Center for Citizen Media

The Independent in London asks:

Is print heading for obsolescence? Or can it re-invent itself and reach out to a generation brought up looking at screens?

Lots of answers from lots of media people. Worth reading.

NY Times: Entrepreneurs See a Web Guided by Common Sense. Their goal is to add a layer of meaning on top of the existing Web that would make it less of a catalog and more of a guide — and even provide the foundation for systems that can reason in a human fashion. That level of artificial intelligence, with machines doing the thinking instead of simply following commands, has eluded researchers for more than half a century.

These ideas, which some people are calling Web 3.0, as the story notes, could well be the foundation for one of the Next Big Things in technology. Smart entrepreneurs are working now on making them real.

In the news category, the value of this approach is obvious: sifting through the huge amount of noise and finding the signal, then putting it all together in a coherent (or at least more coherent) whole than we can dream of today. Again, people are working on this, and some may be getting fairly close to a first approximation. But it will be an extremely difficult problem, the kind that tech folks call “nontrivial.”
Then again, the nontrivial problems are worth the most — when they’re solved.

Network World: Google CEO: Take your data and run. Google wants to make the information it stores for its users easily portable so they can export it to a competing service if they are dissatisfied, the company’s CEO said Tuesday.

The company’s behavior to date does not support this new stance, but it will be helpful if Google is truly moving this way.

Big problem, though: Google will continue to reserve the right to keep the data you’ve stored in its servers forever, and use that data as it sees fit.

This is an issue for citizen-media creators in a larger sense. When you upload your videos to places like Google, YouTube (now part of Google) and other sites; when a blog-hosting company keeps your blog for you; when you entrust what you’ve created to others — it’s vital to ensure that your data is yours. Your ISP doesn’t own it. You do.

Google takes the position that while it’s your data, Google has the right to hang onto it essentially forever, and then to mine the data and use it to create better advertising. I find that more than a little creepy, and I think you should, too.

When Google lets customers actually move their data to a new place — that is, move it, not copy it — that will be a corporate stance truly worth celebrating.

In a conversation with a political reporter yesterday, we wondered whether collaborative communications had made a breakthrough in this election cycle. I said there had been some progress, but not the ultimate breakthrough we’re all hoping for.

More than ever, campaigns used the Net to communicate with the faithful and especially to raise money. They did so eagerly and successfully in many cases, having seen how well the technique worked in the 2004 elections.

But they were less eager to use technology to reach out to the already unconvinced, it seems to me. By far the bulk of political advertising remained in the traditional media, for example.

I also suspect, however, that the poisonous spewing of lies, deceptions and other garbage may have reached a point of diminishing returns. (One hopes that people are studying this in a scientific way.) If so, look for the politicians to move a lot more of their advertising to the Net in the next cycle.

The collaborative nature of the online medium got a workout in several journalistic ways. Perhaps the most notable was Talking Points Memo‘s Josh Marshall’s brilliant gathering of string on what turned out to be a last-second bit of trickery — not the only thing of its kind by the two parties, but one of the most notable — the now-notorious Republican “robo-calling” stunt where automatic phone dialers inundated voters with repeated calls that appeared, at first glance, to come from Democrats — a tactic quite plainly designed to annoy voters, not educate them.

Marshall, more than any other journalist, blew the whistle on this stunt — and, moreover, he led the charge to persuade the traditional media to wake up and cover what plainly was a big story. I strongly doubt that this story would have been in the major newspapers and on TV had Marshall not done this work.

…at Congresspedia.

Today I showed Placeblogger.com to a crowd at the Berkman Center for the Internet and Society along with Dan Gillmor, which David Weinberger was kind enough to give a very thorough writeup to. As soon as polls close this evening, Placeblogger will enter a limited alpha, and if you’re interested in browsing placeblogs nationwide, you can sign up at Placeblogger.

But I don’t want to wait to show you what’s going on. I’ve been watching the feeds scroll by at Placeblogger.com leading up to and during Election Day today, and it’s amazing. Here’s a small sample:

Albany Eye: “Can a Voter Get a Table Dance?”

