TIME medicine

Most Americans Think Medical Marijuana Shouldn’t Be Used By Kids, Poll Says

183842907
Getty Images

And 80% think adults shouldn't use medical marijuana in front of children

While most Americans think medical marijuana should be allowed for adults, a majority says the drug shouldn’t be used by or in the presence of children, a new poll shows.

The C.S. Mott Children’s Hospital National Poll on Children’s Health found that 63% of American adults think their state should allow the use of medical marijuana among adults. But only 36% think it should be allowed for children and teenagers under age 18. The poll also found that 80% think adults should not use medical marijuana in front of children. Ten percent know someone with a medical marijuana card or they have their own.

Close to half of the states currently allow the use of medical marijuana.

“Our findings suggest that not only is the public concerned about the use of medical marijuana among children, but that the majority of Americans worry that even exposure to it may be harmful to kids’ health,” Dr. Matthew M. Davis, director of the National Poll on Children’s Health and a professor at University of Michigan Medical School, said in a statement. “As is typical with anything involving health, the public’s standards are much higher when it comes to protecting children’s health.”

 

TIME legal

What to Know About Google’s Fight With Europe

Google and European Union logos are seen in Sarajevo, in this April 15, 2015 photo illustration.
Dado Ruvic—Reuters Google and European Union logos are seen in Sarajevo, in this April 15, 2015 photo illustration.

The search giant faces charges of anticompetitive behavior in Europe

A new antitrust complaint filed against Google by the European Union Wednesday could force the company to pay huge fines and change the way its search engine operates in Europe.

In the complaint, EU regulators say Google has abused its dominance in online search to stifle competition. If the charges stick, Google could face a cascade of antitrust allegations over a variety of its other services as well.

Here’s a quick explainer of why European officials are targeting Google and how the search giant has responded so far.

What is the European Union saying Google did wrong?

The formal accusation is tied to the way Google displays its shopping comparison product, Google Shopping, in search results. Items from Google Shopping are displayed at the top of the search results page when users search for many basic products, like “kites” or “dog food.” According to the EU, automatically placing Google’s own service in this prized digital real estate could “artificially divert traffic from rival comparison shopping services and hinder their ability to compete, to the detriment of consumers, as well as stifling innovation.”

Why does it matter whether Google promotes its rivals equally?

Google controls more than 90% of the search engine market share in most European countries, compared to about 65% market share in the U.S. According to Google’s rivals, such as Yelp and Microsoft, that control over search gives Google incredible influence over the viability of other companies that rely on search results to drive web traffic and generate business.

What is Google’s counterargument?

In a blog post Wednesday, Amit Singhal, Google’s senior vice president for Search, points out that traffic to Google Shopping is still dwarfed by sites like Amazon and eBay in European countries and does not significantly outpace other competitors. He also cited the successful IPO of German shopping site Zalando as proof that competition was not being stifled by Google Search.

“Any economist would say that you typically do not see a ton of innovation, new entrants or investment in sectors where competition is stagnating — or dominated by one player,” he wrote. “Yet that is exactly what’s happening in our world.”

How long has the European investigation been going on?

Officials began a general investigation into Google’s search practices in November of 2010. After years of back and forth, Google reached a tentative settlement with the European Commission in February 2014 in which the company agreed to place competitors’ search results at the top of the results page along with results from Google’s services. However, the settlement was ultimately rejected later in the year. Now the EU has a new antitrust chief, Margrethe Vestager, who has taken a harder line against Google.

What punishments could Google face?

The European Union can collect fines as large as 10% of annual sales for violation of antitrust law. In Google’s case, that would amount to more than $6 billion, though it isn’t clear if a final fee would go that high. The company could also be forced to change the way its search engine works — in its charges, the European Commission says Google should treat its own comparison shopping service the same as that of its rivals by showing whatever results are most relevant based on a user’s search query.

Google will have ten weeks to respond to the EU’s allegations in hopes of avoiding a big fine.

Is this only about Google Shopping?

No. The European Commission also announced that it’s opening an antitrust investigation into Android, Google’s mobile operating system. The Commission will consider whether Google pressured manufacturers who use Android on their devices to pre-install Google’s own apps. It will also seek to learn if Google prevented manufacturers from developing modified versions of Android in a manner that runs afoul of antitrust law.

