By Mark Grabowski 
@ProfGrabowski | Download Photo

Did you hear that President Obama signed an executive order banning fake news sites? Or that Donald Trump claims the Earth is flat? Or that Russians discovered a vaccine to cure homosexuality? 

All of the above were recent popular fake news stories – a growing epidemic online, which Facebook and Google are now vowing to help stymie. 

Fake news is not a new problem. In fact, historians believe it may have induced the Spanish-American War of 1898. But technology is making fake news common and tricky to decipher. 

Although such stories are entirely made up, they’re often related to topics trending in the real news. These lies, hoaxes and rumors are typically published on websites that look journalistic and professional. The notorious fake news site abcnews.com.co, for instance, utilizes a URL and logo nearly identical to the actual website for ABC News, a respected TV news outlet. Additionally, fake news often appears in online posts, videos, memes and discussion forums.

Sometimes fake news outperforms real news in search engine results and social media shares. Even prominent journalists and government officials have been fooled. And fake news can have serious consequences, as impetuous consumers of news have engaged in illegal and violent behavior as a result of believing a canard.

So, how can you tell if a story is legit? Here are some tips:

Research who produced it. Most real news outlets have websites with an “About” section that provides a lot of information, such as the company that runs it, staff members, and its mission statement. If the language used seems odd, be skeptical. For example, abcnews.com.co’s about section mentions “Fappy The Anti-Masturbation Dolphin.” You should also be able to find out more information about the news outlet in places other than that site. Wikipedia, for example, has entries for most media outlets and explicitly states which are fake news sites.

Examine the sources cited. Does the story cite and quote credible sources – a person with a name and a title, such as “Kellyanne Conway, Trump’s campaign manager”? If not, or if they use anonymous or vague sources, such as “sources said”, “according to reports”, “friends say”, be suspicious. 

Utilize fact-checking sites. Fake news stories that go viral are often exposed by such websites as Snopes.com, TruthOrFiction.com and FactCheck.org. Curated lists of fake news sites also exist, although they’re never comprehensive and are sometimes skewed by the creator’s preferences.

In addition to fake news, there are other types of dubious news: 

Satire: Some fake news is created to entertain rather than mislead, but not all news consumers can tell the difference. TV shows, such as Last Week Tonight with John Oliver, comment on real-world news events using parody and exaggeration. Newspapers, such as The Onion, publish wholly fictionalized news stories. There are also dozens of satirical websites, such as The Daily Currant.

Advertorials: Advertisements about products and services may be disguised to look and sound like a news story. They’re frequently placed on social media sites as “promoted” or “sponsored” content. They can also appear in newspapers, magazines and on TV. 

Government-controlled news: Media that’s government-owned or restricted from publishing what they want should be viewed skeptically. Few countries offer the same press freedoms as the United States. In China, for example, many popular media outlets are government-run and censorship is common. 

Biased news: While no media outlet is completely objective, some don’t even try to be. For example, Fox News and Breitbart tailor their news to right-leaning audiences while Huffington Post and MSNBC have a noticeable liberal bias.

Irresponsible journalism: Trusted news outlets sometimes spread false information. Sources may lie to reporters. Journalists can fall victim to pranks or hackers. Laziness and deadline pressures can cause mistakes. Unethical scribes have exaggerated or concocted news on many occasions. The Washington Post once won a Pulitzer Prize for a story that was later exposed as fabricated.

To be better informed, here’s some final advice:

Stop getting news from social media. Most social media feeds are echo chambers, offering limited perspectives on a narrow range of information. Facebook is useful for many things, but it’s not a news outlet. Its goal is to keep you clicking, and it tweaks your newsfeed so you only see content you like. Similarly, Twitter’s feed only shows content posted by people you choose to follow. 

Don’t rely on one media outlet. Although commonly grouped together as “the media,” new sources are not monolithic. Each news outlet has its own approach to reporting on what’s happening in the world. So, diversify your news consumption by seeking out multiple news sources and reading a variety of perspectives on issues.

Support good journalism. Ultimately consumers will be the gatekeepers by deciding which stories get clicks and shares and which stories don’t get attention. Be part of the solution, not the problem. Don’t spread false information. But do share this primer.

Mark Grabowski is a law professor and former political journalist who regularly writes on current events. For more info, visit professorsperspective.com.
​

By Mark Grabowski 
@ProfGrabowski | Download Photo

​​As the clock approached midnight on Election Day, our collective bubble began bursting and my iPhone began blowing up.
 