Cincinnati Beacon: “Tuesday Morning Disenfranchisement:The Ballots Are Already Screwed Up In Kennedy Heights”

Baristanet: “Montclair’s own Eric Blumrich, a freelance animator and web developer, is a web star for his mashup parody of Conrad Burns and the Vonage incident.”

Milwaukee Rising — “Received this today…. I’m assuming the letter is genuine, even though it wasn’t signed. Nothing like a little intimidation and supression effort to squelch a rising controversy, eh?: Recently you have been publishing on the internet and other places a series of defamatory statements about State Senator Tom Reynolds. You are accusing Mr. Reynolds of using his campaign fund for personal utility bills.”

Bluffton Today: “I have a secret to tell. I’m 41 years old and this year – 2006 – is the first time in my life that I’ve ever voted.”

LAist: “You really should vote tomor OMG A BUNNY!@” They’re giving out CDs to voters who can sustain attention on the task at hand — voting.

BrewedFreshDaily, Cleveland, OH, gets an email from an election observer: “Cuyahoga County is filing criminal charges against me because I asked some volunteers for the Vote Count Protection Project to call some of the Election Day Technicians, and ask them if they would be willing to write down some of the Voting Unit election results on a data-collection form, to used for vote-count verification purposes…If you would like to support me tomorrow as they throw the book at me—they said I was being charged with criminal “obstruction of business”, ORC 2921.31—please come to the Cuyahoga Board of Elections at 1:30pm. Thanks so much, Victoria Lovegren.”

Arch City Chronicle, St. Louis, MO: No Cloning group has 1000 vollunteers at Polling Places

Mike’s Bake Sale via AustinBloggers: “The Affordable Housing Bond Is Stupid — How about we don’t blow up the village to save it?”

Austinist: “If you vote for Rick Perry, and you’re not a Christian, you’re going to hell. At least according to the coiffed Governor of Texas.”

Blog Chelsea (NYC): “It’s mid-terms, who has time to pay attention to, say, the state assembly race? (Actually it looks like it doesn’t matter, Gottfried is running uncontested.) So here’s your cheat sheet.”

Live from Silver City is going to take to the airwaves: “Tomorrow night I’ll once again host live election coverage on Community Access Television of Silver City.”

Fire Ant Review, Midland, TX: “Oh, what the heck. No sense burning up the county’s bandwidth. Here’s the list of polling places by precinct.”

Blog Decatur, Decatur, IL: I can understand why they gave Judy Barr-Topinka $10,000….She’s got an opponent. But why did Walmart give Frank Watson $7,000?”

Boise Guardian: “I cannot fault Skyline for trying to get the best tax deal possible. However, the agricultural exemption is one of the state’s few tools for helping preserve prime agricultural land from the march of urban sprawl. In this case it has been turned on its head and is being used to subsidize a developer–the exact opposite of what it was designed to do.”

Burnt Orange Report: “The useless partisan hack running the Secretary of State’s office has finally posted the November 3 early voting totals, and it looks like the early vote will be up only slightly, but with a few isolated areas of note.”

Coastsider: “The debate about Coastside fire protection has gotten more than a little out of hand. The knives are out, literally – after one public meeting, the acting fire chief had two of his tires slashed.”

Coconut Grove Grapevine: “The trial of suspended Miami commissioner Johnny Winton was scheduled for today, Nov. 6, ironically, one day before a special election to find his replacement.”

Westport Now, Westport, CT: ““The Battle of the Huggers” is how I labeled Connecticut’s 4th District Congressional race between two highly popular public servants…Well, boy, do I ever take that back.”

The Forum, Deerfield, NH: “The Election Is Not Over On November 7th.”

Hoboken411: “More information, plus see the updated budget that was difficult to obtain…Although the Hoboken Municipal Hospital Authority followed the state’s Sunshine Law for one meeting on Oct 25…

IlliniPundit:”A commenter wondered how aggressive I’d be after the election investigating the mold issue. I can assure you that I’ll keep up the fight.”

