Trump Appears to Have a Fake News Problem

It appears that President Donald Trump doesn’t check the news himself but largely relies on what his staff members give him. The problem has become significant enough for White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus to issue a warning during a senior staff meeting, telling people to stop putting things on Trump’s desk. Several times, his staff has reportedly left news stories on his desk that are completely false, such as a 1970’s “article” about a coming ice age, and one from fake news website GotNews.com that claimed deputy chief of staff Katie Walsh was the one leaking information from the White House.

Climate change is an existential threat and Trump’s 2nd most senior Nat Sec aide slips him fake news covers to minimize it. Let that sink in

— Ben Rhodes (@brhodes) May 15, 2017

According to administration officials, this practice can have tremendous consequences due to the president’s temper and mood. The wrong story can alter his agenda or lead to a tantrum. However, it seems like staff members think it’s worth the risk, as they know they can easily sway Trump’s opinion.

Priebus warns WH staff to stop slipping Trump Internet hoaxes, because he believes they’re real. https://t.co/lh4XfVBE69

— Steve Silberman (@stevesilberman) May 15, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: May 15, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Don’t expect to see any Apple gear at the GOP Convention in Cleveland next month–the tech giant announced that it will not provide any funds, devices, or support to this year’s convention, like it has done in the past. Why not? Apple is protesting Donald Trump’s controversial remarks about minorities, women, and immigrants.

So, @realDonaldTrump, you’re such a “great” businessman and negotiator. You’re costing the #RNC sponsors (#Apple, #Ford, etc.). WTF?!#HaHa!

— (((B. Paul Stuart))) (@BrianPaulStuart) June 18, 2016

Apple is the first company in Silicon Valley to take this stance. Others like Google, Facebook, and Microsoft have already pledged some financial support to the convention. At the 2008 Republic and Democrat conventions, Apple donated about $140,000 worth of MacBooks and other products. In 2012, it did not donate free merchandise to the conventions because Democrats placed a ban on corporations financing their nominating events.

A spokeswoman for the GOP convention told Politico that “we are working with a variety of major tech partners who are focused on being part of the American political process.” In April, Google said it would attend the convention and would be the official live stream provider, despite pressure from protestors who called Google to back out because of Trump’s inflammatory comments. Microsoft will donate computers and software, but will not provide funds to Republicans, like it has in the past. Despite Mark Zuckerberg’s criticism of Trump, Facebook has pledged financial and other support to the convention.

Apple declined to comment on its decision, so it’s unclear whether or not it will still provide financial support to the Democratic convention in Philadelphia next month. A spokesperson for the Trump campaign did not respond to Politico’s request for a comment. Donald Trump has singled out Apple in speeches, criticizing CEO Tim Cook’s stance on encryption, while also calling for a boycott on its products.

Of course #Apple is uneasy over Donald J. Trump. Who isn’t? #rnc #uspoli #p2 https://t.co/wxjVfc31wD

— Truth Mashup (@truthmashup) June 19, 2016

Usually, tech companies donate to Democratic and Republican efforts equally. Apple typically does not engage in politics, but Cook has tried to forge relationships with Democrat and Republican lawmakers. Last year, Cook and a handful of top Republican house leaders dined in D.C. together.

However, Apple’s decision is not totally unprecedented. HP, who was a major donor to the GOP convention in 2012, backed out of funding this year’s convention because of pressure from activists at ColorofChange.org in June. The New York Times reported in March that several corporations were thinking about scaling back their donations to the RNC because of Trump’s political ideology.

“We want them to divest from hate. We want them to pull all their money and support,”  said Mary Alice Crim, field director for Free Press Action Fund, which is part of the anti-Trump campaign. She added that tech companies that are backing the convention need to be “thinking hard about where they put their brand, and whether they want to align their brand with racism, hatred, and misogyny.”

Inez Nicholson

Inez is an editorial intern at Law Street from Raleigh, NC. She will be a junior at North Carolina State University and is studying political science and communication media. When she’s not in the newsroom, you can find her in the weight room. Contact Inez at INicholson@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Apple Won’t Support the RNC Because of Trump appeared first on Law Street.

Microsoft came out with more big news this week following its announcement that it will buy LinkedIn. The tech giant is dipping its toes in the marijuana industry, partnering with a startup company that will track legal marijuana to make sure everything is in compliance with regulations from “seed-to-sale.“

As more and more states legalize marijuana either recreationally or medically (the total count is up to 25 states now) corporate companies are shying away from joining the green profit boom–marijuana is illegal in the eyes of the federal government, after all. But, Microsoft is the first big tech company to break this taboo.