For its part, Google argues Android has helped spur mobile innovation and that its practices are not out of line with the way Apple and Microsoft control their mobile ecosystems.

The Commission is also continuing to investigate how Google prioritizes its own specialized results in other specific fields, such as flights, and the kinds of restrictions the company places on advertisers.

Could Google face similar scrutiny in the U.S.?

It’s doubtful. The Federal Trade Commission launched an antitrust investigation into Google in 2011 but ultimately filed no legal charges against the search giant. A recently disclosed internal report, however, revealed the FTC was closer than initially believed to filing charges against Google.

Has this ever happened before?

American tech giant Microsoft long sparred with European regulators over antitrust concerns regarding the Windows operating system and Internet browsers. Microsoft initially got away without a fine by agreeing to offer new Windows users in Europe a wider choice of browsers. However, Microsoft was fined $732 million in 2013 when it was found not to be complying with that deal (Microsoft blamed technical errors). Some commentators argue Microsoft’s dealings with European regulators changed the company’s culture in profound ways.

Read next: How Google Perfected the Silicon Valley Acquisition

Listen to the most important stories of the day.

TIME Companies

Google to Face Antitrust Charges in Europe

The Google logo is seen inside the company's offices in Berlin on Mar. 23, 2015.
Adam Berry—Getty Images The Google logo is seen inside the company's offices in Berlin on Mar. 23, 2015.

European Union regulators will charge Google with anti-competitive behavior

After a five-year antitrust investigation of Google, European regulators are said to be ready to file formal charges against the company as soon as Wednesday.

The European Commission plans to accuse the online search giant of violating the region’s antitrust laws, according to reports from the Financial Times and The Wall Street Journal. European Union regulators will charge Google with anti-competitive behavior such as diverting online traffic away from rival companies toward its own services.

The European Commission has spent half a decade investigating Google’s online behavior in an effort to find evidence that the company takes advantage of its dominant position in the online search market. Google could end up facing a fine of up to $6.6 billion in what would be one of the EU’s largest-ever antitrust battles.

EU Competition Commissioner Margrethe Vestager is expected to announce the formal charges against Google in a statement Wednesday that will follow a meeting with other EU commissioners, according to the FT.

Rumors surfaced last month that the EU was wrapping up its investigation and that charges could be brought as soon as this month. WSJ reported earlier this month that the European Commission was requesting confidential information pertaining to Google’s online practices from companies that previously filed lawsuits against the U.S. tech company.

Last fall, European Parliament members voted overwhelmingly to approve a non-binding resolution that called for the break-up of Google in Europe, where the company has a nearly 90% market share, which is larger than its share of the U.S. market.

Google’s shares dipped 1.6% Tuesday afternoon before rising slightly in after-hours trading.

This article originally appeared on Fortune.com.

TIME legal

This Country Just Banned Revenge Porn

TIME.com stock photos Computer Keyboard Typing Hack
Elizabeth Renstrom for TIME

New U.K. law cracks down on many kinds of online abuse

The United Kingdom is cracking down on people who share nude photos of their exes without their consent, a practice known as revenge porn.

Under the U.K.’s new Criminal Justice and Courts Act enacted Monday, anyone who discloses private sexual photographs of another person with the intent to cause distress could be prosecuted. Violating the new law carries a punishment of up to two years in prison, a fine or both. The law applies to photos shared both online and offline, according to The Telegraph.

The new law marks the U.K.’s first time revenge porn has been listed as a specific crime.

The U.K. is also cracking down on Internet trolls through the new act. Punishment for abusive messages that have the “intention of causing distress or anxiety” will be punishable by up to two years in prison, up from a six-month maximum under previous rules.

TIME legal

This Could Be Google’s Plan Make Sure You Don’t Accidentally Read Spoilers Online

The tech giant might have a spoiler blocker in the works

There’s good news for Netflix lovers.

The frustration of accidentally reading spoilers posted on social media may soon be a thing of the past, according to an “anti-spoiler” patent awarded to Google on Tuesday. The patent suggests that the system would track your TV or movie viewing progress—what episode of Orange Is the New Black you’re on, for example—and filter out information on what you haven’t yet watched.