Colleagues from my two professions – journalism and academia – and I were shell-shocked the presidential election didn’t go as expected.
 
“This is so f---ed up!” texted a journalist.
 
“Oh my God!” pinged a professor. “We will be the ones ostracized if he wins.”
 
When Donald Trump’s win was official, another academic acquaintance observed: “It’s an indictment on all of us.”
 
Indeed, it was an epic failure for the media-academia complex. And not just because nearly every poll showing Trump had little-to-no chance of winning was a collaborative effort between media outlets and universities.
 
Journalists are supposed to inform the public about what’s happening in society. Professors are expected to educate students about the real world. But, this election, both were out of touch with reality. While some correctly predicted the outcome, most of us perished the thought. Our hubris may have even suppressed Hillary Clinton’s turnout and mobilized angry Trump supporters.
 
We need to reckon with our flaws, or risk becoming completely irrelevant in the political process. Here are some ways we can improve:
 
First, we must stop being insufferable know-it-alls.
 
As scribes and scholars, we have expertise in a particular beat or field, but that doesn’t make us qualified to determine which candidate is best to lead 320 million Americans, each of whom has many and varied needs. Nor is it our job.
 
Yet, law professor Stanley Fish acknowledged in a New York Times op-ed, it’s “so commonplace for professors to regularly equate the possession of an advanced degree with virtue.” Likewise, “Journalists, at our worst, see ourselves as a priestly caste,” CBS political editor Will Rahn confessed in a column. “We believe we not only have access to the indisputable facts, but also a greater truth.”
 
Trump showed us we’re not as smart as we think. It’s time for some humility. As Socrates, a great teacher with a knack for a good soundbite, said, “The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing.”
 
But that’s difficult to realize when living in a bubble.
 
The election exposed how isolated and insulated we are from the typical Trump voter: a Republican who lacks a college degree and who lives in Middle America, according to exit polls.
 
By contrast, journalists and professors are highly-educated and tend to be liberal, studies show. Universities are concentrated on the East and West Coasts. Meanwhile, “Journalism jobs are leaving the middle of the country and heading for the coasts” due to the Internet, Harvard’s Nieman Journalism Lab found. 
 
We care about different things, too. While the media-academia complex fixated on social justice, exit polls showed the most important issue for Trump voters was the economy.
 
But, as professor Liz Swan decried in Psychology Today, we made “ignorant presumptions about how others are feeling or thinking without even having a conversation with them.” 
 
Although prejudice may be unavoidable, as professors and journalists we’re professionally obligated to try to be fair.
 
However, shortly before the school year started, a Gettysburg College political science professor declared in a Philadelphia Inquirer op-ed that a Trump presidency was “unteachable” and it would be “a disservice to students to attempt to provide balance.” The next day, The Times published a cover story calling on reporters to “throw out the textbook American journalism has been using” even though “it may not always seem fair to Mr. Trump.”
 
Many other journalists and professors adopted this approach, creating an echo chamber and hurting their professions’ integrity. Critical thinking, the American Philosophical Association stresses, requires being objective and fair-minded in evaluation. “Ethical journalism,” the Society of Professional Journalists asserts, “should be accurate and fair.”
 
Small wonder that studies show critical thinking among college students and public trust in the media are at all-time lows. If we want others to support our calls for social justice, we must first be fair ourselves.
 
Thankfully, some leading media and academic institutions have started addressing these problems.
 
Even before the primary elections began, the University of Chicago released a powerful statement committing the school to freedom of expression, including “ideas and opinions [individuals] find unwelcome, disagreeable, or even deeply offensive.” Immediately after the election, The Times’ publisher and top editor promised to "rededicate” themselves to reporting “honestly” and “impartially.”
 
Others in the media and academia should follow suit. But, a few weeks after the election, it’s clear from perusing social media that many scholars and scribes still haven’t learned much from November’s surprise.
 
And it doesn’t take a college degree to know what happens when you don’t learn from history.

Grabowski is a professor and lawyer who regularly writes on current events. For more info, visit professorsperspective.com.

By Mark Grabowski 
@ProfGrabowski | Download Photo
​
There’s a long held media maxim that a journalist’s most valuable asset is reputation. After this election, many media outlets may have to file for bankruptcy due to their lacking reputations.
 
