‘Net Buzz: What’s an SEC IP address doing in the middle of a political campaign?
So what’s an SEC IP address doing in the middle of this mess? Nothing related to securities, so it represents at best highly inappropriate workplace conduct, and, if my layman’s understanding of election law holds water, may even be illegal.
First to raise questions about Talent’s wikiwarrior was a blogger with the handle lliiffee, who posed this question:
“Senator Jim Talent, like most politicians, has a Wikipedia entry. Like all Wikipedia entries, if someone wants to edit the page without logging in, their IP address is recorded. Take a look at the history of edits to Jim Talent’s page: An interesting IP address shows up: 162.138.176.51. Now, if we do a lookup of this IP address, like perhaps at ip2location.com, we get some interesting information.”
That information shows the address originates in Washington, D.C., and lists the SEC as its ISP. Several of the history entries indicate that the writer takes exception to Wikipedia characterizing Talent as an opponent of stem-cell research, while others address the senator’s role as a lobbyist and his position on abortion.
Perhaps there’s a perfectly reasonable explanation, but the SEC public affairs department was unable to provide one.
So it does appears as if you’ve got a government employee carrying water for his or her preferred senatorial candidate while on the taxpayer’s dime. That’s got to be a no-no in any workplace.
That it shows again why you can’t trust Wikipedia for information regarding politicians goes without saying.
Is Zillow.com so bad it ought to be banned?
The National Community Reinvestment Coalition (NCRC) has accused red-hot real-estate site Zillow.com of publishing estimated home valuations, called Zestimates, that are so abominably bad they amount to consumer fraud. Moreover, the group claims that these Zestimates also are discriminatory, because they are more inaccurate in predominantly black and Latino communities.
The NCRC wants the Federal Trade Commission to pull the plug on Zillow (a prospect that is sure to alarm those who have sunk $57 million into the company).
You can read the group’s complaint, and a Zillow executive responds on the company blog.
A New York Times story on the matter suggested at several junctures that the NCRC complaint is long on rhetoric and short on specifics, an assessment that my reading of its 12 pages would tend to support. What the group appears to be asking of the FTC is to rule that licensed appraisers, and only licensed appraisers, should be allowed to market in the types of information that Zillow last month dished up to some 3.5 million visitors. . . . That’s a tough sell in the Internet age.
Zillow argues that it’s only providing information that is publicly available and that while its Zestimate does involve a proprietary algorithm, the company makes no claims as to the output being an official appraisal.
The site has drawn legions of bitter critics over and above the NCRC, but buyer (and seller) beware would seem to suffice here.
