(Image: ThinkStock)

How would you feel about the U.S. government policing the Internet? Well, a new bill, Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) would allow them to control content on the World Wide Web as we know it today. There are major concerns with the application of this bill that run must deeper than just blocking Websites. Imagine for a moment what this type of censorship would mean: any content you post to Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, or any other social network or website could be blocked and become unsearchable on the Internet because of a single link.

The underlining issue of protecting intellectual property is a real problem, which is supposedly why the bill has been proposed. For content providers law enforcement to fight online trafficking and copyrighting infringements sounds like a noble and justifiable reason to pass the bill. But, the collateral damage of this bill’s passage would be so immense that it would far out weight the value that it would provide based upon how the bill is proposed today.

The Impact of SOPA on Entrepreneurs

Let’s look even deeper at this bill, which would be stifling to entrepreneurs, who are the lifeline of the economy. Booz & Co. interviewed 200 prominent angel investors and venture capitalist about this bill and reported that 70% of them would be deterred from investing if anti-piracy regulations were passed. This would impact innovation and job creation in the U.S. Think about the impact to Silicon Valley and other tech hubs, as well.

What Would be the Long-Term Impact of SOPA?

• There would be fewer startups launching because of the increase legal risk.
• Social networks, personal pages and sites where people express themselves could become unsearchable and blocked on the Internet.
• Email providers could be forced to censor emails to scan for links users send or receive.
• Content you share in your social networks would be monitored and censored—this includes photos, videos and status updates.
• Increased censorship would possibility remove legitimate content that you are sharing.
• Payment-processing companies like PayPal could be forced to stop doing business with sites that have been blocked.
• Most U.S.-based hosting services would relocate outside the U.S. jurisdiction, which would result in lost jobs.
• Site owners would become liable for user-posted content, if they don’t do enough to stop users from posting “illegal” content on his/her site, which could become very costly.

Which Popular Sites Would be at Risk?

• Facebook
• Google
• Twitter
• YouTube
• LinkedIn
• Vimeo
• And countless other websites and/or social networks

What Actions Can You Take?

Send your Congressman a pre-written letter via the American Censorship website (click here).

Sign the ‘Stop the E-Parasite Act’ petition by clicking here.

Follow the Electronic Frontier on Twitter to stay posted on your digital civil liberalities @EFF.

Check out the TechCrunch procedure list of over 40+ companies against SOPA by clicking here.

To me, the occupy movements sweeping this nation represent the American version of the protests in Africa and the Arab world, collectively known as the Arab Spring. Many of us watched those historic uprisings in Tunisia, Egypt, and Bahrain and wondered if and when such a mass movement could ever be possible in America. The occupy movements occurring nationwide have answered such wonderment with a resounding “Yes,” and an emphatic “Now.”

While headed to my first protest, Occupy Wall Street, I wondered whom I would encounter? If I believed the sparse and antagonistic coverage by some of the media outlets out there, the only ones protesting were “hippies,” beatniks, uninformed youth and other fringe elements of society. While those elements can often be found at any large movement, when walking through the crowd at Occupy Wall Street I saw a cross-section of America. There were Blacks, Whites, young, old, employed, unemployed, democrats, republicans and representatives of various religious and ideological persuasions. There were even visits and showings of support by some who worked on Wall Street. It became clear that, despite attempts by some traditional media outlets to discredit the movement, Occupy Wall Street was a serious movement of and for the average American.

Some have argued that a major drawback of the occupy movement is the lack of official goals or demands. In my conversations with participants, I found a vast array of issues being protested, but even in the diversity of issues there was a common theme: the rich and powerful have unfairly eroded our rights, wrecked our economy and “foreclosed on our future.”

For example,

• Some were there protesting the fact that the average CEO pay rate is nearly 350 times more than the pay of average employees.
• Some were protesting the ongoing erosion of civil liberties.
• Some were protesting the fact that, between 1979 and 2007, household incomes of the wealthiest Americans tripled, while the household incomes of average Americans stagnated and fell.
• Some were protesting the rising threats to privacy and the ubiquitous nature of the U.S. surveillance state.
• Some were protesting the fact that, despite earning billions in profits and receiving billions in bailouts, 30 major U.S. corporations paid no income taxes for the last three years and another 280 corporations paid very little in taxes.
• Still, others were protesting the debilitating fiscal austerity measures being implemented in an increasing number of states.