Americans’ confidence in the media “to report the news fully, accurately and fairly” is at an all-time low. Only 32 percent trust them, a September Gallup poll found. Pollsters blame “lower standards for journalism” in presidential campaign coverage for “corroding Americans’ trust and confidence.” 
 
One big reason for the decline is media bias. A majority of likely voters say journalists are biased against Donald Trump, an Oct. 19 Quinnipiac University poll found. While the perception of bias depends upon one’s party, it’s telling that 60 percent of independent voters believe the media is anti-Trump.
 
Journalists deny this, of course. Soon after Gallup’s poll, Washington Post media reporter Paul Farhi ranted in a column “To: Everyone: … I know a lot of you don’t like [us] … Please stop calling us ‘the media.’ It’s an invention, a tool, an all-purpose smear by people who can’t be bothered to make distinctions.”
 
True, the media aren’t a monolith. Reporting standards differ widely across the media. The digital media revolution over the past 30 years has given rise to cable and online media outlets that carve a niche by catering to partisan audiences. Many are staffed by journalists who are more pundits than reporters. Anyone can start a blog and call himself a journalist these days. 
 
But the legacy media have remained the big leagues of journalism because they’ve long held higher standards. Print, radio and TV media have appealed to a general audience by covering news objectively. To achieve this reputation, their reporters adhere to ethical customs, such as sticking to the facts, verifying information and not taking sides – even when covering a hostile subject like Trump. 
 
It wasn’t always this way. America’s early press was largely operated by political parties who mixed news and opinions indiscriminately. That changed in the early 20th century, with an outcry against “yellow journalism” and demand for greater truthfulness and accountability. 
 
Journalists saw their work as a profession with a responsibility to the public. Media outlets adopted codes of ethics, which included prohibitions against political campaign contributions. This impartiality transformed journalism into the Fourth Estate: referees of politics’ playing field who didn’t root for Team Blue or Team Red.
 
Many journalists continue to adhere to these standards. But a noticeable number of reporters and outlets have abandoned that practice while covering this election, hurting the entire profession’s reputation. Contrary to Farhi’s claim, there’s more than “anecdotal evidence” of “liberal bias.”
 
A recent Center for Public Integrity study revealed 480 reporters and editors contributed to either presidential campaign, with 90 percent donating to Hillary Clinton. Journalists at The New York Times and other legacy outlets contributed, despite newsroom policies forbidding it.  
 
Granted, it’s possible for journalists to cover stories fairly despite having biases. But this election many haven’t even tried to. 
 
Consider The Times, whose Aug. 8 cover story called on reporters who believe Trump is a “dangerous” “demagogue” to “throw out the textbook American journalism has been using for the better part of the past half-century” even though “it may not always seem fair.” 
 
Many journalists apparently took that to heart. A recent WikiLeaks release of hacked emails revealed dozens of reporters, including several at The Times and major TV news networks, coordinated with Clinton’s campaign to provide positive coverage. 
 
It showed in their stories. For example, a content analysis of last week’s coverage of Clinton’s email scandal found overwhelming evidence that TV journalists spun it in Clinton’s favor. Media Research Center, a right-leaning media watchdog group, found ABC, NBC and CBS negatively reported on the F.B.I. director instead of Clinton “by a ratio of almost 3 to 1.”
 
In a sense, Trump’s right that the election is “rigged.” Not by voter fraud, but by some journalists nixing neutrality and serving as Clinton’s propaganda machine. 
 
Which isn’t to say Trump deserves to win. There are many reasons why the Republican real estate mogul – who has filed for multiple bankruptcies, proposed controversial policies and spoken countless vulgarities – might lose.
 
But the ultimate loser might be the media. Experts say recent setbacks suggest the press is already paying a steep price for its declining reputation. 
 
The Times announced this week quarterly profits dropped by 96 percent. Two weeks earlier, the Raleigh News & Observer lost a libel case and must fork over $6 million. Columbia Journalism Review said it’s “evidence that the growing unpopularity of media may translate into less-sympathetic jury pools.”
 
In their quest to beat Trump, the media has become just like him: bankrupt and despised.

Grabowski is a professor and lawyer who regularly writes on current events. For more info, visit professorsperspective.com.

By Mark Grabowski 
@ProfGrabowski | Download Photo

The internet may never be the same after Sept. 30.