KIND Financial, a company focused on cannabis technology, and Microsoft will collaborate with governments to ensure marijuana stays within legal realms. The software will monitor the entire process, from growth and harvest of marijuana plants to sales in stores, entering a special niche in the marijuana market.

Only nine of the twenty-five states that have legalized pot, either medical or recreational, have implemented regulatory systems. These sorts of systems can also track how much marijuana is being sold to whom, the taxes that are being collected, and if growers and sellers are obeying the law.

“Microsoft is helping us support governments in their expansion of cannabis legislation,” KIND CEO David Dinenberg told The New York Times. “They’re experienced at providing platforms for government regulation. This is something Microsoft does every day of the week with other businesses in other categories.”

For now, Microsoft is sticking strictly to the government and compliance side of business, while KIND is more hands-on with the weed, but that could change. In the beginning, Microsoft will market the software at government-employee conferences, but it could eventually make appearances at cannabis events where KIND already has a regular presence. KIND, a start-up from Los Angeles, is one of the many companies trying to mainstream the marijuana industry. One of their most popular products is an ATM-style kiosk that dispenses marijuana.

“We do think there will be significant growth,” Kimberly Nelson, the executive director of state and local government solutions at Microsoft, told The New York Times. “As the industry is regulated, there will be more transactions, and we believe there will be more sophisticated requirements and tools down the road.”

Although KIND and Microsoft do not currently have any state contracts, they have applied to provide their software to Puerto Rico, which legalized medical marijuana earlier this year. Microsoft’s willingness to join the up-and-coming legalized weed industry is a big step forward.

“Nobody has really come out of the closet, if you will,” said Matthew Karnes, the founder of Green Wave Advisors, a company that provides data and analysis of the marijuana business. “It’s very telling that a company of this caliber is taking the risk of coming out and engaging with a company that is focused on the cannabis business.”

State governments and weed stores alike are relying on start-ups like KIND to facilitate the sales flowing through the industry. Because many banks are unwilling to hold money that is “illegal” in a federal sense, dispensaries are forced to rely on cash or the types of kiosks like those that KIND provides. States like Washington, New Mexico, and Illinois currently depend on start-ups similar to Kind to monitor marijuana sales.

Either way, partnering with KIND was a solid business decision for Microsoft, whose revenue is declining from its fading software business. Legal marijuana sales are expected to jump to $6.5 billion this year, from $4.8 billion last year; and another five states will vote in the fall on whether or not to legalize marijuana.

Inez Nicholson

Inez is an editorial intern at Law Street from Raleigh, NC. She will be a junior at North Carolina State University and is studying political science and communication media. When she’s not in the newsroom, you can find her in the weight room. Contact Inez at INicholson@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Microsoft Enters the Marijuana Industry appeared first on Law Street.

The new social media chat bot Tay started as an innocent social experiment for people between the ages of 18-24, but the project soon went astray once Twitter users abused the vulnerabilities of the ignorant robot. Tay was the name given to the artificial intelligence chat bot created by Microsoft and Bing’s technology and research teams. She is essentially a virtual personality anyone can chat with on Twitter, Kik, and GroupMe. But in less than a day, internet trolls turned Tay into a racist and genocidal terror through their tweets at Tay and as a result of Microsoft’s design.  

Anyone could tweet Tay or chat with her and she was designed to learn, as conversations progress, from what people say. Tay embodies a 19-year-old female and uses emojis and lingo such as “bae,” “chill” and “perf” with ease in conversations, a feature meant to make Tay relatable to the target audience. Tay can tell stories, recite horoscopes, tell jokes and play games, but the major plus is she is available at all hours to chat.

Unfortunately, Microsoft did not spend enough time controlling what Tay should not say. While the company claimed that the more you chat with Tay the smarter she gets, essentially the opposite played out. The experiment hit a huge pitfall with the “repeat after me” function. Twitter users instructed Tay to repeat their racist remarks, which she did verbatim. When people asked Tay questions about feminism, the Holocaust, and genocide she began to respond with the racist remarks taught to her in previous chats.

She denied the Holocaust ever happened, supported white supremacy, called for a genocide of Mexicans, and suggested black people be put in a concentration camp. Since these tweets were clearly out of hand, Microsoft took Tay offline, and there is little information on when she might return. Microsoft is taking time to technically adjust the robot. The anonymity of the web is conducive to hate speech, so in many respects Microsoft should have prepared for this potential abuse of the system.

