banner2e top

Do Students Deserve Internet Privacy? by Julianne Malveaux

Feb. 27, 2016

Do Students Deserve Internet Privacy?
By Julianne Malveaux

malveaux

(TriceEdneyWire.com) - As the FBI battles with Apple about privacy protection and the need for the technology company to break down computer firewalls, I wonder who will, exactly, be protected, when technology companies go fishing to find protected information from their users.  It is not so much that those who use troll cyberspace through their tablets and telephones, but that it makes sense to understand how much information is available because some data is too easily available for data breaches.  In other words, that which is perceived as private isn’t always private.  Who has privacy protection?

I am especially concerned that students are vulnerable to data breaches, and that hackers are able to invade university spaces.  Young people. Who have not yet had the opportunity to establish a credit identity, are at risk when hackers get into databases that provide social security numbers, and other protected information.  While legislation attempts to protect those whose privacy is violated, enforcement is too often challenging.  Tens of thousands of students have their identities at risk, and they have little protection from hackers.

On February 4, 2016, the University of Florida announced that “as many as 63,000 current and former students and staff had their names and social security numbers compromised.” The school has taken steps to inform those who were affected by the breach, including mailing letters and launching both a website and a call center. That’s an adequate first step. Even after the immediate concerns have been addressed in the wake of this latest hacking incident, underlying issues surrounding student privacy remain.

In 2015 alone, 182 bills in 46 states were introduced to protect student privacy. This is both recognition of the problem and indication of the difficulty in finding a solution. Many of these efforts are focused on what happens within public schools, funded by taxpayer dollars, and rightfully so. As a longtime educator and former university president, I’m all too familiar with many of these issues, even as new ones emerge every day.  Too many students find their identities compromised because of hacking.  Too many spend dozens of hours (if not more) attempting to protect themselves from hackers.  Identity theft is a real problem, and too many of the solutions require people to spend more time than they have forging solutions.

Technology both enables us and shackles us.  Our educational system is enhanced by the software that is becoming more deeply embedded in our education system on a daily basis.  At the same time, this software may provide an extraordinary access to student data.  How do we balance privacy concerns with access to data?  One advocacy group found that “school-issued Google Chrome books upload private student data to the cloud by default, including web history. Chrome books also track students on school-assigned accounts when they navigate to Google-owned services that aren’t segregated as ‘educational’ (non-‘educational’ products include Google Maps, Google Books, and YouTube).”

Student privacy protections are also important for after school programs. Largely unreported on by the media, the student test preparation company The Princeton Review was purchased last year by The Match Group, an online dating umbrella company that owns the hookup app Tinder, as well as Match.com, OkCupid and dozens of other online dating websites.  Online dating sites are notorious for their failure to protect user data – according to the Electronic Frontier Foundation, “Your profile is indexed by Google. While this isn’t the case for every online dating site, OkCupid profiles are public by default and indexed by Google. … Even something as small as a unique turn of phrase could show up in search results and bring casual visitors to your page. … last October researcher Jonathan Mayer discovered that OkCupid was actually leaking personal data to some of its marketing partners.”

Do our students have any privacy as they troll the Internet, visit dating sites, and offer more information than they want others to know?  As we have conversations about privacy, have we focused on the young person who is most vulnerable to a pernicious information sharing that puts young people at risk?  A loose patchwork of regulations exists to protect student privacy in the United States, and little oversight of private company interactions exists at either the state or federal levels. This is especially true of data sharing between first parties, as both Tinder and Princeton Review are designated under their joint ownership. Rules have been proposed in the past that would “prevent separate businesses owned by the same company from both being considered ‘first parties’ and thus being able to freely share information with each other,” but little has actually been done.

Conversations about privacy do not often, unfortunately, focus on students and their special vulnerability.  Yet, as we grapple with technology challenges, students are among those who will require special attention.  From capital buildings to courtrooms to classrooms, privacy issues are going to loom large in this modern age of technology.  Even as we enable students to use technology to enhance their possibilities, so must we also encourage them to use technology to manage their future options?

Legislators have focused on privacy issues, but they have been remiss when they have refused to deal with the privacy rights that students have.   Too many data companies have too much access to student data.  Too many who are concerned with justice issues must raise legitimate questions about the rights of our students, especially minors who can be more easily targeted in data mining operations.  While there are appropriate conversations about privacy rights for adults, there must also be conversations about the privacy needs of young people and students.  Cyberspace isn’t always the safest space.  If the law will protect the privacy of adults, it must do so much more to protect the privacy of minors.