The patent doesn’t outline what kinds of sites—Facebook, Twitter, Google News—the system would filter for spoilers. But Google’s idea arrives as customers are increasingly ditching cable subscriptions for on-demand streaming services, like Netflix and Hulu Plus. In addition, the Netflix model of putting an entire season online at once has annoyed some viewers by promoting spoilers (the company is also unabashedly pro-spoiler, with a viral campaign page called “Living with Spoilers”).

But don’t start celebrating just yet. Large companies like Google aren’t required to turn a patented technology into reality, and even if they do, it can take several years. Still, at the pace online streaming content is growing, there’s no better time for Google’s spoiler blocker.

Read next: How to Watch All the TV You Want Without Paying a Cable Bill

 

 

TIME Video Games

Super Mario 64 In-Browser Game Gets Taken Down

Super Mario In-Browser Nintendo Take Down
Yoshikazu Tsuno—AFP/Getty Images Nintendo's characters Super Mario and Luigi performing in Tokyo, Japan, on April 26, 2014.

Nintendo wasn't pleased with the computer-friendly remake

It’s game over for the in-browser version of Nintendo’s Super Mario 64 that took the Internet by storm this week.

Nintendo issued a takedown notice Tuesday to the server hosting the 1996 game’s browser version, created by Royston Ross, who recreated just the first level (Bomb-Omb Battlefield), TorrentFreak first reported Tuesday.

“The copyrighted work at issue is Nintendo’s Super Mario 64 video game (U.S. Copyright Reg. No. PA0000788138), including but not limited to the audiovisual work, computer program, music, and fictional character depictions,” the company told the server Cloudflare, which posted its correspondence with Nintendo.

While the in-browser game is no longer available, you can still get a glimpse of the remake in a video Ross posted online:

Read next: Exclusive: Inside Nintendo’s Bold Plan to Stay Vibrant for the Next 125 Years

[TorrentFreak]

TIME legal

Arizona Governor Vetoes Bill Shielding Names of Officers Involved in Shootings

28th Annual Leigh Steinberg Super Bowl Party
Maury Phillips—Getty Images Arizona Governor Doug Ducey on Jan 31, 2015 in Phoenix, Arizona.

Police unions supported the bill, saying the required two-month delay would give time for investigations to play out

(PHOENIX) — Gov. Doug Ducey vetoed legislation Monday requiring law enforcement agencies to keep the names of officers involved in shootings secret for two months, nixing a bill that was inspired by last year’s events Ferguson, Missouri, and similar incidents around the country.

Legislatures around the nation are taking up various pieces of police shooting legislation, including proposals requiring police to wear body cameras or mandating that shooting investigations be done by outside agencies. But Arizona is apparently the only state considering new rules for releasing the names of officers, said Ezekiel Edwards, director of the Criminal Law Reform Project at the American Civil Liberties Union.

Ducey, a Republican, faced pressure to veto the measure from police chiefs who say the plan would only to harm their ability to manage complex police-community relations. Civil rights groups and media organizations also oppose the plan.

Police unions, however, supported the bill, saying the required two-month delay will give time for investigations to play out. They call it a common-sense measure that will ensure officer safety.

The death of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, drew intense criticism and widespread protests last year. State Legislatures have been looking at police-transparency laws since Brown’s Aug. 8 shooting death by former police officer Darren Wilson, whose name was released a week later.

Tucson Police Chief Roberto Villasenor wrote to Ducey last week in his role as president of the Arizona Association of Chiefs of Police urging the veto.

In an interview, he said it would be wrong to ignore “the elephant in the room” of poor police-community relations that has been the highlight of much law enforcement news coverage in the past year.

“Enacting legislation that would hamper that trust by not allowing officers’ names to be released is not in my opinion the best way to improve or repair that level of trust,” Villasenor said.

Republican lawmakers who backed the proposal said it was designed to protect officers.

“The simple fact remains that we live in a world where misinformation can put everybody in jeopardy, especially police officers,” state Sen. John Kavanagh said last week. “And until we get those facts straight, we need to shield those cops and their families from being assassinated by lunatics or political zealots.”

