From corporation-watch at countercorp.org Wed May 19 05:08:00 2010 From: corporation-watch at countercorp.org (Corporation Watch) Date: Wed, 19 May 2010 02:08:00 -0700 Subject: [Corp. Watch] 5th Annual Anti-Corporate Film Festival Opens May 20 Message-ID: Anti-Corporate Film Festival Awash with Movies on Drinks (and Food, Sex, and Oil) 5th annual event focuses on corporate manipulation of human necessities such as food, energy, and pleasure (San Francisco, May 1) -- The 5th Annual Anti-Corporate Film Festival opens on Thursday, May 20, at the Victoria Theatre in San Francisco with a film on how small, local, and independent beer brewers must fight for their survival against three giant corporations that together control more than 90% of the market. It's just the first of three drink-related films in a line-up that includes movies about the bottled water industry (which may soon rival the beer industry in sales and influence), and the grand-daddy of all beverage companies, and an international symbol of American culture and commerce: Coca-Cola. Also in the mix is a film about the pharmaceutical industry's effort to sell women drugs and medical treatments that don't work for a disease that doesn't exist (so-called "female sexual dysfunction"), a look at the birth and growth of the organic/sustainable food movement as part of the Berkeley counter-cultural politics of 1960s, and a closing night examination of past, current, and future U.S. energy policy as told with a distinct drawl by the Texas oilmen who feed the nation's petroleum habit. The Festival kicks off with BEER WARS, a behind-the-scenes look at the daily skirmishes and all-out battles that determine what kind of beer Americans get to drink, as small, regional, and independent "craft" brewers challenge the corporate behemoths that produce millions of gallons of watery, flavor-less, industrial swill. The screening will be followed by a micro-brew mixer at the SF Media Archive. The opening night film TAPPED is a disturbing look of the bottled water industry, which goes the beer giants one better by pumping millions of gallons of public water -- even during a drought -- out of taxpayer-funded municipal systems, and then selling it back to the same people for six times the price. The Festival opens its second day on Friday, May 21 with ORGASM, INC, an expose on how the pharmaceutical industry continues to define our notions of what "healthy" is, in its efforts to replicate the success (and profits) of Viagra by developing a similar drug for women. But first it must convince them that the norms of female sexuality constitute an illness that can be fixed by taking a drug. The centerpiece film this year is THE COCA-COLA CASE, a taut legal thriller about a court battle by two crusading labor lawyers trying to bring the world's largest beverage company to account for its role in the murders of union organizers in violence-torn Colombia. The film will be followed by a Q&A featuring Ray Rogers of the Stop Killer Coke! campaign, and other experts on the situation in Colombia. The final day of the Festival begins at 7:30 with FOOD FIGHT, a look at birth and development of the local/organic/sustainable food movement in the San Francisco Bay Area, as an outgrowth of the political upheaval of the 1960s. The film will be followed by a Q&A with local chef and SF Chronicle food writer Eric Gower. The Festival concludes with HOUSTON, WE HAVE A PROBLEM, which looks at the current state of our energy addiction through the eyes (and mouths) of the Texas oilmen who ride the boom and bust cycle like a bucking bronco. Like dealers of any drug, they don't see it as their job to help us kick our oil habit -- but they can also see the day coming when we won't need their product any more. For more information -- including the full Festival schedule, trailers, and tickets -- visit www.countercorp.org. From corporation-watch at countercorp.org Thu May 20 04:09:46 2010 From: corporation-watch at countercorp.org (Corporation Watch) Date: Thu, 20 May 2010 01:09:46 -0700 Subject: [Corp. Watch] Judge: Corporations can't use libel law to silence their critics Message-ID: <863C818F-5A8F-4D6E-8D1A-A841B213BD23@countercorp.org> U.S. Judge Sides with Anonymous Online Flamers by Bob Egelko (SF Chronicle, May 20) -- In a victory for anonymous critics of corporations, a federal judge in San Francisco has rejected a company's attempt to force Yahoo to identify an online commenter who called the firm's chief executive a "known liar" who believes "humanity exists to be fleeced." "The First Amendment protects the rights of individuals to speak anonymously," U.S. District Judge Susan Illston said in ruling against USA Technologies. She said a target of anonymous online attacks must have evidence that the postings violated its rights, and caused serious harm before enforcing a subpoena to disclose the speaker's identity. USA Technologies filed a suit in its home state of Pennsylvania in August 2009 against the online poster known as "Stokklerk" and sent a subpoena to Sunnyvale, Calif.