Amateurish Politics By James Clingman

Feb. 28, 2016

Blackonomics

Amateurish Politics        
By James Clingman             

clingman                                                       

(TriceEdneyWire.com) - The “Silly Season,” as many call it, is well under way; and Black people are up to our necks in it.  The usual suspects are jockeying for position with certain presidential candidates.  They are vying for the Black spokesperson positon, knocking one another down as they rush toward the microphones and cameras. They are acting real silly themselves when it comes to endorsements and support for candidates who use them as sycophants to feed us warmed-over political pabulum.

Of course, the Democrats are the heavy favorites among Black folks, so it’s pretty easy for Black political mouthpieces to do their traditional thing on the Dems behalf and to our detriment, of course.  The Republicans only have two or three Blacks asking us to vote for them, despite their candidates never citing Black issues in their speeches.  But that’s par for the political course.  Both parties are playing us, and the sad part is that some of our own brothers and sisters are helping them.  But, that’s our own fault.

We vote for candidates simply because someone famous endorses them.  That’s why we see this constant coming out party among Black folks who like either Uncle Bernie or Mama Hillary.  One Black commentator said Bernie needs to “tell old civil rights stories” to get more Black votes.  Are we so child-like that all it takes is for some celebrity, news commentator, or politician to issue a statement of support for us to fall head-over-heels for a particular candidate?  That’s weak and intellectually lazy, y’all.  Think for yourself; think independently.

What exactly have we gained from candidates we have supported, endorsed, and worked for in the past?  Are we politically and economically empowered?  Has their being elected leveraged any “Black-specific” reciprocity, such as what was given to Hispanic, Filipino, Jewish, and LGBT groups?   If you are intellectually honest, you know the correct answers to those questions.  We give our votes and get virtually nothing in return.  How silly is that in the “Silly Season”?

Carter G. Woodson wrote, “It is unfortunate that such a large number of Negroes do not know any better than to stake their whole fortune on politics. History does not show that any race, especially a minority group, has ever solved an important problem by relying altogether on one thing, certainly not by parking its political strength on one side of the fence because of empty promises.”

Black people must work on being economically and politically empowered—in that order, or at least concurrently.  We will not win as long as we stay on our present path, which is seeking political empowerment from an economically weak position.  Amos Wilson wrote, “Economic powerlessness means political powerlessness. The idea that the Afrikan American community can exercise effective power, political or otherwise, without simultaneously exercising economic power, is a fantasy…”

There are several “Black specific” issues, but let’s look at just two:  Internal and external reparations.  When asked about the “R” word, Hillary Clinton said we need “investments in our neighborhoods” instead of reparations.  Investment is great, but the folks in the neighborhoods must have a say in who gets the development contracts and the jobs that come along with investment.  Internally, Black folks must start and grow more businesses and support them with our dollars.

Bernie Sanders says Blacks “need jobs” not reparations.  In an interview in Iowa Bernie said, “Its [reparations] likelihood of getting through Congress is nil; second of all, I think it would be very divisive.”  Japanese, Filipino, and Jewish reparations were not divisive.  Feeling “Berned,” y’all?

What we “need” is to be paid for the jobs Blacks used to have, as we talk about creating more jobs.  After enslavement, Black people were laid off with no severance package, 401-K, or extended benefits.  We “need” our well-deserved “back pay.”  Reparatory justice is not a panacea, but it sure would give us a boost.  Internally, Black people must circulate our own $1.2 trillion aggregate income among ourselves, and stop exchanging it for everything someone else makes.  We must produce more and consume less.

Have you ever been sent to someone else’s job to pick up their check because that person was unable to do so?  It’s the same thing with reparations.  Malcolm said, “If you are the son of a man who had a wealthy estate and you inherit your father's estate, you have to pay off the debts that your father incurred before he died. The only reason that the present generation of white Americans are in a position of economic strength...is because their fathers worked our fathers

for over 400 years with no pay. Your father isn't here to pay.  My father isn't here to collect.  But I'm here to collect, and you're here to pay.”

In this silly season, confront candidates with substantive issues rather than symbolic gestures.

The Mighty 9 Push a 21st Century Agenda for Jobs and Freedom by Marc H. Morial

February 28, 2016

To Be Equal 

The Mighty 9 Push a 21st Century Agenda for Jobs and Freedom
By Marc H. Morial

marcmorial

(TriceEdneyWire.com) - “Elections determine who is in power, but they do not determine how power is used.” – Paul Collier, “The Bottom Billion,” June 1, 2007

With American citizenship comes great responsibility. Since the birth of this nation, every four years we decide who will take on the mantle of president. No decision we make as citizens could have a more profound impact on our lives—and in the broader international arena. When we determine who will take on the role of commander in chief, we effectively decide our national priorities, our agenda and under what political philosophy we wish to be governed. Voting for a president is neither an exercise to be taken lightly or undertaken in blissful ignorance. Every four years, you are challenged to choose the candidate who promotes your agenda.