Arizona public-records laws currently require the release of an officer’s name as soon as possible, unless the agency cites specific reasons for a temporary delay. In practice, agencies typically have released the name within several days but can hold off indefinitely if the officer’s safety is in jeopardy.

TIME Management

6 Charts Showing Tech’s Gender Gap Is More Complicated Than You Think

See why it's so hard to break the glass ceiling in Silicon Valley

 

Several of Silicon Valley’s biggest companies have released a series of diversity reports revealing how few women held the companies’ top jobs — or jobs in general. Now a recent string of lawsuits is suggesting that the fix isn’t simply to recruit more women — what about the women who are already employed? Are they being held back from rising up?

That’s the key question in investing partner-turned-Reddit CEO Ellen Pao’s ongoing lawsuit against her former employer, Kleiner Perkins, a highly-established venture capital firm based in Menlo Park, California. The jury in Pao’s case began hearing closing arguments this week, and will soon decide whether it was gender bias that prevented Pao from being promoted to a higher-ranking partner, or, as Kleiner Perkins’ lawyer argued, whether Pao is simply “[blaming] others for her own failures.”

Adding to the scrutiny of Silicon Valley’s treatment of women are two other high-profile gender discrimination lawsuits against Twitter and Facebook, both recently filed by former female employees.

A gender gap in the workplace, particularly in Silicon Valley, is old news. But Kleiner Perkins isn’t kind of Silicon Valley company we’re used to hearing about. By suing a venture capital firm, Pao raises a important point — the gender gap could be a problem at the firms that are often funding Valley companies, too. (In addressing this claim, Kleiner Perkins said in a trial brief last month it has “long been a supporter of women entrepreneurs.”)

According to a report by Babson College in 2013, gender bias reveals itself in the patterns of venture capital investments. (The study was sponsored by Ernst & Young and the Diana Project, both of which prioritize workforce diversity.) Upon analyzing these patterns, the study found that businesses with all-male leadership teams are four times as likely to receive venture capital funding as teams with even one woman.

That apparent gender bias might explain why only 3% of venture-funded businesses are led by women, according to Babson College’s report, which surveyed 6,517 of these businesses. About one-third of all U.S. businesses are led by women, according to the U.S. Small Business Administration:

 

Curiously, the percentage of female venture capital investors (11%) is almost equal to the percentage of female executives among Silicon Valley’s Top 150 companies (10.8%) — though this is merely a correlation. (These data points come respectively from the latest Venture Census and a 2014 report by Fenwick & West LLP, a global law firm with clients including Facebook and Google.)

Even if these two gender gaps are wholly unrelated, it’s still worth noting that Silicon Valley appears to have an especially pronounced gender diversity problem when compared to the S&P 100. The S&P 100 is a non-industry specific stock index comprised of companies with the 100 leading U.S. stocks, many of which are outside Silicon Valley:

 

So it’s an undeniable truth that Silicon Valley has a gender diversity problem. But the question of whether the gap has started to close is a bit trickier.

Take, for example, the following chart from Fenwick’s report. It shows the percentage of women in the highest-ranking positions in Valley’s top 150 companies (“SV 150″) between 1996 and 2014. By looking at the upward trends, you could say that gender diversity in Silicon Valley has improved:

But don’t jump to any conclusions. Once again, when you compare the SV 150 to the S&P 100 benchmark, gender diversity in the Valley appears to be problematic. Take a look at the following chart, which shows the top Valley companies had lower percentages of women than the S&P 100 in every single leadership position except President/COO and General Counsel in 2014:

There’s yet another caveat: If you examine only the very top Valley companies, the gender diversity problem is cast in a much better light. After all, Google just named a female CFO this week, while Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg, Yahoo CEO Marissa Mayer and Hewlett-Packard CEO Meg Whitman are proof of change among tech titans.

The chart below shows gender diversity in the Valley’s top 15 companies (“SV15″), like Google and HP, has rapidly improved. Female representation was remarkably strong in a several positions in 2014, including President/COO and CFO. But other positions, like Chair, were still entirely male in 2014 — just like in 1996:

These mixed messages regarding the depth of Silicon Valley’s gender problem are surfacing on both sides of Pao’s trial. Kleiner Perkins’ lawyers, for example, argued that 20% of its partners are women. That’s much higher than the average of 6%, according to Babson College’s report, which surveyed 139 venture capital firms’ partners in 2013. Kleiner Perkins’ top ranking female partner, Mary Meeker, even testified against Pao, arguing the company promoted women based on their merits.

