Truth in Media Reporting or Advertising

Do advertisers have to tell the truth?  Do newspapers, radio and television have to tell the truth?  Does our constitutionally-protected right to free speech permit us to lie when using public media?  Who can we trust?

I find it interesting that we have such a large variety of rules concerning "free speech" in the US.

The US Supreme court is hearing a case which could end up allowing political advertisements to lie as much as they want.  However, there are already rules that require media to publish "opposing viewpoints" when not a paid ad. There is a bill in congress to allow travel companies to lie about their prices:  See this article by Christopher Elliott for USA Today  I hate the way the airlines are now pricing their fares, with so many add-ons --sometimes with surprises at the airport!  Clearly not a fair system of competition!

However drug and medical device manufacturers must tell the truth about their products, and must provide all of the contraindications and side effects as part of their advertising.  Most consumer products must also tell the truth about their products.

It seems to me that when someone uses a Government-regulated medium for communication with the public that there should be some sort of regulation concerning reasonable truth.  Broadcast radio & TV are obviously candidates for that rule, but what about cable TV & internet?  What about newspapers? There are many newspapers and magazines which continually lie or clearly "stretch" the truth far beyond a reasonable amount.

Google recently removed misleading ads by anti-abortion groups which tried to hook women who were looking for abortion providers into counseling.  Should it be legal to post misleading ads?  Or should it be legal for a media (internet, newspapers, TV & radio) to refuse to publish misleading ads? Craigslist and Google were forced to remove ads and links to advertisers of illegal drugs and prostitution.  Why doesn't that violate free speech?

If the US puts restrictions on lying in the media, what is to stop those companies from lying in their advertisements on international web sites and media?  Do we need international regulation and policing of media for truth?  Or do we remove all regulation and let the reader, viewer or listener decide for themselves?   

Brazilian president signs internet 'Bill of Rights' into law - SC Magazine

It appears that Brazil is taking a leadership role in internet privacy and freedoms.



Brazilian president signs internet 'Bill of Rights' into law - SC Magazine:



It is so sad that the US is abdicating leadership role on the internet.  We invented it, and then attempted to destroy it.

Should you control your own car's data? | UTSanDiego.com

It is interesting that now there will be another large database collected by car companies, that will be almost as interesting as the highway intersection camera data, security camera data, internet data, telephone data etc, and also as much of an invasion of our privacy.

This article by Johnathan Horn in today's Union Tribune describes a bill in the California State Senate to force auto companies to share the data they collect with car owners and car repair shops.  The bill was introduced by Sen Bill Monning, a Democrat from Marin County.

Should you control your own car's data? | UTSanDiego.com:  The issue is extremely interesting because it involves so many aspects of law, privacy, security, and engineering.  Also it is interesting to see the crazy mix of groups in the coalitions for, and against the bill.  The AAA is in favor of it, but the NAACP is against it, along with the car companies.

This bill in the State legislature could set some precedents for other states.  Eventually it probably will need to be addressed by Federal legislation

Old Bold Pilots in Oceanside

My Friend, Rich Wendt, just sent me an article from Air & Space Magazine about the Old, Bold Pilot's association that meets at a local Oceanside Dennys each Wednesday.  There are a lot of real heroes in that bunch!  From the article I learned that Dick Lyons is part of the group--Not only a great pilot, a Seal, but also served as our City of Oceanside Mayor for years.  
I also found out that the group has their own web site: http://www.oldboldpilots.org/
and there is an Old Bold Pilot group in Palm Springs area with their website:  http://oldboldpilots.com/meetings/
Also, there was an article int he SAn Diego Union Tribune on Thursday about the Old Bold Pilots: see this link 

Uber faces backlash from new Luddites | UTSanDiego.com

I've never been a big fan of Cab companies or City regulation of cab companies.  I do believe there were efficiencies in having large cab companies, because they could position cabs at optimum locations for customers, and could install and operate good, modern centralized dispatch centers.  Times and technology have changed that.   Yes, some regulation is necessary to protect the public from unsafe cabs and fare gouging.  Current City regulation seems to go further, however and involves granting a monopoly to cab companies, and allowing them to exercise monopoly pricing.  With no competition, they can always argue for higher prices.  The City usually profits from the arrangement by collecting significant "franchise fees" from the cab company operators.  This franchise fee is just another form of tax on the public, since the public must pay the fee as it is passed on to them in the fares.

What has been the result of this arrangement?  It appears that there are far too many cabs and cab drivers on the street -- at least in some locations.  Drivers can spend hours waiting in line for an opportunity to get a fare.  It has also gone the other way --with "medallions" selling for a million dollars or more in NY City. Both of these situations are signs of extreme inefficiency.  In other cases, the Cab Companies are so powerful that they are able to restrict all competition.  Some cities (such as in Mexico) restrict buses from stopping at airports to force travelers to use cabs.   City planners have been strong-armed by cab companies to restrict having light rail traffic going to airports (SFO for years, LAX still doesn't have light rail, SDO only has busses).  We were impressed that on Langkawi Malaysia that the cab companies have fought to prevent any buses from operating on the island, even thought it appears that a bus system would be much more efficient.