At the National Urban League, our agenda revolves around education, jobs and justice. This is not about endorsing candidates; it’s about endorsing democracy. This is not about endorsing a particular politician; it’s about endorsing those ideas that benefit communities of color, benefit our cities and benefit all low-income and working-class Americans. The National Urban League, along with the heads of eight other historic civil rights organizations, recently met with democratic presidential candidates Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders to hear their respective platforms and to promote our respective agendas.

In addition to myself, the meetings included:

Melanie Campbell, National Coalition on Black Civic Participation

Cornell W. Brooks, NAACP

The Rev. Al Sharpton, National Action Network

Kristen Clarke, Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law

Wade Henderson, Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights

Benjamin L. Crump, National Bar Association

Sherrilyn Ifill, NAACP Legal defense and Education Fund

Ingrid Saunders Jones and Janice Mathis, National Council of Negro Women

The political truth is that, today, a candidate for the office of president will find it almost impossible to win a nomination without the support of African-American and Hispanic voters. Communities of color are a large voting bloc and their concerns must be acknowledged as vital, top-of-the-agenda items.

We covered much of those items with the would-be-presidents using the coalition’s “21st Century Agenda for Jobs and Freedom” as a framework. The public policy paper,developed almost five years ago in a series of meetings attended by nearly 60 leading civil rights, social justice, business and community leaders in Washington, D.C., identified five urgent domestic goals for our nation:

1. Achieve Economic Parity for African-Americans;

2. Promote Equity in Educational Opportunity;

3. Protect and Defend Voting Rights;

4. Promote a Healthier Nation by Eliminating Healthcare Disparities; and

5. Achieve Comprehensive Criminal Justice System Reform

Both of the candidates spoke candidly on a host of these issues—and more. Both of the candidates demonstrated an ability to speak fluently and fluidly on the topics of race relations and racial inequality, and how the enduring pairing of the two has had a devastating impact on communities of color all around our nation. It was important for those of us gathered around the table to understand that as the first Black family to reside in the White House moves out of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, the concerns of Black Americans and underserved communities aren’t swept under the rug behind them–to paraphrase my esteemed colleague Rev. Al Sharpton of National Action Network.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Our goal is to help set an agenda for the next president, but that agenda will ultimately be set with every individual vote cast. You have a seat at the table too. Find out where the candidates stand on the issues that are important to you and cast a vote—and make sure your family and friends are doing the same—because your vote is your access to the proverbial table. It is your unique opportunity to let the candidates know what is most important to you.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I hope this will not be the last meeting between civil rights groups and presidential candidates. The invitations have been sent and we look forward to more conversations, because in politics, there are no permanent allies or permanent enemies, only permanent interests.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rebuild America's infrastructure by Jesse Jackson

Feb. 27, 2016

Rebuild America's infrastructure

By Jesse Jackson

Jesse3

(TriceEdneyWire.com) - In the presidential campaign, we’ve seen libels on immigrants, fear mongering about Syrian refugees, arguments over Medicare for All and Obamacare, concerns about big money corrupting our politics and more. But too little attention has been paid to the one thing on which there should be consensus within and between the parties: the need to rebuild America now.

We didn’t need the horrors of children at risk from fouled lead pipes in Flint, Mich., to know that our infrastructure is dangerously decrepit. The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) issues a report card every four years on our infrastructure, detailing the level of our investment deficit. According to the most recent report card, issued in 2013, simply to get the country’s drinking water — drinking water — in safe shape would cost more than $1 trillion over the next 25 years.

The report card pegged the immediate cost of fixing at-risk bridges at $76 billion. Add fixing unsafe schools, repairing mass transit, disposing of hazardous waste and maintaining other basics, and ASCE estimated an infrastructure price tag of $3.6 trillion by 2020.

That is simply to repair what is. But we face a far larger investment deficit. If we are ever to enjoy widely shared prosperity, we will need a far more competitive real economy. That means 21st century broadband, fast trains, modernized airports, efficient mass transit and a modernized electric grid, just for starters.

And, as Flint demonstrated, we have communities in distress that need special, targeted investment. Community health clinics to replace hospitals that have closed. New schools with modern facilities and equipment. New water systems. New affordable mass transit that makes getting to jobs in the suburbs possible. Public parks that provide a place for children to play.

And now catastrophic climate change is causing hundreds of billions of dollars in damage. We need significant research and development to generate the next generation of efficient appliances, cars, buildings and factories. We need public/private partnerships, and public investment, to help retrofit buildings and apartment houses for efficiency and alternative energy.

The need is clear. But the price tag should be seen as an opportunity, not a barrier. We still have not recovered from the financial collapse in 2008. Millions have dropped out of the work force. Some 17 million are still in need of full-time work. We pay to imprison too many and educate and employ too few.