New Haven Independent: “One day before Tuesday’s election, Fair Haven aldermanic candidate Evelyn DeJesus-Vargas (pictured) showed up in court to make a last-minute attempt to knock her opponent off the ballot.”

Peoria Pundit: “The big issue in Pekin is a referendum on the consolidation of Pekin school districts 303 and 108.”

Redbank Green, Redbank, NJ: “How close is next week’s mayoral election in Red Bank looking? Well, there are no polls that we know of. So redbankgreen devised its own measure.We call it the Electometer, a count of yard signs touting the candidates.

River City Rapids: “In case you have not seen them and can’t make up your mind whom to vote for (or are waffling) if you live in the First District, check out the questions and answers we asked of the candidates .”

UPDATED

Names@Work: Senator Would Outlaw Anonymous Blogs. New proposed legislation (in Brazil) would make it a crime, punishable by four years in jail, to anonymously send email, join a chat forum, download content, or write a blog.

This is going to be a constant battle around the world in coming years. Governments loathe anonymity.

But we need to defend it, despite the problems it sometimes causes. Anonymous speech is essential in some circumstances, such as when a speaker’s life or livelihood is threatened by telling the truth.

UPDATE: Looks like the idea isn’t going to pass, at least not in the near future.

(This guest posting comes via Lauren Gelman, deputy director of the Center for Internet & Society at Stanford Law School.)

UPDATED

When we asked for your questions, we never expected that 80% would be about taking photographs or videos at the polls.

Research by student fellows at the Stanford University Law School’s Center for Internet & Society has, ironically, concluded that this is one question without a clear answer. So the students compiled a 50-state guide (we missed a couple in the first posting; are any missing now?– they’re still working on the last few — to point you to the laws and regulations, with a little commentary on how they think the laws might apply to the following questions:

• Can you photograph or video your vote inside the polling station– either a paper ballot or electronic screen?
• Can you photograph or video yourself voting inside the polling station?
• Can you photograph or video others voting or the working of the polling station from within it?
• Can you photograph or video the polling station from outside it?
• Can you photograph or video people leaving the voting station?
• Can you ask people questions leaving the polling station and can you video or blog their answers?

Remember: This is not legal advice. This is especially true as there are no clear legal answers to all these questions in all states.

Because the information is written for a general audience, without investigation into the facts of each particular case, it is not legal advice: we have no attorney-client relationship with you.

Again, while we have endeavored to provide accurate responses to the questions we received, we cannot guarantee the answers. (This is for your protection and ours — we do not have the resources to analyze every situation individually.) What we have tried to do is to point you to the sections of the code that apply to your question, and the give you some general thoughts on how those sections of the code apply.

Please contact your local Board of Elections and/ or a lawyer if you’re searching for legal advice on your specific activities.

Use your common sense. We encourage you to ask election officials if they mind your taking a picture of yourself voting or of your vote. We encourage you not to take pictures of other people voting unless you get their permission. You do not want to do anything to intimidate someone, or appear to be trying to influence their vote. Call your local election board before you go to vote and ask them your questions.

Most poll workers on election day are just trying to do their job and make sure everyone gets a fair chance to vote. Be sensitive to making sure they are able to get their job done right.

Report any incidents to the People for the American Way Voter Hotline:

Or go to Video the Vote. (Also check out the advice on this site for people planning to video their vote).

Meanwhile, here’s the state-by-state rundown — apologies for the earlier missing states — (again, this is based on research by the Stanford students):

Continue reading →

The Stanford Law School Center for Internet and Society asked you for your questions about Election Day legal issues, and you responded. Below are some questions and answers, which will become a “Frequently Asked Questions” (FAQ) page, and we will be adding more soon.

NOTE: If you’re planning to take photos or videos, please look at this separate 50-state guide to photography in polling places.

Important: This has been written by law students, who are student fellows of the Stanford Law School Center for Internet and Society. Because the information is written for a general audience, without investigation into the facts of each particular case, it is not legal advice: we have no attorney-client relationship with you.

