Policy Highlights from Communications of the ACM – November 2010 (Vol. 53, No. 11)
Below is a list of items with policy relevance from the November issue of Communications of the ACM. As always, much of the material in CACM is premium content, and free content one month may slip behind a pay wall the next. You need to be a member of ACM or a subscriber to CACM to access premium content online.
ACM Member News, by Jack Rosenberger
Chris Stephenson, Executive Director of the Computer Science Teachers Association and member of the ACM Education Policy Committee, is interviewed about K-12 computer science education in the U.S.
Security in the Cloud by Gary Anthes
The author outlines security challenges involved with cloud computing (including a lack of clear regulatory or legal guidance) and what researchers are doing to address them.
Career Opportunities by Leah Hoffman
Computer science graduates face a reasonably strong labor market, and Hoffman discusses what else is bringing students back to the field.
News: Emerging Technology
Wide Open Spaces by Neil Savage
A brief outline of the possibilities for the recent Federal Communications Commission decision to open frequencies in the broadcast spectrum.
Viewpoints: Legally Speaking
Why Do Software Startups Patent (or Not)? by Pamela Samuelson
Samuelson discusses a recent article that analyzes the 2008 Berkeley Patent Survey.
Viewpoints: Privacy and Security
Why Isn’t Cyberspace More Secure? by Joel F. Brenner
Brenner discusses the perpetual trend of federal cyberspace reviews that yield little progress, and what federal actions could be taken to improve Internet security.
Regulating the Information Gatekeepers by Patrick Vogel and Michael Barrett
The authors examine whether or not search-engine ranking should be regulated, at least in part to counter inappropriate search engine optimization and other targeted manipulation of search engine rankings.
Using Complexity to Protect Elections by Piotr Faliszewski, Edith Hemaspaandra, and Lane A. Hemaspaandra
The authors outline an approach to protecting elections where the election is made computationally prohibitive to prohibitive.