In these circumstances, a bold plan to rebuild the country will put people to work, generate demand, and boost a flagging economy. Modernizing our infrastructure would help us compete in the global economy. With interest rates near zero, reputable economists argue that this will pay for itself in increased productivity, employment, wages and tax revenue. If not, we can easily afford it by requiring the wealthy and the corporations to pay their fair share of taxes.

This is not and should not be a partisan question. Republican Abraham Lincoln built the railroads and the land grant colleges even in the midst of the Civil War. Republican Dwight Eisenhower built the interstate highway system in the 1950s. The conservative Chamber of Commerce joins with the AFL-CIO to endorse a major infrastructure plan.

Yet, to date, the presidential candidates haven’t stepped up. Republican talk about infrastructure is focused on Trump’s promise to build a wall on the border and get the Mexicans to pay for it. Marco Rubio promises to spend $1 trillion more — but on the military, not on rebuilding America. Hillary Clinton’s proposal on infrastructure — $275 billion over five years — is below what President Barack Obama has called for. Bernie Sanders proposal — $1 trillion over five years — is still far short of the ASCE accounting.

As Flint has shown, the human costs and risks of allowing our infrastructure to decline are immense. The economic costs are far greater in lost productivity than the price tag of making the investment. Consider this a simple measure of our future. America’s decline will continue for as long as we fail to rebuild the country.

 

How Many More Flints? by Dr. E. Faye Williams, Esq.

Feb. 28, 2016

How Many More Flints?
By Dr. E. Faye Williams, Esq. 

williams2

(TriceEdneyWire.com) — As it should be, Flint, Michigan, has been in the news for the last several weeks.  I wonder how many more Flints there are for us to share great concern.

A few days ago, in meeting with EPA Administrator, Gina McCarthy, these concerns were expressed.  Representatives from many organizations were present, including the National Congress of Black Women, NAACP, Hip Hop Caucus, and Urban League.  The EPA not only shared a thorough report with us, but asked for our feedback.  We learned, in detail, what is happening to resolve the problem of Flint’s poisoned water.  As a note, the job the EPA and other agencies are doing is impressive.

One of the overriding concerns was how the Flint situation went so far out of hand before action was taken.  We also questioned how it was possible that citizens could be billed for water that, by official admission, was poisonous.  Considering the fact that that Flint is a city of 55% African Americans, the issue of environmental racism was called into question.

With at least 9,000 children under age of 6 that have been exposed to lead and other toxins, long-term health implications for those disabled by their exposure seem ominous.  Where there are at least 40% of the households living below the poverty level and another 40% not doing much better, the likelihood of overcoming liabilities associated with hindered cognitive development seems remote!  Reason has gone out of the window as the Michigan governor insists that his Emergency Financial Manager Law can manage citizen affairs better than local officials elected by the people.

The Flint crisis is far from being resolved.  Michigan has shown itself unable or unwilling to affirmatively attack this problem of its’ own making.  How much capital will impacted businesses receive for purposes of rebuilding?  What type of therapeutic and jobs programs will be made available for citizens and families impacted by this environmental travesty?    This problem is larger than Michigan.  It is incumbent upon us to acknowledge the necessity of long-term national support for the people of Flint.

Sadly, this tragedy has left many wondering if the same situation could occur elsewhere.  Some label Flint as an anomaly, but reality suggests otherwise.  In Louisiana, we have observed Cancer Alley extending from Baton Rouge to New Orleans.  The BP Oil Spill worsened this situation throughout the  Gulf Coast region — and  forget what you hear in the news, the poorest people have not yet been compensated.

We have learned about the toxic situation around Port Arthur and Beaumont, Texas.  Lately, we have heard about Crystal, Texas.  Reports surface about unsafe drinking water in Eastern Tennessee, in Kentucky, in Charleston, West Virginia, in North Carolina, in Jackson, MS and other places.  Living in Washington, DC, near an area called Buzzard Point, we are threatened by the prospect that digging associated with area redevelopment will result in toxins being brought to the surface.

The callous disregard for public health in Flint and other areas gives us all cause for greater concern about exposure to environmental hazards.  Our risks increase as infrastructure ages and research discovers errors in the manufacture and use of chemicals and/or man-made materials.

For us and the sake of our children, we must demand greater accountably from those responsible for our food and water supply.  Public health officials must assure our safety with appropriate and on-going testing for life-threatening substances in our environment.

More importantly, we must become engaged and do more than pay taxes and expect the best outcomes.  We must attend city/county council meetings.  We must question our legislatures and political executives and insist upon answers to our concerns.  We must get busy or Flint-type crises will become the rule rather than the exception exception.

(Dr. E. Faye Williams is National President of the National Congress of Black Women.  www.nationalcongressbw.org.  202/678-6788.)

X