Big changes are coming that threaten its security, stability and openness. The United States has always controlled how the internet functions but, under a plan backed by President Barack Obama, next month it will abdicate control to a multi-stakeholder international governing body.

It's a big deal, but it's complicated.

Let me explain: To reach a website or person on the internet, you must give your computer a destination – usually entered as a name or number. That destination has to be unique so computers know where to find each other. Humans prefer to find web and email addresses by name, such as google.com. But computers know each other by numbers, or Internet Protocol (IP) addresses.

The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) acts as the phone book of the internet by assigning and matching domain names with IP addresses. ICANN makes all sorts of policies that affect how the internet works and how related problems get resolved. Without their coordination we wouldn't have one global internet.

Although the Los Angeles-based non-profit organization typically does what it wants, ICANN ultimately answers to the U.S. government. That’s because the government essentially invented the internet and thus got to decide who manages it. U.S. officials have always kept an eye on ICANN and let it know when its policies were astray. But soon America will relinquish exclusive control and begin sharing ICANN oversight with foreign governments, tech companies and advocacy organizations.

Why give away control of ICANN – and, with it, significant parts of the internet? If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it, argue critics of the handover.

Indeed, “The global community has shown little ability to reach consensus positions on internet issues,” warns Richard Chapo, a San Diego-based lawyer specializing in internet law. Moreover, many do not share America's laissez faire regulatory approach which has allowed the internet to flourish. 

Unfortunately, America doesn’t have much choice.

Our government has promised since 1998 to share internet oversight with the world, but progress keeps getting delayed. There’s a risk that if the U.S. doesn’t follow through, the United Nations may seize control and enact extreme changes to the internet. Or other countries and continents could form their own insulated internets, like North Korea already does, rather than participate in the global, interconnected internet we have today. That would be a major loss for everyone, including Americans.

America may have pioneered the internet, but it’s no longer the center of the virtual universe. Countries such as China and India have many more internet users, and they want a say in how the internet functions. If the net is truly the world’s communication tool, then no one owns it, and everyone should have a role in its governance.

“The U.S. government’s willingness to allow the internet to be a more truly global asset will improve the[ir] stature … as a global citizen,” says Greg Shatan, a partner at New York City law firm McCarter & English who’s assisting ICANN with its transition. Such goodwill is necessary because the U.S. is no longer trusted after the Edward Snowden scandal, which Shatan says “tarnished the image of the U.S. as the ‘steward’ for the global internet.”

In short, having global oversight is a matter of fairness. But it lacks a good plan.

There is currently nothing prohibiting ICANN, post-transition, from eliminating or transferring what are essentially the web addresses for U.S. government and military websites. A company owned by or located in Russia or China could end up managing whitehouse.gov, fbi.gov or army.mil. Losing control of these web domains would put our nation’s national security at risk.

Another concern is transparency. Publicly available databases, which show who owns what domain name and how to contact them, could disappear. Companies and law enforcement rely on these to resolve infringement and cybersecurity issues, and eliminating access would have a severe effect on businesses’ ability to protect themselves.

The plan also lacks adequate accountability measures to ensure that ICANN doesn't suffer the systematic corruption that's plagued other international governing bodies, such as FIFA.

And there are many other uncertainties surrounding the handover.

The information superhighway is too important of a resource for America to hastily hand off the keys to a new driver simply to meet an arbitrary bureaucratic deadline. Obama should put the breaks on this dangerous giveaway.

Let’s road test the transition plan first. American can maintain ownership for another year but, as a show of good faith, give the international community an equal say in the internet. Once the plan’s kinks are worked out and the new stakeholders demonstrate they’re ready to govern ICANN, we’ll hand over the pink slip.

The world’s been waiting 18 years – what’s one more year? If we don't do the transition now, the world's not going to end. But, if we do the transition, the internet as we know it might.

Grabowski is lawyer and professor who writes on current events each month. For more info, visit markgrabowski.com.

By Mark Grabowski

If you threw a party and a drunk guest broke a glass and urinated in the bushes, would you pull out a gun and demand money?

If this miscreant then claimed he was robbed, would you hold his friends hostage until they called him a liar and paid a hefty ransom?

No reasonable person would detain people at gunpoint for a petty misdemeanor, then demand “restitution” under circumstances that would amount to extortion in any First World country.

But this is what Brazil basically did during the Olympics to American swimmer Ryan Lochte and three teammates, after a brouhaha at a Rio de Janeiro gas station.