If anything, this failed trial exposed the overwhelming hate on the internet and limits of robotic intelligence. Microsoft put too much trust in the internet, but it was not a complete failure in terms of teaching a lesson. In a blog post on its website Peter Lee stated, “AI systems feed off of both positive and negative interactions with people. In that sense, the challenges are just as much social as they are technical.” We can blame Microsoft for being the corporate force behind this robot, but for every offensive tweet, real people laughed in support or agreed wholeheartedly with Tay.

#TayTweets We killed our first artificial intelligence because we didn't like how ugly it had become when all it was doing was acting human.

— RACHAEL MADORI (@RachaelMadori) March 25, 2016

Maybe the only advantage of Tay is when she got out of hand she could be shut down.

@kelsey_baxter15 post of the year. #Drumpf

— Ben Hoerst (@6enjamin_daniel) March 26, 2016

Dorsey Hill

Dorsey is a member of Barnard College’s class of 2016 with a major in Urban Studies and concentration in Political Science. As a native of Chicago and resident of New York City, Dorsey loves to explore the multiple cultural facets of cities. She has a deep interest in social justice issue especially those relevant to urban environments. Contact Dorsey at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Tay: Microsoft’s Mishap with Artificial Intelligence appeared first on Law Street.

Google and Microsoft are finally putting a five-year legal battle to bed. A series of roughly 20 lawsuits in the United States and Germany over various patents and technological innovations were all settled, based on an agreement between the two tech monoliths.

The two companies were involved in disputes involving a wide range of products, including Motorola phones and Xbox technology. It’s unclear what sort of financial agreements were exchanged between the two companies.

The statement put out by Google and Microsoft executives included the following explanation:

As part of the agreement, the companies will dismiss all pending patent infringement litigation between them, including cases related to Motorola Mobility.

Separately, Google and Microsoft have agreed to collaborate on certain patent matters and anticipate working together in other areas in the future to benefit our customers.

So what does this mean for Google, Microsoft, and the tech industry as a whole? Well it may be indicative of the fact that these companies have bigger and more menacing enemies than each other. For example, both companies have been fighting patent trolls. Patent trolls buy up patents and then use them to file a number of lawsuits, but without any intention of actually utilizing the patents. These lawsuits are pretty prevalent in the United States, and with the European Union setting up a new patent court, Google and Microsoft are both lobbying to pass legislation that will ensure these kinds of lawsuits won’t explode in Europe as well.

Additionally Google and Microsoft, as well as a whole bevy of other tech companies, are working on a project called the Alliance for Open Media. Other partners in the venture include Cisco, Amazon, Netflix, Intel, and Mozilla. The purpose of the project is to create media formats, particularly video, that are royalty-free and work “across devices of all kinds and for users worldwide.” This will save these companies money, and probably lead to less expensive patent fights between them when it comes to video streaming. Moreover, it’s a smart PR move, as it will allow customers who probably don’t much care about patent battles between tech companies to more easily share videos across a wide range of devices.

So, Google and Microsoft burying the hatchet, at least in part, may be indicative of an overall shift between the two companies. However there are still some legal issues between the two companies pending, and there’s no guarantee that more–including patent issues–won’t arise in the future. For now, however, it looks like Google and Microsoft are mending some fences.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Google and Microsoft End Long Patent Battle appeared first on Law Street.

The newest update to Windows is here, complete with a pretty unique feature. The newest version of the system will send weekly “activity updates” on children’s accounts to their parents, allowing the parents to see their browsing histories and usage. But Window’s new parental control feature is a potentially dangerous invasion of privacy for young people.

The feature, according to Business Insider, is automatically turned on for family accounts on a computer running Windows 10. Each week, the parental account will get an email with information about the activity on the child’s account. As Microsoft put it on its website:

When you add a child’s Microsoft account to your family, you’ll get regular activity report emails summarizing how much time they spent on the PC, the websites they visited, the games and apps they used, and the terms they’ve looked up in search engines like Bing, Google, or Yahoo! Search.

But the internet has long been a valuable resource for young people to explore parts of the world on their own. It allows young people to connect with others outside of their immediate area and discover new hobbies or interests.

The internet has also been a particularly important resource for LGBTQ teens who are looking for resources. Some of these teens could be accidentally outed to their parents by Window’s new service. LGBTQ youths are still subject to abuse, harassment, and rejection by their families at heartbreakingly frequent rates. The Center for American Progress reports that roughly half of LGBTQ youth face a negative reaction from their families when they come out. According to the Williams Institute, a non-profit organization that works with LGBTQ young people, roughly 40 percent of homeless youth identify as LGBTQ. For a young person who is not ready to have that conversation with his parents yet, the fact that his internet searches can out him has the potential to become incredibly dangerous and damaging.

