Friday, July 22, 2011

Antimicrobial Wipes and Soaps May Be Making You (and Society) Sick

by Rob Dunn

A few weeks ago as I was walking out of a Harris Teeter grocery store in Raleigh, North Carolina, I saw a man face a moment of crisis. You could see it in the acrobatic contortions of his face. He had pulled a cart out of the area where carts congregate, only to find that its handle was sticky with an unidentifiable substance. He paused and looked at the handle, as if to imagine the nature of the offense. Gum? Meat juice? Chewed marshmallows? So many vulgar possibilities. Forlorn, he reached for an antibiotic wipe conveniently placed by the door. He scrubbed his hands VERY diligently and then pushed the cart back for someone else to rediscover [1].

Scenarios like this one are playing out all over America. There is an epidemic of sticky, dirty and otherwise gross handles on shopping carts. But it isn't just carts. Disgusting doorknobs have also been found, as have cryptically damp table-tops in restaurants and even, sad as it is, slimy back rests on the weight machines in gyms! Increasingly, the world seems to be rife with contamination. Fortunately, all of the main companies producing hygiene products have offered a solution--sanitary, antibacterial, antimicrobial, antibiotic, wipes, and soaps to kill anything that dares to creep into our wholesome lives. These salves will cure us of the demons that dare to grow near us.

The really intriguing news--a kind of breakthrough--is that the main compounds in antibiotic wipes, creams and soaps, triclosan and/or the chemically similar triclocarban, have also been sprinkled around our lives more generally. A recent study notes that triclosan is now used to "impregnate surfaces and has been added to chopping boards, refrigerators, plastic lunchboxes, mattresses as well as being used in industrial settings, such as food processing plants where walls, floors and exposed machinery have all been treated with triclosan in order to reduce microbial load." You can now go home, wipe your world down and live a happier life, surrounded by an antibiotic force field. Be especially sure to wipe your children down. Children are just about the grimiest thing in the world.

Yet, although I hesitate to digress or cause trouble, the devil on my shoulder, that voice of so-called reason, is urging me to avail myself of more than the vague suspicion that everything around me is contaminated. Maybe, the devil says, we should glance, just for a second, at what scientists like to call--in their nasally ivory-tower voices--"the evidence." I do not mean anything too fancy… Let's just take a moment to look at a study here and there that might be relevant as we go about coating our lives--from underpants to kitchen pans--in antibiotic wonder.

For example, what if we just considered whether people who wipe down the world around them with antibiotic soap or wipes are less likely to be sick. Of course, they must be. The world is gross and they are, God bless them, clean, but let's just check.

OK, we shouldn't have checked. There are some problems. One is the actual evidence, or just as often, lack thereof. Case in point: along with her colleagues, Allison Aiello, a professor at the University of Michigan, recently surveyed all of the experimental or quasi-experimental studies published in English between 1980 and 2006 on the effectiveness of different hand washing strategies [2]. Aiello focused on studies that compared different strategies, for example the use of normal soap versus the use of antibiotic soap, in terms of their effect on the probability of developing gastrointestinal or respiratory illness. Our intuition is that antibiotic soaps and wipes should make everyone healthier. Aiello's results were something else entirely.

Read more:

Fore!


by Larry Dorman

Tiger Woods has always demanded loyalty from employees and associates as a prerequisite for continued employment or association. His caddie, Steve Williams, was always the embodiment of the loyal employee, going to whatever lengths he deemed necessary to protect Woods on the golf course and off it.

And after Woods publicly announced the firing of Williams, his longtime caddie, friend and confidant, on his Web site, using the usual corporate niceties to put some positive spin on it, he might be wondering what happened to the nondisparagement clause in Williams’s contract.

This is quickly taking on the makings of a very ugly divorce.

Unhappy with the breakup, Williams fired back at Woods. On his personal Web site, after weeks of denying firing rumors that had popped up on other Web sites and on Australian television, Williams confirmed that Woods had let him go after the AT&T National tournament three weeks ago at Aronimink.

Then he wrote: “After 13 years of loyal service needless to say this came as a shock. Given the circumstances of the past 18 months working through Tiger’s scandal, a new coach and with it a major swing change and Tiger battling through injuries I am very disappointed to end our very successful partnership at this time.”

When he took to the airwaves, Williams ratcheted up the rhetoric on 3 News in New Zealand. This one may have started Woods wondering if the lawyers left the nondisclosure part out of the standard player-caddie contract, if there was a contract.