But Pao, too, had an arsenal of numbers at the ready. In addition to qualitative evidence of gender bias — like claims of all-male dinner parties — Pao’s legal team also cited the superior performance of investments made by the company’s female investors, including Pao. A female partner at Kleiner Perkins once reportedly even constructed a matrix comparing women’s and men’s investments to drive this point home.

The jury in Pao’s trial will soon put an end to these arguments — but the gender gap debate will surely continue outside the courtroom. Even if the jury sides with Kleiner Perkins, Pao’s closely watched trial remains a warning for the larger, male-dominated business industry to reevaluate the treatment of women in their companies. There’s a business incentive at play here, too: Companies with female leaders appear to be performing unusually well, according to a recent study of women-led companies by Karen Rubin, director of product management at the algorithm development site Quantopian. In her study, Rubin showed how the women-led Fortune 1000 companies — there are only 27 currently — posted greater cumulative returns than those of SPY, a tracker of the S&P 500 stock index, which Rubin used as a benchmark:

Women Leader Fortune 1000

In fact, it seems that these female-run companies have outperformed the male-dominated benchmark even more often since the financial crisis of 2008-09. That’s a gender gap to be proud of — and one that can’t be ignored.

Read next: 5 Best Ways Men Can #LeanInTogether to Help Women Get Ahead

Listen to the most important stories of the day.

TIME legal

Twitter Faces Gender Discrimination Lawsuit by Former Female Engineer

Facebook and venture capital firm Kleiner Perkins are facing similar claims

A former Twitter employee has sued the company for gender discrimination while two other high-profile sexism lawsuits unfold in Silicon Valley.

Software engineer Tina Huang claimed in a proposed class action lawsuit filed Thursday that Twitter’s promotion process unfairly favors men, Reuters reports. Huang said the company has no formal procedures for granting promotions, and instead relies on a “shoulder tap” process that explains why few women are in high-level engineering positions.

A Twitter spokesperson said Friday, “Twitter is deeply committed to a diverse and supportive workplace, and we believe the facts will show Ms. Huang was treated fairly.”

The lawsuit against Twitter follows similar claims made against Facebook last week by Chia Hong, who accused Facebook of wrongful termination in 2013 after allegedly being harassed based on her gender, race and Taiwanese nationality. Facebook has denied Hong’s accusations.

Hong’s lawyers are also involved in a similar case against venture capital firm Kleiner Perkins, which former employee and current interim Reddit CEO Ellen Pao sued for gender discrimination. A judge upheld Pao’s claims on Saturday, saying “There is sufficient evidence from which a reasonable juror could conclude that Kleiner Perkins engaged in intentional gender discrimination.”

[Reuters]

TIME 2016 Election

Everything We Know About Hillary Clinton’s Email

And what we don't know

The new political headache afflicting Hillary Clinton is all about email.

The New York Times reported Monday that the presumptive Democratic presidential candidate had exclusively used a private email account for her government business during her tenure as Secretary of State, rather than a government email account. And an Associated Press report Wednesday said Clinton used her own email servers, rather than a third-party provider like Gmail or Yahoo Mail. That’s raised questions about whether Clinton was making a deliberate attempt to prevent her messages from being disclosed by open records requests or subpoenas.

Clinton’s campaign has said she followed both “letter and spirit of the rules,” but the snafu has played into Republican criticisms of her as secretive and politically calculating. Clinton tried to contain the damage in a tweet late Wednesday saying she supports the release of more emails.

Here’s everything to know about the controversy.

Wait. What’s the big deal?

A top U.S. diplomat working only on a personal email account raises an obvious question: Did Clinton stay off government email to hide something? Federal regulations are meant to prevent a situation in which officials, by keeping emails “off the record,” could thwart information requests made by the public or the government. When Clinton took office in 2009, federal rules required that government employees using a non-government email account “must ensure that Federal records sent or received on such systems are preserved in the appropriate agency recordkeeping system.” (It was only last year, one year after Clinton’s tenure had ended, that President Obama signed a explicitly limiting U.S. officials’ use of private email accounts for business matters.) But Clinton aides are the only ones who have determined what amounts to official correspondence and what doesn’t, and others might come to different conclusions.