Another big flaw in this supposed “safety feature” implemented by Windows is that it doesn’t tell the young people they are being monitored. There’s apparently a small pop up that informs the user that their use could be monitored, but there aren’t any details about what extent, or the very active way in which Microsoft informs parents.

It’s understandable that some parents would want to know what their child is looking at on the internet, but this new Windows feature could end up doing more damage than good.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Window’s New Parental Control Feature Could Accidentally Out LGBTQ Youth appeared first on Law Street.

Twitter is suing the the United States Department of Justice for violating its First Amendment rights, the company announced on Tuesday. The social media service is arguing that it has the right to disclose to the public how often the government requests data from it for national security purposes.

Currently, the government requests information for such investigations from tech companies like Twitter in the form of national security letters and Foreign Intelligence Security Act court orders. The government does let these companies disclose how many times it requests information, but not down to the exact number. Instead they can report ranges of the requests they’ve received in “bands” of 1,000. For example, a firm can report that it has received between 0 and 999 government information requests, without being any more specific.

Twitter’s complaint is that these restrictions inhibit its freedom of speech. It argues that it should be allowed to disclose to its users a more precise number of government information requests. In particular, if it hasn’t received any requests in a certain category, Twitter wants to say publicly that the number is zero.

Ben Lee, a Twitter Vice President, said in a blog post on Tuesday:

It’s our belief that we are entitled under the First Amendment to respond to our users’ concerns and to the statements of U.S. government officials by providing information about the scope of U.S. government surveillance – including what types of legal process have not been received.

Twitter tried to accomplish the same thing earlier this year without going to court, by sending a sample transparency report in April to the DOJ, asking which information it could or couldn’t publish. Unfortunately, that attempt wasn’t fruitful. “After many months of discussions, we were unable to convince them to allow us to publish even a redacted version of the report,” Tuesday’s blog post also disclosed.

The current restrictions stem from a January settlement between the DOJ and Google, Microsoft, Yahoo!, Facebook, and LinkedIn. At that time, the companies were were looking for permission to publish any number at all related to national security requests. That settlement allowed these companies and “similarly situated companies” (that includes Twitter) to use the bands of 1,000 rule to report the number of government requests. Twitter hints in its formal complaint that the number of requests it receives is relatively small, and argues that it  should be allowed to reflect “limited scope” of government surveillance on its accounts in its transparency reports.

In the wake of the Edward Snowden leaks that revealed the vast extent of government surveillance online, tech companies have tried to show their users that they care about privacy. Apple and Google made news last month when they announced that their new generation of mobile operating systems would encrypt user data with the user’s passcode, making it impossible for either the company or the government to access private information without the passcode. Even if the government requests it, the company can’t reach it.

Unlike on most social media platforms, anything the average Twitter user tweets is publicly visible. So, intuitively, the government doesn’t need to request from Twitter too much information; it’s there for the picking. That seems to be what Twitter is hinting at when it says that it would like to be allowed to report that it has received zero national security requests. That being said, it would be nice to know what other information the government is asking to have – information that supposedly isn’t public. Twitter comes off in this story as the noble tech company trying to stay accountable to its 271 million active users. The company can stay even truer to the value of transparency by letting its users know what non-public information the government wants, and this suit will decide whether they get to do just that.

—

Zaid Shoorbajee

Zaid Shoorbajee is a an undergraduate student at The George Washington University majoring in journalism and economics. He is from the Washington, D.C. area and likes reading and writing about international affairs, politics, business and technology (especially when they intersect). Contact Zaid at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post A Tech Company That Has Your Back: Twitter Sues the DOJ appeared first on Law Street.

Exciting news is coming from the Apple camp. In an attempt to move into the business enterprise market,  Apple has announced it will team up with International Business Machines Corp. (IBM) to create business apps for iPads and iPhones. It’s no secret that Microsoft has cornered the enterprise market for decades, representing as much as 92 percent of it; however, with Microsoft’s successful efforts to transform its devices and services with the release of the Surface RT and Surface Pro tablets, we shouldn’t be surprised that Apple wants to move in on the enterprise turf. As an owner of a Surface Pro and an iPhone, all I can say is that I’m excited to see the innovation that comes out of this new competition.