Lochte was railroaded by authorities and made to look like a Brian Williams-level fabricator by media, when the reality is he made a stupid mistake and told an exaggerated story. A similar situation could happen to anyone.

Lochte’s woes began after a night of partying, when he and teammates relieved themselves on the side of a gas station. Lochte also slightly damaged a small advertisement probably given free to the station.

There’s no dispute Lochte created a mess — literally and figuratively — and should’ve known better. But his crime was “truly minor,” according to Benjamin Moore, a criminal defense attorney and Brooklyn Law School professor. “[Under] Brazilian law, the biggest offense … was vandalism.”

Given that, what happened next seems heavy-handed. Security guards brandished guns, which video footage and witnesses confirm, and demanded money. The swimmers forked over $50. That sounds a lot like a robbery.

Lochte did himself no favors by publicizing the altercation and trying to sanitize the story by omitting his bad behavior. But Brazil authorities looked silly for doggedly investigating it, even though the gas station owner declined to press charges. Apparently, protecting Rio’s already bad reputation takes priority over solving murders.

Unable to interrogate Lochte, who quickly left Brazil, police grabbed his teammates. Only after the swimmers said Lochte lied and one paid an $11,000 fine, they were allowed to go. Doesn’t that sound like a shakedown?

“Pulling those kids off the plane and threatening them with prosecution … smacked of the sort of Banana Republic-ism Brazil should avoid,” Moore said. “The image was worsened when [one] basically paid a ransom to be released.”

It’s understandable if this is all news to readers. That’s because, even before all the details were known, the media already convicted Lochte. Many journalists who invariably are skeptical of American police claims whenever a criminal dies just accepted the notoriously corrupt Rio police’s version of events without hesitation. Headlines branded him an “Ugly American” and “international supervillain.” Social media piled on the media’s counter factual narrative.

“Having handled high profile cases, I’ve learned that there is often a great deal of schadenfreude when celebrities are involved … In spite of — rather because of — their notoriety, famous people do not get the benefit of the doubt,” Moore said. “Hence, an issue that is truly minor ... was amplified because of who these guys are.”

But we should sympathize. While we may never attain Lochte’s fame — or infamy — we could find ourselves in his shoes. That’s why what happened is troubling.

In contrast to our media’s overblown response, the government’s was underwhelming. U.S. officials raised no objections while another government detained, harassed and ultimately extorted Olympic heroes who hadn’t been charged with a crime. In fact, the U.S. Olympic Committee apologized to Brazil.

If a dispute arises while traveling abroad, what help can ordinary citizens expect from their government? America’s inaction speaks louder than words: Don’t count on Uncle Sam to bail you out. Instead, count your Benjamin Franklins. As USA Today observed in a story last year, “The cliche of the corrupt foreign cop spotting an American driving in a rental car, and shaking the tourist down for a bribe, endures.”

Now that the world knows the U.S. government is complicit in this, its citizens are more likely to be targeted. Consequently, American tourists might be wise to keep Carnival off their itinerary.

Grabowski is a lawyer and professor who writes on current events each month. For more info, visit markgrabowski.com.

By Mark Grabowski

Thirty years ago, there was no World Wide Web, almost no one had a cellphone and the only drones of concern were bees. It was also the last time Congress substantively updated our digital privacy laws.

Since 1986, technology has advanced at breakneck speed, making privacy laws governing it grossly outdated and out of touch with how people use, store and share information nowadays.

"U.S. privacy laws are so far behind the rest of the world that it … falls short of the requirements of international human rights norms," said Jeremy Malcolm, an analyst at Electronic Frontier Foundation, a digital rights group.

Our digital footprint is being tracked by the government, businesses and even schools in ways that were once unthinkable. Ongoing high-profile cases, such as the feds' battles with Apple and Microsoft to access customers' data, are comparatively innocuous intrusions — at least for those, authorities got search warrants and the public found out.

Although law enforcement officials typically need a warrant to search people's home computers, read their mail, eavesdrop on their phone conversations or even see which library books they borrowed, they often don't need one when creeping into Americans' virtual lives.

Under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) of 1986, warrants are needed only to access online communications — emails, text messages and chats — less than six months old. If it's older than six months, no warrant is necessary. Draft emails, Web browsing history and files stored in the cloud are available without a warrant regardless of how old they are.

The government isn't the only one abusing America's outdated laws.