Did Clinton break the law?

Probably not, but we’re still in a legal grey area. The Federal Records Act—passed in November, after Clinton left the State Department—requires government officials’ emails that are sent from personal account to be forwarded to an official account within 20 days. But during Clinton’s tenure, it was never explicitly required that top-level officials like Clinton use government-issued accounts. “What she did was not technically illegal,” Patrice McDermott, a former National Archives staffer and the head of the transparency group Open The Government coalition, told The Hill newspaper. But, she said, “it was highly inappropriate and it was inappropriate for the State Department to let this happen.”

Because her official emails were sequestered on her private email address, much of her correspondence was not openly available via the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), which gives the public right to access information from the federal government.

Will we ever see Clinton’s official emails? Or have they simply disappeared?

Clinton’s team turned over more than 50,000 pages of emails from her personal email account to the State Department late last year, when the Federal Records Act was passed, at the department’s request.

How do we know that she turned over all required emails?

We don’t. For several years, media outlets have filed requests for Clinton’s official correspondences during her tenure under FOIA. These requests have remained unreturned or unfulfilled, though the State Department has acknowledged their receipt. Theoretically, all of Clinton’s emails concerning government matters during her tenure fall under FOIA’s domain—but they are inaccessible if they were sent between Clinton’s private account and a third-party agency, such as a nonprofit foundation or a private consultancy. Clinton would need to provide these emails herself.

Have other U.S. officials used private email accounts?

Yes. Several officials in the Bush Administration, such as Karl Rove, were heavily criticized for using personal e-mail accounts to send emails from the White House. While Clinton herself has not commented on the situation, Nick Merrill, a Clinton spokesman, noted that former Secretaries of State in both parties had also used their own email accounts when engaging with U.S. officials.

Were they punished?

We don’t know. There haven’t been reports outlining specific repercussions against those officials who used private accounts for business emails. The White House has repeatedly made its e-mail policy clear each time the issue arises. “Very specific guidance has been given to agencies all across the government, which is specifically that employees in the Obama administration should use their official e-mail accounts when they’re conducting official government business,” White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said Wednesday.

How much do high-ranking officials like Clinton really use email?

It varies. Janet Napolitano, the former Secretary of Homeland Security, was known for never using email at all. It’s unclear exactly how often Clinton emailed, but certainly enough for her team to turn over 50,000 pages worth of emails. During her time as Secretary of State she was often spotted looking down at her BlackBerry—the image of her doing so in sunglasses inspired a Texts from Hillary meme.

So what Internet service did she use?

Clinton used a private email server registered back to her family’s home in Chappaqua, N.Y., the AP reports. That means she or someone working for her physically ran her own email, giving her wide-ranging control over her message archives. It also could have made her emails more vulnerable to hackers or physical disasters like fires or floods. The Secret Service would have been able to protect an email server in Clinton’s home from physical theft, however.

Clinton reconfigured her email account in November 2012 to use Google servers as a backup . Five months after she resigned as Secretary of State, her email server was reconfigured again, switching her backup provider to a Denver-based email provider called MX Logic.

Who’s this Eric Hoteham figure?

Eric Hoteham is the mysterious name associated with Clinton’s private server account. But no public records of “Eric Hoteham” appear to exist, and the name wasn’t found in campaign contribution records or elsewhere, the AP reports. Politico reported on Wednesday that Hoteham is a Washington stockbroker and former aide to the Clintons.

What email address did she use?

One of her private email addresses was hrd22@clintonemail.com. HRD appears to stand for her premarital initials (Hillary Diane Rodham, as opposed to now Hillary Rodham Clinton). But it’s unclear what the 22 is for. She was sworn in on Feb. 2—or 2/2.

Read next: 5 Things You Didn’t Know About Using Personal Email at Work

Listen to the most important stories of the day.

Your browser is out of date. Please update your browser at http://update.microsoft.com