Now technology breakthroughs are starting to make the traditional cab company partially obsolete.  Handheld smartphone technology from Uber, Lyft & Sidecar have eliminated the need for the large cab company and heavy-handed City regulation.  The technology avoids the need for central dispatch, and uses supply & demand to optimize locations of "cab stands"  However the cab companies (and drivers) are trying to fight back to maintain status quo  Greenhut wrote a good article this morning that points out some of the futile attempts in the US and France: Uber faces backlash from new Luddites | UTSanDiego.com:

I sympathize with the cab drivers.  It isn't a "fun" job, and it is somewhat dangerous.  Yes, they also deserve to earn a "living wage" for the long hours of work they put in.   Some of them are in danger of losing their jobs due to this new technology.  However Uber, Lyft and Sidecar use drivers, so total number of jobs aren't being eliminated.  Only the jobs working for the large cab companies are being affected.  Those companies are using every financial and political trick possible to try and maintain the current system.  As described in Greenhuts' editorial, they try to use safety as an argument.   Of course the tax revenue they produce and the favors they provide to politicians are also part of their toolbox.  They will also try to take advantage of organized labor, when necessary to help them maintain their monopoly.

Eventually, there probably won't be any cab drivers, and we will be going to computer driven cars.

In recent history there have been other "revolutions" like this.  When the barcode came out on grocery store products, the grocery unions fought against it because it required fewer employees in a store to keep prices on products, operate the check out registers, and perform inventories.  In some Cities and states, they were successful at passing laws against it.  However now that the technology is firmly entrenched, all consumers benefit through lower costs, and more selection in stores.  Self-serve gas stations were a threat to service station employees, and some states passed laws to prevent self-service stations.  Last time I went through Oregon, they still had that law on the books.  Now it seems like such a waste for an employee to be standing around waiting for a customer, and then the customer to be standing around doing nothing while the attendant pumps the gas.  The Video and Music Recording Industry did everything in their power to stop electronic distribution of their products.  Now, in less than 10 years, almost all music and video is distributed electronically.  Yes possibly hundreds of thousands of jobs have been eliminated.  No need to manufacture video tapes, CDs or DVDs, package, ship, inventory or sell them.  However, now the consumer has an almost unlimited inventory of music and videos to choose from at significantly lower cost.   Why not allow the cab industry to also evolve in a similar fashion to a more efficient and convenient system?

REPORT: CIA MISLED ON INTERROGATIONS | UTSanDiego.com

When I first heard about the CIA use of torture and rendition, I thought it had to be illegal.  It is clearly against international law, Geneva Convention, US Law (why else go to other countries to do it?), and normal laws of humanity.  I've also questioned the benefits gained through the torture programs.  Yes, I understand situations such as those depicted on the TV series 24 where information had to be extracted to prevent an IMMEDIATE nuclear explosion in the center of a city.  However doing it months or years after capture would seem to be doing nothing but attempting to extract revenge, or act as a form of "terrorism" ourselves.  It would, for example, be saying:   "If you participate in an attack on the US you will be tortured."

During the Vietnam war era, the Vietnamese treated US soldiers terribly and did perform acts of torture on POWs.  The US at that time claimed that it was against the Geneva Convention etc.  What worried me about this recent torture by the US was that now we have legitimized torture, so now other countries can torture American POWs without fear of violating international law.  I was also very skeptical that the US would be able to obtain any actionable intelligence from these acts of torture.

This latest article below describes the report that is possibly going to be released by the Government concerning the torture. REPORT: CIA MISLED ON INTERROGATIONS | UTSanDiego.com:  It bothers me that the US did this.  It confirms my suspicion that the CIA didn't obtain much useful from years of a very active and expensive torture program. Not only was the program expensive, it also ruined the US record of fairness, justice and compliance with international law.   It also really bothers me that the CIA would lie to their Congressional and Senatorial oversight committees.

I've always thought that torture was against the Geneva Convention for warfare.  Most agree that terrorism is a form of war, and that the terrorist "foot soldiers" are,  in fact soldiers.  Those individuals are risking, or giving up their lives for a cause. There is a very fine line between a suicide bomber blowing himself on a bus, and a US drone firing a missile that blows up a bus.   Through my whole military career, I was taught and I believed that the act of torturing a prisoner would be an illegal act.  If ordered to do so by my superior, I would have to refuse to carry out that order, and the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) would support me.  A soldier is supposed to refuse to carry out an order believed to be illegal.  If any of the people involved in the torturing were active military, they could be court-martialed for their participation.  If any of the participants were veterans or retirees, they could lose their benefits if convicted.  I believe that is why the "dirty deeds" were done by civilians or civilian contractors in other countries.

The Senate is supposed to vote on a proposal to declassify a 400 page summary of the 6200 page report. (See this link)  I hate to see our 'dirty laundry" get hung out on an international stage.  However, since the fact of the torture is no longer a secret, so the cat is out of the bag.  I think it would be advisable to declassify at least the recommendations from this report, and initiate a meaningful dialogue about what the United States should do now and in the future concerning these activities.

The CIA made a serious error when they blocked the Senate oversight committee from seeing the documents, and then made the situation even worse by tapping into the computers used by the committee members.  David Ignatius, from the Washington Post wrote a good editorial on April 3rd that describes how the "war" between CIA and Senate happened.  The CIA and NSA have recently been thumbing their nose at congressional oversight.  The whole process of supervision requires complete openness to reviews.  It is clear that NSA knew what facts about their wiretap surveillance program they were hiding from congress.  It was also clear that CIA did not want their report concerning torture released to the committee.  Had both agencies been completely open with the Senate and House select intelligence committees, there wouldn't have been any problems.