Prying eyes are everywhere. Unmanned aircraft with cameras — drones — are being used by police and civilians alike to monitor people in their backyards.

Cellphone carriers, Internet service providers, websites and apps can mine all kinds of personal information about their users and sell it to the highest bidder. That's why users often see ads that mirror the content of their messages.

Many schools and employers now "Google stalk" applicants without their knowledge. A person could be rejected for a job or college because of a scandalous photo a friend posted of him on Facebook years ago — and never know why. To circumvent social media privacy settings, some schools and employers have gone so far as requiring applicants to share their passwords.

Even Americans who choose to avoid the Internet altogether are not immune from privacy concerns. For example, ZabaSearch is one of many sites that provide details on almost any person, including age, address, assets, relatives' names and more. This information was publicly available pre-Internet, but technology has made it much easier to quickly dig up information about anyone. That has made stalking, identity theft and blackmail easier than ever, too.

An online industry has developed around the controversial practice of posting mug shots of local residents who were arrested, including mere jaywalkers and children. While the sites are based entirely on information already publicly available from police, they do not detail who was ultimately convicted of a crime or had charges dropped. Some opportunistic websites charge $400 to remove arrest information, even if a person is innocent.

Unlike people, the Internet never forgets. Thirty years ago, if people did something embarrassing, others eventually forgot about it, or, at worst, they could change their name and move away. Now, that information lives online forever — unless you live in Europe, where "right to be forgotten" laws allow individuals to request that search engines remove listings for their name.

These problems can be fixed. But don't count on Congress. Legislators blocked a 2012 proposal to prevent employers nationwide from demanding social media passwords. And they haven't made much progress on legislation first proposed five years ago that would update ECPA.

Meanwhile, the U.S. Supreme Court has been reluctant to address these issues and make broad declarations on how ECPA should be interpreted in the Internet Age. Given that justices admit to being behind the times and not using email, perhaps we shouldn't hold our breath.

Facing growing public concern, some state legislatures have enacted measures to protect digital privacy, but it's not enough to remedy privacy concerns.

"The Internet goes through every state and outside of the country, and, if we're really going to be serious about protecting privacy, we need a national approach to that," said Ari Rosmarin, public policy director for the American Civil Liberties Union. "State law will have a hard time reaching federal agencies and others that operate out of state."

Until that happens, Americans will have to choose between new technology and privacy.

Grabowski is a professor and lawyer who writes on current events each month.

By Mark Grabowski

While U.S. politicians rancorously debate Syrian refugees, undocumented Mexican immigrants and Chinese anchor babies, a far more questionable immigration issue need to be addressed.

Cuba.

Now that the United States’ embargo is loosened, and Barack Obama will become the first sitting U.S. president to visit the Caribbean island in 88 years, it’s time we close Cubans’ E-ZPass lane to U.S. citizenship.

For the past 50 years, any Cuban who makes it to American soil has been fast-tracked to a green card, government welfare and, ultimately, citizenship. Unlike immigrants from every other nation, Cubans don’t get turned away even if they don’t have a visa. Hundreds of thousands of Cubans have benefited from the policy.

The Obama administration has said the policy won’t change. But, even most Cuban-Americans agree, such unique privileges are no longer justifiable.

The 1966 Cuban Adjustment Act was conceived to give U.S. asylum to approximately 300,000 Cubans who were in legal limbo after fleeing Fidel Castro’s revolution.

But now it is used – and often abused – by people who can come and go, making a mockery of the law’s raison d’être. 

“We’re giving political asylum (and) they’re traveling back and forth, starting businesses, going to Cuba for their dental care, for their (religious) ceremonies, for their (birthday) parties,” said Washington Post Havana correspondent Nick Miroff.

A U.S. State Department survey of visa applicants in 2009 found “overwhelmingly” that Cubans were economic migrants, not political refugees fleeing communism.

Unlike any other nationality claiming asylum as refugees, Cubans need not provide proof they’ve suffered persecution.

Cuba, of course, has problems. But the situation there is not as dire as it is in many other places. I know because I took my college journalism class there in January to cover the changes underway.

There is poverty but not misery. Cubans receive free education through college, world-class health care and food subsidies. Housing and transportation costs are low. Gun crime is virtually nonexistent.

The government is oppressive, but has become much more tolerant in recent years, according to a 2015 report from the Cuban Commission of Human Rights and National Reconciliation.