David Banner

In truth, there were as many issues being protested as there were protesters, but I soon realized that all of the issues voiced were relevant and NEEDED to be heard. But, to the critics I have a question(s); how does one put all of those valid concerns into a single document? How are all of those relevant issues crafted into cogent and well-argued talking points? Why would a movement based (in part) on expressing discontent with our corrupt political process be expected to draft legislation to send through that same corrupt process? Ultimately, the lack of an official set of demands reflects the long process of wading through the numerous issues plaguing this country. As a result, the current lack of demands highlights the failings of our society rather than the failings of the occupy movements.

Click here to continue reading…

Wall Street protesters take to the streets of Manhattan's Financial District (Image: Janel Martinez)

The people criticizing the “lack of demands” given by organizers and/or protestors, should also be mindful of the original purpose of Occupy Wall Street. I was told that the sole intent of the organizers was merely to show up in large numbers and be seen. Motivated by bailouts for millionaires, never-ending wars, massive home foreclosures and pervasive layoffs, the only goal of Occupy Wall Street was “protest via presence.” In light of the ever-growing numbers at Zuccotti Park, the spontaneous occupy movements that it spawned in over 100 U.S. cities and the additional 1,500 protest movements it has inspired globally, the original goal of Occupy Wall Street has indeed been achieved.

What has been particularly interesting are the responses of law enforcement to the mostly non-violent occupy movements. While Occupy L.A. has been relatively peaceful, the same cannot be said for the occupy movements in other cities. Footage from Occupy Oakland is hardly distinguishable from the footage of clashes between protestors and police in Tunisia or Egypt. Thanks to YouTube we’re able to watch the police attack on an Iraq War veteran and those coming to his aid; police pepper-spraying unarmed women; and the unprovoked police shooting of a photographer complying with their commands.

Occupy Wall Street has seen several clashes between peaceful protesters and the NYPD. The forceful actions of the NYPD in service of Wall Street bring to mind the forgotten history of the U.S. labor movement. During this time corporations enlisted the use of the Pinkertons, the U.S. Army and the National Guard to control strikes and protests, often violently. Given this history, recent revelations of substantial monetary contributions from JP Morgan Chase to the NYPD reminds many of the “good ole days” where these hired hands were used for strikebreaking. These “donations” also shed light on what many deem the excessive and adversarial posture taken by the NYPD toward the protesters.

What would be humorous, if they weren’t so troubling, are the creative methods cities are deploying to arrest protesters and otherwise end the occupy movements. By invoking rarely used ordinances against everything from the use of umbrellas, to a 150 year old law banning the public wearing of masks, police seem to have left no stone unturned in their quest to curtail fundamental rights of assembly and free speech.

Police aren’t the only ones who seem to view themselves as adversaries of the occupy protesters. Politicians in general seem to, at best, tolerate the movement and, at worst, demonize citizens choosing to exercise their constitutional rights. Elected officials like House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, Republican Presidential candidates Herman Cain, Mitt Romney and Michelle Bachman, and Rep. Peter King are just a few of the politicians who have made hostile, crude and disparaging remarks about movement participants.

This should come as no surprise. Since the founding of our nation, politicians have deemed themselves separate and distinct from those they are entrusted to represent. Let us remember, it was none other than James Madison, the principle framer of our Constitution, who argued that the primary goal of government should be “to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority.” This adversarial view that pits those governing against those governed has remained intact since the very founding of our nation. This too is what is being protested at occupy movements all across America.

As I reflect back on my visits to Occupy Wall Street and Occupy L.A. I now recognize that I was in the midst of the rawest manifestation of democracy—dissent. Being well aware of the “un-patriotic” labels given to participants by detractors, I’ve come to believe that the opposite is true. By the time my visits to the occupy movements were over I not only understood that “dissent is the highest form of patriotism,” but also, as Mark Twain, wrote:

“In the beginning of a change, the patriot is a scarce man, and brave and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot.”

As I see it, the occupy participants are indeed those brave, hated and scorned patriots at the forefront of change, their cause… to check the unrestrained opulence of the minority—the 1%.

The FTC report, called “Protecting Consumer Privacy in an Era of Rapid Change: A Proposed Framework for Businesses and Policymakers”, says that a “Do Not Track” mechanism built into browsers could present consumers with a choice about what data of theirs is collected and shared.

ALSO READ: Tech Insider: Five Tech Tools For Protecting Digital Data

“The FTC wants to help ensure that the…information marketplace is built on a framework that promotes privacy, transparency, business innovation and consumer choice,” said FTC Chairman Jon Leibowitz. “We believe that’s what most Americans want as well.”