Questions so far (more to come):

QUESTION: I hope you’ll address 18 USC 596. Don’t know where it came from or if it has ever been enforced. Thanks–

(From Stephen in Nevada)

ANSWER:

Text of Law — 18 U.S.C. § 596 — Polling armed forces

Whoever, within or without the Armed Forces of the United States, polls any member of such forces, either within or without the United States, either before or after he executes any ballot under any Federal or State law, with reference to his choice of or his vote for any candidate, or states, publishes, or releases any result of any purported poll taken from or among the members of the Armed Forces of the United States or including within it the statement of choice for such candidate or of such votes cast by any member of the Armed Forces of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.

The word “poll” means any request for information, verbal or written, which by its language or form of expression requires or implies the necessity of an answer, where the request is made with the intent of compiling the result of the answers obtained, either for the personal use of the person making the request, or for the purpose of reporting the same to any other person, persons, political party, unincorporated association or corporation, or for the purpose of publishing the same orally, by radio, or in written or printed form.

18 U.S.C. section 596 states that members of the armed forces may not be polled by any person or political party “with reference to his choice of or his vote for any candidate.” The statute provides for a fine and/or imprisonment for not more than one year. The statute was passed in 1948 and has been modified very little from its original form.

There are no cases on Westlaw or Lexis in which a person was prosecuted for violating this statute. Most materials which reference the statute simply reference the statute to support statements about the voting process generally. For example, a 1975 Supreme Court brief references the statute (along with three other similar statutes) to support the statement: “Recognizing that military influence in elections and military support of candidates for office could threaten democratie [sic] processes, Congress has enacted a long line of statutes designed to guard against military involvement in the nation’s political processes.” Greer v. Spock, No. 74-848, Brief for Petitioners, 1975 WL 173767. [note that this source is not bluebooked]

QUESTION: In Ohio, do you know if citizen-organized exit polls and parallel elections are considered “exit polls?” In particular, can we also be within the 100-ft boundary?

ANSWER: In Ohio, the state code disallows any “person” (except election officials, police and other government-related individuals) from coming within the boundaries of a polling place. R.C. § 3501.35 (Ohio’s Revised Code is available online here: http://onlinedocs.andersonpublishing.com/oh/lpExt.dll?f=templates&fn=main-h.htm&cp=PORC). Shortly before the 2004 election, that law was challenged in a lawsuit as applied to reporters and the 6th Circuit allowed an injunction against the Ohio Secretary of State from enforcing that prohibition against members of the press. Beacon Journal Publishing Co., Inc. v. Blackwell, 389 F.3d 683 (6th Cir. 2004). The decision is very short (it was an emergency order) and only mentions “reporters and photographers” and “members of the press” as not having to follow the rule. The Court wrote that the “objective” of members of the press is to “report the news of the day to their fellow Ohio citizens.” Beacon at 685. This isn’t the most precise definition, but, if taken at face value, could easily encompass citizen journalists such as bloggers. However, the exact boundaries of “the members of the press” will probably only be settled by a future lawsuit and decision from a court. If “members of the press” includes bloggers, then they too do not have to follow the ban on not being within the boundaries of a polling place.
No other case about the constitutionality of similar laws banning exit polls near polling places addresses what is meant by “members of the press.” The lawsuits were all brought by large media companies, and the issue of their “legitimacy” didn’t raise any arguments. See Daily Herald v. Munro, 838 F.2d 380 (9th Cir 1988); Journal Broadcasting v. Logsdon, 1988 US Dist Lexis 16864 (WD KY 1988); NBS v. Cleland, 697 F. Supp. 1205 (ND GA 1988).

QUESTION: With the rise of absentee voting, what happens if a person votes absentee (that is, mails it in) and then dies before election day. Is the vote counted? I live in Virginia.

ANSWER: Mailed absentee ballots are not considered cast until election day. Therefore, if you die before election day, your vote will not be counted. See Attorney General’s 1959 opinion, attached to this e-mail.