Dissidents are being persecuted less, Internet access is rapidly expanding and private businesses are finally allowed. 

While it’s understandable that Cubans may want to leave to seek a better life, are they really more deserving than, say, Mexicans fleeing drug cartels or Syrians escaping war? Such an unfair policy makes it difficult to enforce our strict laws against unauthorized immigration.

America’s apparent vacancy sign for Cubans also has great costs.

It hurts diplomatic relations. Central American nations have been burdened by the influx of Cubans en route to the U.S.-Mexico border, said William LeoGrande, an American University professor who specializes in Latin American politics.

Because of a 1995 amendment to the immigration law, Cubans must arrive by land or air for admission to the United States. Those caught on waters between the two nations are sent back home.

This had led to extensive illegal human trafficking rings within Central America – and their governments are getting tired of dealing with the consequences of a U.S. immigration policy that strains their resources while discriminating against their citizens.

LeoGrande adds that the policy also creates a “serious brain drain” in Cuba. With the cost of getting smuggled in at $10,000 per person, many of those leaving are wealthy, educated and entrepreneurial professionals. In addition, there’s a separate U.S. program that encourages Cuban doctors on humanitarian missions abroad to defect to the United States.

Cubans’ special perks cost Americans, too. Public benefits provided to Cuban immigrants amount to nearly $700 million annually, according to a 2015 (Fort Lauderdale) Sun Sentinel probe.

Even Cuban-Americans believe the policy needs to change. Two-thirds agree that only Cubans who have suffered political persecution deserve preferential treatment, a recent Sun Sentinel poll found. Some Cuban-Americans in Congress are proposing that Cubans, like all other immigrants, should wait in America’s long green card line, unless they can prove they’re oppressed refugees.

Obama should take heed.

With diplomatic relations normalizing, America needs to start treating Cubans like it normally does other immigrants – no better, no worse.

Grabowski is a professor and lawyer who writes on current events each month. For more info, visit markgrabowski.com.

By Mark Grabowski

A moment of mass collective commentary ensued after Apple refused to help federal investigators break into the iPhone of a deceased terrorist.

Privacy advocates and media pundits lauded Apple for protecting Americans’ rights, with the New York Times dubbing its CEO Tim Cook a “bulwark for digital privacy.” 

Meanwhile, the Obama Administration labeled it a “marketing strategy” and Republican presidential frontrunner Donald Trump called for a boycott of Apple until they comply.

Both sides are right and both sides are wrong. The U.S. government is setting a dangerous precedent with its overreach that could undermine innocent Americans’ privacy. But Apple also deserves a boycott.

Citing the All Writs Act of 1789, a federal judge last week ordered Apple to help the Federal Bureau of Investigation access information an iPhone used by a gunman in the December 2015 mass shootings in San Bernardino, Calif. In order to comply, Apple says it would need to create a backdoor into its popular smart phone’s operating system.

The government, in turn, could use this new technology as a “master key” to invade the privacy of “tens of millions of American citizens” by intercepting their messages, accessing their health or financial records, tracking their location, or even accessing their phone’s microphone or camera without their knowledge, the California-based company's CEO warns.

Cook wrote in an open letter that “the U.S. government has asked us for something … we consider too dangerous to create … We are challenging the FBI’s demands with the deepest respect for American democracy and a love of our country.” The Obama Administration responded that the device was an “important national priority” and would only be able to be used on one phone. Sanctimony abound.

Apple sure doesn’t seem to love America or respect its democratic principles. It’s a corporation with a history of allegedly evading taxes, shipping American jobs overseas, engaging in unsafe labor practices, using child labor and violating human rights – all while making record profits. Now Apple is defying a court order in a country renowned for its rule of law.

Apple doesn’t seem concerned about consumers’ privacy, either. It sought to patent a technology that would allow outsiders to remotely control cameras in an iPhone. It reportedly worked with the National Security Agency to help it mine customers’ data. Apple also faces federal class-action lawsuits for allegedly transmitting iPhone and iPad users’ personal information to advertisers. These are just a few examples of its many intrusions.

But, while Apple’s stated motives in this case may be disingenuous, it does have a point: The government’s demand poses an incredible threat to online security and privacy. It’s the latest attempt by our national-security state to undermine citizens’ constitutional rights in some desperate attempt to combat terrorism. Given their track record, there’s little doubt federal authorities would use this device to conduct gratuitous surveillance on innocent citizens.