“You know, when I write my book, it’ll be the time I decide what I write,” Williams said. “It’ll just be one of those interesting chapters in the book.”

He is not talking about a yardage book or a record book, either. Woods might have been able to obviate some of this had he learned one other thing about Jack Nicklaus, whose major-championship victory record of 18 is still four ahead of Woods. He could have asked him how to fire a famous caddie.

Read more:

Carmageddon’s Big Surprise

by Timothy Egan

So, they shut down a 10-mile stretch of one of the world’s busiest freeways for repair last weekend, in the nation’s most driver-stressed metropolis, and gave it a scary name — Carmageddon. Predictions were that Los Angeles would look like Mike Huckabee’s arteries before he lost a hundred pounds, and that chaos and road rage would reign under the tired sunlight of the Southland.

Lo, the weekend came and went, and a miracle was proclaimed — “a historic moment” in traffic history, as Los Angeles County Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky called it. The 405 freeway opened 17 hours ahead of schedule. Pollution and smog levels dropped. A trio of pedestrians even dined on linen in the middle of the empty road. Ya-a-a-ay for L.A.!

“They loved it,” said Yaroslavsky in an interview. “It was Carmaheaven. My e-mails and Facebook comments have been not just 95 percent positive, but effusive. People who live near the freeway heard birds chirping for the first time. They heard the sound of kids playing.”

As a nonevent, Carmageddon ranks with Y2K, the much feared global computer collapse at the millennium’s dawn. But as an urban epiphany, the weekend when Los Angeles became a small town was no small thing. It disproved some of the most worn-out clichés about the city, while offering students of urban behavior some tantalizing glimpses of a better future.

To cyclists, the peace and harmony of the weekend was proof that people can get around on two wheels instead of four. And yes, Los Angeles was a green dream for the 36 hours of the actual shutdown, but not necessarily because pedal power replaced internal combustion.

Read more:

Thursday, July 21, 2011

Financial Crisis: Final Essay Exam

by Barry Ritholtz  

Good morning class.

This past academic year, we have studied the many causes of the financial crisis. We’ve looked at how this stock market collapse compared to others, the impact of bank bailouts on competition, and of course, the Great Recession. There are lots of moving parts in this saga, and understanding them all is our goal.

Your final examination is in essay form. Answer each of the following 10 questions, using specific data and facts to buttress your arguments. Note you will be penalized for unsupported assumptions and unproven theories. Ideological arguments that lack a factual basis will also penalize you.

You have 3 hours (~15 minutes per question).

Good luck. 


Final Examination

1. Following the dotcom implosion and 2000 market crash, the Federal Reserve lowered rates to 2% for 3 years, including a then unprecedented level of 1% for more than a year. Discuss the impact this had on various asset classes, including Real Estate, Fixed Income, Oil and Gold. What difference might a more traditional interest rate regime have made for these assets?

Bonus Question: Imagine you were FOMC Chair. Where would you have set rates in the 1990s? After the 2000 crash? Today?

2. The rating agencies — Moody’s Investors Service, Standard & Poor’s, and Fitch Ratings — originally had business that were funded by bond investors, who paid for the NRSRO’s research. This changed in the 1990s to a Syndicators & Underwriter purchased ratings model. How did this business model change impact a) the performance of ratings agencies; b) the underwriting quality of syndicators?

Bonus question: Does finance still require NRSROs to evaluate complex financial products? What alternatives could replace these entities?

3. The Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 was an unusual piece of deregulatory legislation, creating a new world of uniquely self-regulated financial instruments — the derivative. What was the impact of this on risk management, leverage, and mortgage underwriting?

Bonus: What did a lack of reserve requirements for underwriting derivatives mean for AIG, Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers?

4. More than 50% of subprime loans were made by nonbank mortgage underwriters not subject to comprehensive federal supervision; another 30% were made by thrifts also not subject to routine supervision or examinations. What did this do to the supply/demand curve in the housing and mortgage markets?

Bonus: What was the role of changing credit standards in prior bubbles and financial crises?

5. In 2004, the SEC issued the “Bear Stearns exemption” — replacing Net Capitalization Rule’s 12 to 1 leverage limit to with essentially unlimited leverage for Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Merrill Lynch, Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns. Given that none of these companies exist today in the same structure as prior to the rule change, discuss the impact of this rule change on these companies.

Bonus: Changing broad legislation for only 5 companies is very unusual. What does this say about regulatory capture, democracy and the impact of lobbying on American society?

6A. Mortgage underwriting standards changed rapidly in the 2000s .Many lenders stopped verifying income, payment history, and credit scores.