-based Yahoo, which hosts a message board about the company, demanding the person's Internet address. The suit claimed defamation and securities fraud, alleging that Stokklerk had financial interests in denigrating the company. Stokklerk went to federal court in San Francisco, Yahoo's home district, to quash the subpoena. Judge Illston sided with the online critic, saying USA Technologies had offered no evidence of Stokklerk's financial involvement, and could not prove defamation based on mere insults. Stokklerk's comments last year about the company and its chief executive, George Jensen, were expressions of opinion rather than false statements of fact, the threshold for a libel case, Illston said in Monday's ruling. The August 2009 posting that referred to Jensen as a "known liar" was "hyperbolic opinion," Illston said, because Stokklerk connected it to Jensen's assurances to investors that the company would be profitable that year. It was not. USA Technologies also said it was libeled by Stokklerk's description of the company as a "soft Ponzi" scheme, and Stokklerk's assertion that two top executives had "skimmed" more than $30 million from "the hugely unprofitable venture." But Illston said both postings were clearly meant as criticisms, rather than as accusations of lawbreaking. Attorney Matt Zimmerman of the Electronic Frontier Foundation in San Francisco, which represents Stokklerk, said suits such as USA Technologies' are a common tactic of companies trying to suppress criticism. Lawyers for USA Technologies did not return messages seeking comment. From corporation-watch at countercorp.org Fri May 21 15:23:35 2010 From: corporation-watch at countercorp.org (Corporation Watch) Date: Fri, 21 May 2010 12:23:35 -0700 Subject: [Corp. Watch] Facebook, MySapce secretly selling user ID data to ad companies Message-ID: <577EAACC-1D34-43EF-A4D1-EDA495FCB613@countercorp.org> Facebook Shared Personal Data With Advertisers Without User Consent By Sam Gustin (Daily Finance, May 20) -- Facebook, the giant social network now under fire over its privacy practices, has been sending personal information to online advertising companies without its users' consent, according to a Harvard Business School professor who filed a letter of complaint with the Federal Trade Commission Thursday. "Facebook has been telling its users one thing, and then doing the opposite," Ben Edelman, an assistant professor at Harvard Business School, told Daily Finance. "Facebook never told anyone, anywhere, they were going to do this. It's no longer about quality of disclosure, but about whether Facebook is telling the truth in the first place." Sending Data to Advertisers According to Edelman, Facebook and other social networking sites including MySpace have been sending data to online ad giants that could be used to identify a user's name, age, hometown and occupation -- regardless of their privacy settings. Edelman said Google's Doubleclick and Yahoo!'s Right Media had received data from MySpace, while Facebook had sent data to its ad partners. Microsoft, which invested $240 million in Facebook in 2006 for an equity stake and an advertising arrangement, didn't immediately respond to requests for comment about whether it, too, has received Facebook users' personal data. Microsoft is the exclusive provider of banner advertising and sponsored links on Facebook using Microsoft's "digital advertising solutions," according to a press release when the pact was announced. The ad companies receive the data in the form of Web addresses from which the clicks originated. In the case of Facebook and others, those addresses have sometimes contained information that could be used to identify users. "If you go to your own profile and then click on an ad, the advertiser will know who you are," Edelman says. This Is Informed Consent? The new revelation prompted Facebook and MySpace to change their policies, the paper reported, with Facebook making changes to its code on Thursday. "We fixed this case as soon as we heard about it," a Facebook spokesperson said in a statement to Daily Finance. "In addition, we have been working on ways to no longer include user IDs in referrer URLs." Facebook characterized the issues as a "loophole" and says it has now been closed. To date, the Facebook privacy debate has centered on the complexity of Facebook's settings, which makes them difficult to navigate. But the new report suggests for the first time that Facebook disclosed users' personal data without their consent. In other words, even if you took the time to tweak your privacy settings -- or even put your Facebook page on complete lockdown -- your user information has still been at risk. "Facebook's transmission of usernames and user IDs to advertisers is contrary to Facebook's promises to users," Edelman wrote in his letter to the FTC Thursday. "For example, Facebook's privacy policy promises 'We do not share your information with advertisers without your consent' (Section 5). Clicking an ad, with nothing more, is not 'consent' to share a user's name with an advertiser." Google, Yahoo Claim Ignorance Jeffrey Chester, executive director of the Center for Digital Democracy in Washington, DC, said the disclosure that Facebook has "routinely turned over data-mined information to advertisers should not come as a surprise. Privacy groups have been telling regulators -- especially the FTC -- that consumer privacy has been at risk." In a statement, a Facebook spokesperson said the company was "recently made aware of one case where, if a user takes a specific route on the site, advertisers may see that they clicked on their own profile and then clicked on an ad. We fixed this case as soon as we heard about it." "As is common with advertising across the Web, the data that is sent in a referrer URL includes information about the Web page the click came from," the Facebook spokesman continued. "This may include the user ID of the page, but not the person who clicked on the ad." "We don't consider this personally identifiable information, and our policy does not allow advertisers to collect user information without the user's consent," he said. Both Google and Yahoo, which had been receiving user information, claimed that they were unaware they were even getting it, and said they had never used it. In a statement to Daily Finance, a Google spokesperson said the company "doesn't seek in any way to make any use of any user names or IDs that their URLs may contain," but wouldn't elaborate. Facebook Statement Raises Questions This statement from Facebook raised additional questions. Facebook admits that the data "may include the user ID of the page," and yet claims it doesn't "consider this personally identifiable information." On Facebook, the user ID is either a string of numbers or a user name you