April 2014

According to a recent study by San Francisco-based Common Sense Media, 38% of babies under 2 use tablets or smartphones, up from 10% in 2011.

As the technology’s popularity with the diaper-wearing set outpaces what is known about the neurological and cognitive impact on their brains, child development experts say less -- or no -- exposure may be best in the first 24 months.

“The bottom line is that it’s so new we don’t know if it’s good, bad or otherwise, but there is a lot of other research that shows the main learning and sustenance for young children -- particularly under 2 -- comes from their relationships, particularly with their parents and whomever takes care of them,” said Tovah Klein, director of the Barnard College Center for Toddler Development.

It is a hot-button topic among parents and pediatricians and the makers of electronic devices. The American Academy of Pediatricians has not issued guidelines on how much iPad time, if any, is beneficial. “As pediatricians -- and most of us are parents, too -- we know that you can’t spend 24 hours a day with your child, but we would encourage moderation for electronic devices,” said Dr. Ari Brown, a spokeswoman for the pediatricians group, which also recommends no TV viewing for kids under 2.

[Commentary] There is more than one way to demolish a wall, physical or legal. When it comes to undermining the structure of modern campaign finance law, Chief Justice John Roberts has done it both ways.

The risk posed by the ruling, in which the chief justice wrote the plurality opinion, is not as much its immediate impact but the implications of its reasoning in demolishing an already rickety campaign finance structure. McCutcheon’s critics wail that it clears the way for wealthy individuals to plow millions into political campaigns. Um, but where have they been? The opportunities to write seven- and eight-figure checks were plentiful before the ruling.

The difference that McCutcheon makes is that mega-donors have previously had to conduct their political spending indirectly, through super PACs or other entities that do not write checks straight to candidates or parties. The real risk lies in the conservative justices’ seemingly deliberate obtuseness to the real world of campaign contributions -- in particular, their cramped understanding of what constitutes the kind of corruption or risk thereof to justify campaign finance legislation.

The Associated Press exposed a secret program run by the US Agency for International Development to create “a Twitter-like Cuban communications network” run through “secret shell companies” in order to create the false appearance of being a privately owned operation.

Unbeknownst to the service’s Cuban users was the fact that “American contractors were gathering their private data in the hope that it might be used for political purposes” -- specifically, to manipulate those users in order to foment dissent in Cuba and subvert its government. According to top-secret documents published by The Intercept, this sort of operation is frequently discussed at western intelligence agencies, which have plotted ways to covertly use social media for ”propaganda,” “deception,” “mass messaging,” and “pushing stories.”

The documents in the former National Security Agency contractor and whistleblower Edward Snowden’s archive show that the British are particularly aggressive and eager in this regard, and formally shared their methods with their US counterparts. One previously undisclosed top-secret document -- prepared by GCHQ for the 2010 annual “SIGDEV” gathering of the “Five Eyes” surveillance alliance comprising the UK, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, and the US -- explicitly discusses ways to exploit Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, and other social media as secret platforms for propaganda.

The personal data gathering abilities of Google, Facebook and other tech companies has sparked growing unease among Americans, with a majority worried that Internet companies are encroaching too much upon their lives, a new poll showed.

Google and Facebook generally topped lists of Americans' concerns about the ability to track physical locations and monitor spending habits and personal communications, according to a poll conducted by Reuters/Ipsos from March 11 to March 26. The survey highlights a growing ambivalence towards Internet companies whose popular online services, such as social networking, e-commerce and search, have blossomed into some of the world's largest businesses.

Now, as the boundaries between Web products and real world services begin to blur, many of the top Internet companies are racing to put their stamp on everything from home appliances to drones and automobiles. With billions of dollars in cash, high stock prices, and an appetite for more user data, Google, Facebook, Amazon and others are acquiring a diverse set of companies and launching ambitious technology projects. But their grand ambitions are inciting concern, according to the poll of nearly 5,000 Americans. Of 4,781 respondents, 51 percent replied "yes" when asked if those three companies, plus Apple, Microsoft and Twitter, were pushing too far and expanding into too many areas of people's lives.