6B. Traditional loan metrics also changed: Loan to value (LTV) went from 80% (20% down payment) to 100% (No Money Down) to even 120% (Piggyback mortgages).

6C. The loans themselves changed: “Innovative” new mortgage products were developed and marketed in the 2000s: 2/28 ARMs, I/O s, Neg Ams

Q: Discuss the correlation this had on a) home prices; b) new inventory build; and c) foreclosures.

7. Banks developed automated underwriting (AU) systems that emphasized speed rather than accuracy in order to process the greatest number of mortgage apps as quickly as possible. What was the impact of this on the RE market? How did this impact default ratios and foreclosures?

Bonus: Real estate agents and mortgage brokers were known to repeatedly use the same corrupt appraisers to facilitate loans approval. Did this correlate with AU? Discuss how and why.

8. Collateralized debt obligation (CDO/CMOs) managers who created trillions of dollars in mortgage backed securities and the institutional investors (pensions, insurance firms, banks, etc.) who purchased these appear to have failed to engage in effective due diligence prior to underwriting or purchasing of these products. Reconcile this in terms of the Efficient Market Hypothesis

Bonus: What does this mean for self regulation of the financial industry? Is it desirable? Even possible?

9. The Depression era Glass Steagall legislation was repealed in 1998. What impact did this have on the size of banking institutions? What did this do to the competitive landscape of financial services industry? Did this impact bank risk taking? Discuss.

10. Numerous states had anti-predatory lending laws which in 2005 were “Federally Pre-empted” by order of John Dugan, head of the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC). What impact did this have on states with anti-predatory lending laws default and foreclosure levels, pre- and post- pre-emption?

11. In 2006, more than 84% of subprime mortgages were issued by private lending institutions not covered by government regulations (McClatchy). Discuss what this means in terms of profit motive, government policy, and GSEs.

12. The Bank Bailouts “rescued” the system, but may have created additional issues int he future. Discuss the Moral Hazard of bailouts, what they mean in terms of competitive landscape and concentration of assets in the financial services industry.

Bonus: What impact might the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau on lending and future credit bubbles?

via:
Composition VIII, by Wassily Kandinsky
via:
Andre Carillho
via:

The Value of Patents

by Nathan Myhrvold

Patents rarely make headlines, but they did this month when Nortel Networks Corp., the defunct Canadian telecommunications giant, auctioned off its patent portfolio and drew an astonishing winning bid of $4.5 billion from a group of companies that includes both Apple Inc. (AAPL) and Microsoft Corp. (MSFT)

The sale marks a watershed in the maturity of intellectual property markets and a dramatic shift in strategy for technology companies. Suddenly these companies are acknowledging that patents are a strategic asset worth billions.

Here’s an inside look at what happened -- and what’s at stake -- and remember, as you read this, that my company buys and licenses high-tech patents.

Most big tech companies inhabit winner-take-most markets, in which any company that gets out in front can develop an enormous lead. This is how Microsoft came to dominate in software, Intel Corp. in processors, Google Inc. (GOOG) in web search, Oracle Corp. in databases, Amazon.com Inc. in web retail, and so on.

As a result, the tech world has seen a series of mad scrambles by companies wanting to be king of the hill. In the late 1980s, the battle was for dominance of spreadsheet and word-processing software. In the late 1990s, it was about e- commerce on the emerging Internet. The latest whatever-it-takes struggle has been over social networks, with enough drama to script a Hollywood movie.

In each case, the recipe for success was to bring to market, at a furious pace, products that incorporate new features. Along the way, inconvenient intellectual property rights were ignored.

Read more:
Jan Bishop
via:

Utah Liquor Laws, as Mixed Up as Some Drinks


by Michael Cooper

DRAPER, Utah — When Vuz Restaurant and Vuda Bar opened here a couple of months ago, the idea was to bring a dash of dining chic to this corner of the Salt Lake Valley.

Diners can watch white-jacketed chefs prepare their risotto in the glass-enclosed kitchen. The lounge area is down a hall dominated by a glass wine cellar. Its centerpiece was to be a shiny bar, with high-end bottles arrayed on circular steel shelves bathed in red, blue and purple lights.

Then the concept ran into Utah’s famously strict liquor laws, which remain unusual even after they were relaxed in 2009 to bring the state more into line with the rest of the nation. Unable to get one of the state’s closely held licenses for its bar, Vuda is now run as a restaurant, which means under current Utah law that drinks can be served but not seen — at least until the customers get them.