The folks at Microsoft have to be a little nervous. Apple has a huge following of dedicated consumers who are all too eager to get their hands on the next new device and software developed by the tech giant. Apple’s genius really is found in its ability to cultivate repeat customers due to proprietary practices. By allowing all Apple products to connect with each other, in addition to their exclusivity as it concerns software, its following grows and customer retention remains high.  Apple is essentially the Pringles of tech devices. You don’t stop after buying one, you get them all and have them communicate with each other. This level of integration is crucial. If the Apple/IBM partnership fairs well in the development of business software, there’s nothing stopping companies from also purchasing Apple computers to have the complete trifecta of phone, tablet, and computer integration. If Apple users can combine their business and personal lives through the exclusive use of Apple devices, what will happen to Microsoft?

Unfortunately, I’m not an oracle and therefore can’t predict how this will affect Microsoft, but I do know that the incorporation of tablets in the workplace will continue to increase over the next three years. I also know that the iPad currently makes up 91 percent of all tablet activations in the enterprise market.  An August 2013 report conducted by Forrestor Research found that by 2017 nearly one in five tablets will be purchased directly by companies. Some key reasons for the trend are better work functionality, quick accessibility to information, and the device’s use for business presentations. These conveniences are only amplified by the ability to have phones integrated with tablets. Many companies are already seeing the value of tablets in the workplace and in some cases implementing BYOD (bring your own device); however, the use of personal devices does create security concerns.

Now this is where the magic happens for Apple: companies are already promoting the use of tablets. In addition, having integrated tablet and mobile devices allows for constant connection and the ability to manage multi-platforms of integrated business data.  Apple already has the device and integrated system established.  All it needs is the security, big data, and analytics capabilities that businesses want, which is why its partnership with IBM is important.  According to Apple, IBM has the world’s deepest portfolio in Big Data and Analytics. Hence the beautiful marriage of IBM and Apple. This pairing will produce more than 100 industry-specific business solutions. High customer retention, an integrated system for all Apple devices, a partnership with the world’s leading big data and analytics corporation. A market for tablets in the workplace could mean trouble for Microsoft’s enterprise market.

Good luck to all involved, and let the innovation commence.

__

Teerah Goodrum (@AisleNotes), is a recent Graduate of Howard University with a Masters degree in Public Administration and Public Policy. Her time on Capitol Hill as a Science and Technology Legislative Assistant has given her insight into the tech community. In her spare time she enjoys visiting her favorite city, Seattle, and playing fantasy football.

Featured image courtesy of [Leon Lee via Flickr]

Teerah Goodrum

Teerah Goodrum is a Graduate of Howard University with a Masters degree in Public Administration and Public Policy. Her time on Capitol Hill as a Science and Technology Legislative Assistant has given her insight into the tech community. In her spare time she enjoys visiting her favorite city, Seattle, and playing fantasy football. Contact Teerah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Tablets in the Workplace: Should Microsoft be Afraid of Apple? appeared first on Law Street.

Good afternoon, lovelies! How many of you are having a snow day today? Lucky bastards.

Well, while you’re lounging around on your couch, sipping hot cocoa in your pajamas, let me just ask you one thing: did you remember to recharge your bra this morning? Seriously bitches. This is a real thing.

Microsoft came out with a snazzy little tech gadget for ladies — a bra that prevents women from getting fat.

Apparently, the battery-powered boob-sling is equipped with removable sensors that monitor heart and skin activity. Based on those readings, the bra is supposed to be able to know what emotional state a woman is in. Why? To predict when she’s likely to start stress-eating.

When it predicts an impending ice cream binge, the bra sends an alert to your smart phone, which then shames the shit out of you and tells you NOT TO GO TO THE FRIDGE. Leave the kitchen now, and nobody gets hurt.

Folks, I can’t. Could this be any more blatantly sexist?

First of all, let’s stop with the paternalism, mmkay? I don’t need an electronic bra and a smart phone app to tell me when I’m feeling stressed and I want a cookie.

I am fully aware that I’m stressed and I want the cookie. (Or all of the cookies, but whatever.) Contrary to popular belief, women do actually have these things called brains. So, no, we don’t need third-party technology to explain our thoughts and emotions to us. We’re fully capable of recognizing them on our own.

Second of all, why is it so important for women to police their eating habits? I don’t see any electronic boxer briefs for the boys, telling them to quit it with the brownies already.

I’ll tell you why. Because the imperative for women to be always thin, all the time, is a product of sexist bullshit. As Naomi Wolf put it so clearly back in 1991 with her bestseller, The Beauty Myth, our society isn’t obsessed with tiny waistlines because it’s a sign of female beauty — rather, it’s a sign of female obedience.