If made into law, such a mechanism could have a negative impact on revenue generated from advertising-supported content on the Internet, or it could “result in consumers receiving more unwanted advertising such as pop-up ads that are not targeted to a user’s interests,” testified Daniel Castro, senior analyst of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, at a House hearing on the subject. He also believes a do-not-track mandate would mean less free internet content and services.

Do-Not-Track is not a law yet, but Bobby Rush (D-Ill), the Chairman for the House Subcommittee for Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection, is weighing whether to include a do-not-track proposal in privacy legislation he plans to re-introduce in the 112th Congress.

The FTC is also accepting public comments on the report until January 31, 2011, but BlackEnterprise.com wants to know what you think. Do you think it is an invasion of your privacy for company’s to collect your information or could you care less as long as you get the information you need?

Take Our Poll Below!

1.  Using your home address for subscriptions. Some publications sell your home address to third-party marketers. And these addresses often get into the hands of people who run Websites that specialize in providing sensitive contact information. US Search is one of these sites. For as little as $1.95, anyone can go to this site and obtain your age, current address, all of your previous addresses, telephone number, and the names of your family members. They charge a fee of $10 to remove your information from their database. Instead of using your home address on subscriptions, rent a mailbox at a post office and use that address.

2. Not reading bank and credit card notices. Banks and credit card companies often mail out privacy notices. If you get one, don’t throw it away. Open it and read it carefully. These notices might contain information that could affect you and your family. I’m sure you already have too much personal information floating around out there. For example, last year, I received a notice from my bank asking if I wanted to opt out of its third-party marketing list. I immediately called and opted out.

3. Putting too much information on social media sites. Facebook and LinkedIn are a great source for networking, but you shouldn’t reveal every personal detail about yourself. Take advantage of the privacy settings made available to you. For example, Facebook allows you to share personal information–such as your phone number–with your network of friends while blocking it from public view. Another tip: Don’t post your geographic location or your full address on your profile. This just makes it easier for you to be found by people you might not want contact with. You’d be amazed at the information people just give away. And, yes, I have seen someone post their full home address in a Facebook profile.

Be careful and guard your information with your life. Once you give your privacy away, it’s hard to get it back.

Sheiresa Ngo is the Consumer Affairs editor at Black Enterprise.

The World Privacy Forum, a non-profit public interest research group focused on consumer education in the area of privacy, published A Patient’s Guide to HIPAA. The online guide, which is divided into 65 questions and answers, explains HIPAA in terms that are easy to understand.  The guide has four sections, which include an introduction to medical privacy and the seven basic patient rights in HIPAA.

The process of writing the guide was long. “It took over two years,” says Pam Dixon, executive director of the World Privacy Forum and one of the authors of the guide. “John Fanning, a former privacy advocate for the Department of Health and Human Services, and Robert Gellman, a privacy expert, wrote the first draft. Dr. Lewis Lorton, also a privacy expert, and I did a lot of editing. Then we did a lot of testing with consumers,” Dixon says. They worked at the guidelines until consumers could read and “have a prayer of understanding it,” Dixon says. “People have a lot of questions about forms they need, how they can get their records, and when their records are covered under HIPAA. The feedback has been incredibly positive.”

Under HIPAA you can get an account of disclosure at no charge in a twelve month year. There’s a nominal fee if you need the records more than once in a calendar year.  You should be able to get them within 30 days, or 60 days at the most.

If you mistakenly authorize a disclosure you have to put that fact in writing to all parties, but the best way is to simply tell your healthcare provider that you made a mistake, and you’d like to keep your records private.

But HIPAA is full of loopholes. There are many entities that can access your healthcare records. “HIPAA is not perfect at all,” Dixon says. “HIPAA allows so many uses and disclosures that you wouldn’t even believe it. But you still have to know about them.”

Dr. Cheryl Smith, medical director at Mount Morris Medical Center in New York, agrees that HIPAA is “somewhat helpful,” despite the shortcomings. “There are loopholes, but previously we didn’t have even this, so I think it is a good thing,” says Smith.  “There are things we need to tighten up. However, given the level of freedom that existed before, I think having the guidelines is really important.”

You can access A Patient’s Guide to HIPAA by visiting the World Privacy Forum Website and clicking on the section labeled “Patient’s Guide to HIPAA.”