However, in person absentee voting is treated differently. Central Absentee Precincts (where voters can come vote in person on voting machines before the date of the election) are not required, but if you are in an area with one and vote absentee on their voting equipment, then your ballot is considered cast at the moment you vote, not on the day of the election. Therefore, if you die after your vote is cast, your vote still counts. See Virginia Code Section 24.2-707: “The electoral board of any county or city using a central absentee voting precinct may provide for the casting of absentee ballots on voting equipment prior to election day by applicants who are voting in person. The State Board shall prescribe procedures for the use of voting equipment. The procedures shall provide for the casting of absentee ballots prior to election day by in-person applicants on voting
equipment which has been certified, and is currently approved, by the State Board. The procedures shall be applicable and uniformly applied by the State Board to all jurisdictions using comparable voting equipment. At least two officers of election, one representing each political party, shall be present during all hours that absentee voting is available at any location at which absentee ballots are cast prior to election day.” (available at http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+24.2-707)

QUESTION: During what stage of the naturalization process, is a person entitled to register to vote? (From California)

ANSWER: In order to register to vote a person must be a US citizen. (http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/elections_vr.htm) Therefore, a person must be fully naturalized as a US citizen before he or she can register to vote.

QUESTION: I recently moved to an apartment complex on Webster & Geary in San Francisco. (I’m originally from the town of Burlingame.) I sent in my registration, but haven’t received anything
by mail. Where am I voting?

ANSWER: For this question, if the voter submitted his materials before the registration deadline (15 days prior to the election), he should be voting based on his new address. If he still hasn’t gotten his materials (sample ballot and poll location), he can go to the following San Francisco website, which has a polling place lookup feature:

http://www.sfgov.org/site/election_index.asp

http://gispub02.sfgov.org/website/pollingplace/INDEX.htm

In general, Californians can find the contact info and websites of their County Elections Officials on this website: http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/elections_d.htm

The election officials can then supply info on polling places and other relevant materials.

QUESTION: As a pollworker, is it legal for me to take notes while I am working, such as the serial
number of malfunctioning machines?

ANSWERS:
1. A Virginia rule seems to say that election officers cannot take extra notes: “No officer of election shall sign or otherwise mark any paper, form, or item, other than one furnished by the State Board, his electoral board, or general registrar, at his polling place during the hours that the polls are open.” (Va. Code Ann. § 24.2-650.)

2. Virginia has rules for how election officers handle machines with faulty counts. This rule says nothing about taking down serial numbers; it says only that the faulty number should be noted before voters use the machine, and the difference subtracted. (Va. Code Ann. § 24.2-639.)

3. There is also a rule for dealing with “inoperative equipment,” but this says nothing about taking notes or recording serial numbers. (Va. Code Ann. § 24.2-642.) This doesn’t mean that recording the numbers is illegal, though.

Tom Evslin asks: “VoterStory.org – What is the Story?” This site is asking citizens to keep an eye on electronic voting machines tomorrow, Election Day.

Specifically: Tom wants to know who’s getting the data the site seeks from voters, who’s keeping it and for how long. He notes that

there’s a lot of personal information requested here. It’s not inappropriate information – there has to a way to follow up on a complaint; but you should never give information like this unless you know whom it’s going to and how it’s going to be used.

And the site’s disclosure policy is absurdly broad —

“By providing information, you consent to and authorize VoterStory.org (and its affiliates), and the voter protection organizations with which VoterStory.org may share such information, to disclose your identity and the other information provided by you and to use your story, including your identity, in any manner VoterStory.org and/or such other organizations deem appropriate in connection with the protection of voter rights.”

I’d held off posting a link to this initiative because I had some of the same questions in my own mind. Tom went the extra step and made the phone calls.

We still don’t have complete answers, but this is a great example of a citizen who’s doing the journalism the professionals have not done. VoterStory may be a terrific initiative, but we still don’t have enough information — and the day before the election is awfully late for these folks to start being transparent.