our view, gold cannot become irrelevant for the precise reason that QE is here to stay… and the collective central bank balance sheets will continue to increase over time. We would question any pundit who believes otherwise – unless they can clearly articulate how the Fed can exit QE without causing irreparable harm to the very financial markets the QE programs were designed to assuage.

We believe gold is nowhere close to ‘bubble territory’ today. It is acting exactly as a currency should. Under its current stewardship, we expect the Federal Reserve’s balance sheet to continue to expand along with Japan’s. SocGen’s “crash” scenario would require a complete reversal of this trend, which we do not believe is even remotely possible at this point.

Gold is the base currency with which to compare the value of all government-sponsored money. Investors can incorporate it into their portfolios as ‘central bank insurance’, or ignore it entirely. Either way, we believe gold will continue to track the total aggregate of the central bank balance sheets of the US, UK, Eurozone and Japan. If SocGen believes the aggregate central bank balance sheet will continue to shrink as it did in Q1, then gold should continue its decline. We strongly suspect that shrinkage is over, however. Given Japan’s recent QE decision, we would expect the aggregate to grow a lot bigger, and fast. If there was ever a time for gold to be a relevant currency alternative – it’s now.

Zero Hedge

Sprott: Why SocGen Is Wrong About Gold"s Imminent "Demise"