So the wine cellar, upon closer inspection, is stacked with empty bottles.

Stools still line the shiny bar in the lounge, but they look straight at a wall of clouded white glass that rises from the middle of the counter, obscuring the bottles and bartenders on the other side.

“Without that license, the patrons cannot see the alcohol and they cannot see the bartenders,” explained James Ables, the restaurant’s manager. “Hence the ‘Zion Curtain.”

It is no longer true that you cannot get a drink in Utah, despite the shot glasses sold in souvenir shops that say “Eat, drink & be merry — tomorrow you may be in Utah.” But the state’s liquor laws — heavily influenced by the Mormon Church, which has its headquarters here and which frowns upon alcohol — are still among the most complex in the country.

Read more:

The Rape of Men

[ed.  Harrowing account of one of war's most secret atrocities.  Caution advised.]

by Will Storr

Of all the secrets of war, there is one that is so well kept that it exists mostly as a rumour. It is usually denied by the perpetrator and his victim. Governments, aid agencies and human rights defenders at the UN barely acknowledge its possibility. Yet every now and then someone gathers the courage to tell of it. This is just what happened on an ordinary afternoon in the office of a kind and careful counsellor in Kampala, Uganda. For four years Eunice Owiny had been employed by Makerere University's Refugee Law Project (RLP) to help displaced people from all over Africa work through their traumas. This particular case, though, was a puzzle. A female client was having marital difficulties. "My husband can't have sex," she complained. "He feels very bad about this. I'm sure there's something he's keeping from me."

Owiny invited the husband in. For a while they got nowhere. Then Owiny asked the wife to leave. The man then murmured cryptically: "It happened to me." Owiny frowned. He reached into his pocket and pulled out an old sanitary pad. "Mama Eunice," he said. "I am in pain. I have to use this."

Laying the pus-covered pad on the desk in front of him, he gave up his secret. During his escape from the civil war in neighbouring Congo, he had been separated from his wife and taken by rebels. His captors raped him, three times a day, every day for three years. And he wasn't the only one. He watched as man after man was taken and raped. The wounds of one were so grievous that he died in the cell in front of him.

"That was hard for me to take," Owiny tells me today. "There are certain things you just don't believe can happen to a man, you get me? But I know now that sexual violence against men is a huge problem. Everybody has heard the women's stories. But nobody has heard the men's."

Read more:

Tuesday, July 19, 2011


[ed.  Blogging vs. fishing.  hmmm...    We'll be back soon.]
Yellena James Aurelia
via:
Erik Rijssemus
via:

Time to End the War on Salt?

by Melinda Wenner Moyer

For decades, policy makers have tried and failed to get Americans to eat less salt. In April 2010 the Institute of Medicine urged the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to regulate the amount of salt that food manufacturers put into products; New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg has already convinced 16 companies to do so voluntarily. But if the U.S. does conquer salt, what will we gain? Bland french fries, for sure. But a healthy nation? Not necessarily.

This week a meta-analysis of seven studies involving a total of 6,250 subjects in the American Journal of Hypertension found no strong evidence that cutting salt intake reduces the risk for heart attacks, strokes or death in people with normal or high blood pressure. In May European researchers publishing in the Journal of the American Medical Association reported that the less sodium that study subjects excreted in their urine—an excellent measure of prior consumption—the greater their risk was of dying from heart disease. These findings call into question the common wisdom that excess salt is bad for you, but the evidence linking salt to heart disease has always been tenuous.

Fears over salt first surfaced more than a century ago. In 1904 French doctors reported that six of their subjects who had high blood pressure—a known risk factor for heart disease—were salt fiends. Worries escalated in the 1970s when Brookhaven National Laboratory's Lewis Dahl claimed that he had "unequivocal" evidence that salt causes hypertension: he induced high blood pressure in rats by feeding them the human equivalent of 500 grams of sodium a day. (Today the average American consumes 3.4 grams of sodium, or 8.5 grams of salt, a day.)

Dahl also discovered population trends that continue to be cited as strong evidence of a link between salt intake and high blood pressure. People living in countries with a high salt consumption—such as Japan—also tend to have high blood pressure and more strokes. But as a paper pointed out several years later in the American Journal of Hypertension, scientists had little luck finding such associations when they compared sodium intakes within populations, which suggested that genetics or other cultural factors might be the culprit. Nevertheless, in 1977 the U.S. Senate’s Select Committee on Nutrition and Human Needs released a report recommending that Americans cut their salt intake by 50 to 85 percent, based largely on Dahl's work.