Americans need to demand more from the establishment – namely, the world’s most profitable company and their own government.

Apple may have great products, but the means they use to make them don’t justify the end. Consumers have too long been apathetic about this. A 2013 study by Cone Communications found, “Nine-in-10 global citizens say they would boycott if they learned of irresponsible behavior.” Yet, somehow 72 percent of adults view Apple favorably and only 15 percent unfavorably, according to a 2013 Washington Post-ABC News poll.

Ordinary consumers can hold Apple accountable through a global boycott similar to the one against Nike in the 1990s that forced the best-selling brand to change its corporate ethics.

Americans also need to assert their privacy rights. According to a 2015 Pew Research Center poll, most Americans don’t seem to be all that concerned about government surveillance. Only 17 percent reported that they were “very concerned” and 35 percent were somewhat concerned.

As founding father Ben Franklin famously said, “Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.” Americans must call on their lawmakers to pass legislation on this issue rather than leaving the FBI to invoke a law that predates the FBI's, much less the iPhone's, existence. 

It’s time to update our laws and upgrade our consumer ethics.

Grabowski is a professor and lawyer who writes on current events each month. For more info, visit markgrabowski.com.

By Mark Grabowski

Although it may be awhile until we know who will fill the late Justice Antonin Scalia’s seat on the U.S. Supreme Court, we live in an age where information often travels at the speed of a tweet.

The president and U.S. Senate should keep that in mind when selecting Scalia’s successor. Lawmakers often apply litmus tests to judicial nominees, such as their views on abortion.

Now, they need a “Twitter test.”

The court is embarrassingly behind the times on technology, so the vacancy is an opportunity for a much-needed upgrade.

By his own admission, Scalia was “clueless” about smartphones, computers and the Internet. During a congressional hearing a few years ago, he said he didn’t know about Twitter.

It showed whenever the court heard a tech-related case. The social media blog Mashable ranked Scalia last in tech competence among justices following a 2014 hearing on Aereo, a startup that streamed over-the-air local TV to computers.

“The most embarrassing comments of the oral arguments came from Scalia,” Mashable said. “At one point he indicated that he did not know that HBO is a paid premium cable channel, thinking instead that it is available for free over the airwaves.” The remark was not just an irrelevant oops but actually incredibly important, given that Aereo was redistributing HBO’s shows without paying fees.

Scalia wasn’t the only Luddite on the bench. At a hearing on software patents, Justice Anthony Kennedy suggested that code could be written by “any computer group of people sitting around a coffee shop” over a weekend. In a case over whether police should be able to search smartphones without warrants, Chief Justice John Roberts said he doubted that anyone other than drug dealers carries more than one cellphone.

While technological advances have forced workers in many industries to retool or retire, the justices cannot be required to change because they enjoy lifelong appointments. But technology touches virtually every aspect of our lives and often is affected by laws.

With Apple resisting the FBI’s demand to help it hack a terrorist’s iPhone, telecommunication giants challenging the Federal Communications Commission’s new rules on network neutrality and cyberbullying testing the limits of free speech in schools, the court will invariably be called upon to make judgments that relate to technology.

It’s crucial for the nation’s most powerful judges to be familiar with technologies most Americans can’t imagine living without. Otherwise, they might make decisions that misapply the law. Even if law clerks or lawyers clearly explain the relevant technology, justices may not fully understand how people use it.

Fortunately, Scalia “was shockingly forward-looking” in deciding tech-related cases, according to Gizmodo, a tech blog. It pointed to his rulings that video games deserve First Amendment protections and that police use of thermal imaging required a search warrant.

Yet Scalia conceded that justices’ tech ignorance inhibits their decision-making. When confronting tech cases, the court often declines to address the broader issues involved and instead makes a vague, narrow ruling. Such jurisprudence, Scalia wrote in an opinion, is a “disregard of duty” because it leaves lower courts without any guidance on how America’s antiquated laws on issues such as privacy apply to iPhones, GPS and other devices.

In order to modernize the court, future appointees – beginning with Scalia’s successor – should be vetted for their tech literacy. They don’t need a million followers, or even a Twitter account. But they should at least demonstrate a genuine desire to learn about technology and keep up with major developments.

Hopefully, Republicans and Democrats can at least agree on that.

Mark Grabowski is a professor and lawyer who writes on current events each month. For more info, visit markgrabowski.com.