chose. A Facebook spokesperson said he didn't know how many users actually use a name in their user ID, which could be identifiable, but pointed out that people click on ads in Facebook outside their own profile page -- for example, on fan or friend pages -- in which case their user ID wouldn't have been revealed. But Edelman said advertisers could use seemingly anonymous numeric user IDs to identify individual users. "Given a user number, you can get the user's public profile page," Edelman said. "All of that information is public by default. Even though it's just a number I can still look you up, just as I can look you up based on your social security number." Don't Collect This Data -- We'll Give It to You Another question is why Facebook was sending information to advertisers that it prohibits them from collecting. Facebook says the improper information sharing occurred only when users clicked on the "Profile" link on their homepage, and then clicked on an ad, but the spokesman said he didn't know how many instances of that occurred. Online privacy advocates were not amused. "Facebook and others have been disingenuous when saying they protect consumer privacy," said Chester of the Center for Digital Democracy. "It's all about stealthily monetizing our every social media move." From corporation-watch at countercorp.org Sun May 23 15:21:21 2010 From: corporation-watch at countercorp.org (Corporation Watch) Date: Sun, 23 May 2010 12:21:21 -0700 Subject: [Corp. Watch] FBI investigating deadly mining company for bribing safety inspectors Message-ID: FBI Probe of Massey Coal Said to Focus on Possible Bribery By Chris Stratton and Margaret Cronin Fisk (Bloomberg, May 3) -- Massey Energy Company, dealing with the death of 29 miners at one of its West Virginia coal mines, is being investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) for possible bribery of state and federal inspectors, a person familiar with the probe said. An April 5 explosion at the Richmond, Virginia-based company's Upper Big Branch Mine resulted in the deaths and sparked the investigation by the Bureau, a second person familiar with the matter said April 30, asking not to be identified because the matter is confidential. At least two dozen Massey employees, federal and state officials, and mine union members have been interviewed by agents of the FBI, the first person familiar with the investigation said. The mine and its operators could be held criminally responsible for the explosion if there were any "overt acts," such as falsification of inspection documents or evidence of tampering with monitors and recording devices, said Bruce Stanley, a Pittsburgh attorney who represents the widows of two miners killed in an earlier incident. Should the FBI interview turn up evidence of criminal conduct, the matter would be referred to the U.S. Attorney in the Southern District of West Virginia, the first person said. The U.S. Department of Labor, Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA), and the West Virginia Office of Miner's Health, Safety, and Training have also been investigating the accident. Pending Report A pending investigative report from the Office of Miners Health, Safety, and Training might be referred to both the U.S. Attorney's office and the office of the prosecuting attorney for Raleigh County, West Virginia. If U.S. and state investigations show violations only of state law, the matter would be referred to the county prosecutor, the first person said. West Virginia Governor Joe Manchin will receive a report from an independent investigation headed by former MSHA Director J. Davitt MacAteer. MacAteer was previously named by Manchin to investigate a fire at Massey's Aracoma Alma mine, and an accident at International Coal Group's Sago Mine, both of which occurred in January 2006. The Aracoma mine fire resulted in the company's being fined $2.5 million, placed on probation, and assessed $1.7 million in civil penalties for MSHA citations accrued both before and after the fire. "We are aware that investigators are interviewing witnesses, but are not aware of the nature of their investigation," Massey said the same day in a statement. The company said it intends to cooperate in all phases of the accident investigation. Massey spokesman Jeff Gillenwater didn't immediately return a call for comment. "We never comment on criminal investigations," MSHA spokeswoman Amy Louviere said. Widows Sue Agency MSHA is the target of a suit filed April 28 on behalf of Delorice Bragg and Freda Hatfield, whose husbands were killed in the 2006 fire at Massey's Aracoma Mine. Don Bragg, 33, and Ellery "Elvis" Hatfield, 46, were suffocated by smoke after a fire broke out at the mine in Melville, West Virginia. The federal mine safety agency fined Massey $1.5 million in 2007 over the fire, citing 25 violations that contributed to the deaths. U.S. officials said Aracoma's employees removed ventilation controls, known as stoppings, while installing electrical equipment. This allowed smoke into the escape route. Aracoma agreed to plead guilty in December 2008 to nine counts of willful violation of mandatory safety standards, and one count of making a false statement and pay a criminal fine of $2.5 million, according to court records. The plea deal was delayed until April 2009 after the miners' widows asked that it be rejected, because the U.S. agreed not to prosecute anyone at the parent company for offenses connected to the accident. The widows sued the U.S. in federal court in Charleston, West Virginia, alleging the MSHA breached a duty to protect the workers. Safety agency inspectors failed to "inspect and remedy egregious safety violations that existed in the Alma mine," Bragg and Hatfield said in their lawsuit. In the year before the fire, inspectors issued 95 citations at the Alma mine and didn't require mine operators to take corrective action, the women claim, citing MSHA's investigation.