Scientific tools have become much more precise since then, but the correlation between salt intake and poor health has remained tenuous. Intersalt, a large study published in 1988, compared sodium intake with blood pressure in subjects from 52 international research centers and found no relationship between sodium intake and the prevalence of hypertension. In fact, the population that ate the most salt, about 14 grams a day, had a lower median blood pressure than the population that ate the least, about 7.2 grams a day. In 2004 the Cochrane Collaboration, an international, independent, not-for-profit health care research organization funded in part by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, published a review of 11 salt-reduction trials. Over the long-term, low-salt diets, compared to normal diets, decreased systolic blood pressure (the top number in the blood pressure ratio) in healthy people by 1.1 millimeters of mercury (mmHg) and diastolic blood pressure (the bottom number) by 0.6 mmHg. That is like going from 120/80 to 119/79. The review concluded that "intensive interventions, unsuited to primary care or population prevention programs, provide only minimal reductions in blood pressure during long-term trials." A 2003 Cochrane review of 57 shorter-term trials similarly concluded that "there is little evidence for long-term benefit from reducing salt intake."

Read more:
via:

The Pursuit of Happiness

by Andrew Sullivan

As a child, when I thought of the future, all I could see was black. I wasn’t miserable or depressed. I was a cheerful boy, as happy playing with my posse of male friends in elementary school as I was when I would occasionally take a day by myself in the woodlands that surrounded the small town I grew up in. But when I thought of the distant future, of what I would do and be as a grown-up, there was a blank. I simply didn’t know how I would live, where I would live, who I could live with. I knew one thing only: I couldn’t be like my dad. For some reason, I knew somewhere deep down that I couldn’t have a marriage like my parents.

It’s hard to convey what that feeling does to a child. In retrospect, it was a sharp, displacing wound to the psyche. At the very moment you become aware of sex and emotion, you simultaneously know that for you, there is no future coupling, no future family, no future home. In the future, I would be suddenly exiled from what I knew: my family, my friends, every household on television, every end to every romantic movie I’d ever seen. My grandmother crystallized it in classic and slightly cruel English fashion: “You’re not the marrying kind,” she said. It was one of those things that struck a chord of such pain, my pride forced me to embrace it. “No, I’m not,” I replied. “I like my freedom.”

This wasn’t a lie. But it was a dodge, and I knew it. And when puberty struck and I realized I might be “one of them,” I turned inward. It was a strange feeling—both the exhilaration of sexual desire and the simultaneous, soul-splintering panic that I was going to have to live alone my whole life, lying or euphemizing, concocting some public veneer to hide a private shame. It was like getting into an elevator you were expecting to go up, the doors closing, and then suddenly realizing you were headed down a few stories. And this was when the future went black for me, when suicide very occasionally entered my mind, when my only legitimate passion was getting A grades, because at that point it was all I knew how to do. I stayed away from parties; I didn’t learn to drive; I lost contact with those friends whose interest suddenly became girls; and somewhere in me, something began to die.

They call it the happiest day of your life for a reason. Getting married is often the hinge on which every family generation swings open. In my small-town life, it was far more important than money or a career or fame. And I could see my grandmother’s point: the very lack of any dating or interest in it, the absence of any intimate relationships, or of any normal teenage behavior, did indeed make me seem just a classic loner. But I wasn’t. Because nobody is. “In everyone there sleeps/A sense of life lived according to love,” as the poet Philip Larkin put it, as well as the fear of never being loved. That, as Larkin added, nothing cures. And I felt, for a time, incurable.

Read more:

Busted Watchdog

Is the Better Business Bureau a protection racket?

[ed.  I have business friends that say, emphatically, yes.]

by Timothy Noah

If you want to check up on the bona fides of your plumber or your electrician, you contact your local chapter of the Better Business Bureau. Lately, though, news organizations have been questioning the BBB's own bona fides. The BBB's rating system, they say, is at best uninformed and at worst corrupt.

Until recently, the BBB had a reputation on par with motherhood and apple pie. The Better Business Bureau is a national network of local nonprofit groups that evolved during the early years of the 20th century to expose fraud—initially mainly patent medicines and stock swindles—in America's burgeoning advertising industry. From the start businesses were encouraged to join, but the imperative was that honest businesses had an interest in cracking down on dishonest practices that gave unscrupulous competitors an unfair advantage.