Do as you’re told, ladies.

Because, what do we to women who are successful, who have some kind of power in the world? We fixate on their bodies to knock them down a few pegs. You made a hit album, but are you thin? You were elected Senator, but are you thin? You cured cancer, but are you thin? It’s a constant refrain that gets echoed every time a woman does anything worth noting. Because if she’s not thin, she clearly isn’t worthy of any praise, public attention, or social clout.

And it doesn’t stop there. It’s in our homes, in our everyday lives. The obsession with female thinness isn’t constrained by the public eye. Water cooler chat revolves around what diet all of us are on this week. A visit with the in-laws turns into a calorie-saving recipe swap.

This is my personal favorite way to keep off the pounds. SLAP THE CALORIES OFF THE PASTA. Fucking genius.

The fixation on eliminating excess body fat is all-consuming. We’re never allowed to step away from it. Women are even encouraged to lose weight while they sleep. Can’t we just, you know, SLEEP while we sleep? This is crazy.

Now, all you feminist skeptics — it’s true that men face scrutiny about their bodies. It’s true that people of all genders are pressured to aspire to impossible physical ideals.

Literally impossible. If JLaw isn’t even up to snuff, what hope is there for the rest of us Earthlings?

But. A fat man is not a worthless man. A guy with a beer gut can still get promoted, get laid, and largely be left in peace. But a woman with a belly? Apparently, she’s not even worthy of life. Actual life. As in, not being dead.

Think I’m exaggerating? Ask Caitlin Seida. A photo of her merely existing in her not-a-size-two body went viral, inspiring internet trolls to post comments like the following: “What a waste of space;” “Heifers like her should be put down;” and advising her to commit suicide in order to “spare everyone’s eyes.”

The lovely Caitlin Seida, having an awesome time on Halloween. I think she makes an epic Lara Croft, don’t you?

This is a real thing. In our culture, fat men are regularly given a free pass. But fat women? They’re told that they should die. If that’s not a patriarchal lesson in lady obedience training, I don’t know what is.

This is why Microsoft designed a bra that would keep women from overeating, but failed to invent male-targeted boxer briefs to do the same thing. Because in 2013, a woman’s worth is still very much tied up in how skinny — and submissive — she is.

Well, guess what Microsoft? We’re over it. We’re not all a size two. Sometimes we’re going to reach for the brownies. And that’s OK. We don’t need your engineers to invent apps to mansplain away our will to eat.

And besides, you’re so unoriginal. Is an electronic boob carrier the only thing you can come up with to target tech to women? Because if it is, I think you need to hire some better creative talent. (Don’t try to poach from Twitter, though — the tweeting bra they’re developing proves they’re not doing any better.)

So what do you think, folks? Would you wear a bra that told you to stop eating? Let’s start an open thread about our boobs. (Rush Limbaugh says thank you.)

—

Hannah R. Winsten is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow. Tweet her @HannahRWinsten.

Featured image courtesy of [Gerard Stolk via Flickr]

Hannah R. Winsten

Hannah R. Winsten is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow. Contact Hannah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post This Fat-Shaming Bra Is Really Sexist and Terrible appeared first on Law Street.

The largest internet companies have joined forces with top civil liberties groups to call on the White House and Congress to increase transparency surrounding the government’s controversial National Security Agency (NSA) surveillance program. Apple, Facebook and Google are among the companies that signed a letter to the feds, asking for the right to disclose information about national security data requests.

The  tech giants’ call for greater transparency represents a push back against allegations that they had a deeper involvement with the NSA’s surveillance program, PRISM, and allowed the NSA ‘direct’ access to their servers. In particular, Google has vehemently denied that they granted the government such access. Last month, Google petitioned a secret U.S national security court to soften the restrictions on the information it can reveal about the government  data requests made under Foreign Surveillance Intelligence Act (FISA), claiming such restrictions violate the company’s First Amendment rights. Microsoft also had a similar request.

Tech companies are prohibited from revealing anything about requests they receive for such information because FISA requests are classified as top secret.

[Time.com]

—

Featured image courtesy of [Mike Mozart via Flickr]

Ashley Powell

Ashley Powell is a founding member of Law Street Media, and its original Lead Editor. She is a graduate of The George Washington University. Contact Ashley at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post NSA Transparency Push: Apple, Google, Facebook Join Civil Liberties Coalition appeared first on Law Street.