In these early days, explains Kerry Ellen Pannell, associate professor of economics and dean of faculty at DePauw University (on whose 2002 paper "Origins of the Better Business Bureau: A Private Regulatory Institution in the Progressive Era" I rely here), BBBs spent most of their time either suing fraudulent businesses or lobbying state and local governments for stiffer consumer protections. Member businesses' names were made public in local BBBs' annual reports, but this information was not widely disseminated. Until the 1950s member businesses weren't permitted to publicize their BBB membership; BBB ratings ("satisfactory" or "unsatisfactory" and then, starting in 2009, letter grades) came later still. The BBBs recognized that such publicity might corrupt businesses into using their membership fees to bribe local BBBs. Worse still, it might corrupt local BBBs into using membership fees to shake down businesses, effectively turning the BBB into a protection racket.

That's not far from what has happened, according to a January 2009 article by David Lazarus in the Los Angeles Times and a November 2010 story by Brian Ross of ABC News' 20/20. (Dan Mitchell also had a good story about this July 20 in Slate's late, lamented sister publication The Big Money.) Both the L.A. Times and the 20/20 stories led with the mysteriously poor grades the BBB gave restaurants owned by chef-to-the-stars (and BBB nonmember) Wolfgang Puck—a B-minus for his flagship Spago in Beverly Hills, according to the L.A. Times, and an F for some of his other restaurants, according to 20/20. On 20/20, Ross further reported that two other nonmember businesses—the Ritz-Carlton in Boston and Disneyland in Anaheim, Calif., (which, Ross duly noted, is owned by ABC's corporate parent)—had both received an F. Puck told 20/20's Ross that the BBB was punishing him for not joining. "If you become a member," Puck said, "[they think] you should get an A. But if you don't pay, it's very difficult to get an A." It was an outrageous accusation, but Ross and the L.A. Times' Lazarus found evidence to support it.

Lazarus reported that in searching through the BBB's North American database he found that "the roughly 400,000 accredited businesses, even those that get numerous complaints, very often receive higher grades than unaccredited companies with spotless complaint records." When Lazarus asked Stephen Cox, then-spokesman for the Council of Better Business Bureaus, to explain, Cox's answer wasn't reassuring: "There is no guarantee that an accredited business will get an A-plus." (Nearly two years later, Cox, who had since been promoted to chairman, had a better answer for Ross: "We have more than 500,000 nonaccredited businesses who have A ratings.") But Cox conceded to Lazarus that you couldn't qualify for an A-plus unless you were a member company—a criterion the BBB Web site didn't bother to acknowledge. In fact, Lazarus reported, any company could raise its grade by one-half (from B-minus, for instance, to B) merely by joining.

Or maybe by more than one-half. Cameras from 20/20 rolled while two small-business owners phoned the Southern California BBB chapter to complain about their ratings. Both were told by BBB telemarketers that if they joined the BBB their ratings would improve. Both agreed to join, giving their credit card numbers, and both saw their ratings rise within 24 hours—a C and a C-minus each upgraded to A-plus. "That is in violation of our sales policy," said Cox when confronted with this information. "I believe they are anomalies."

Read more:

Sousveillance

 by Clive Thompson

When Mans Adler founded Bambuser—a Sweden-based service that lets people broadcast live video from their cell phones to the Internet—his idea was simply to help users share their lives with friends in real time. Early this year, however, Adler saw an explosion of use from a political powder keg: Egypt.

During the Arab Spring, pro-democracy activists discovered that Bambuser let them thwart the Egyptian secret police. If a protester filmed an incident of police brutality, it didn’t matter whether they were arrested and their phone confiscated: The footage had already streamed to the world, where it catalyzed political energy against the Mubarak regime.

“The police thought, if we take all the phones, we can control the information. But they didn’t,” Adler notes. “The message still got out.”

The Arab uprisings showed that the use of video as a monitoring tool has shifted decisively. Throughout the ’90s and ’00s, civil libertarians worried about governments and corporations slapping up surveillance cameras all over the place. The fear was that they’d be used as tools of oppression. But now those tools are being democratized, and we are witnessing an emerging culture of “sousveillance.”

Sousveillance is the monitoring of events not by those above (surveiller in French) but by citizens, from below (sous-). The neologism was coined by Steve Mann, a pioneer in wearable computing at the University of Toronto. In the ’90s, Mann rigged a head-mounted camera to broadcast images online and found that it was great for documenting everyday malfeasance, like electrical-code violations. He also discovered that it made security guards uneasy. They’d ask him to remove the camera—and when he wouldn’t, they’d escort him away or even tackle him.

“I realized, this is the inverse of surveillance,” he said.

Read more: