Under U.S. Senate Bill S.978, streaming copyrighted material before audiences of 10 or more would become a felony punishable by up to 5 years in prison. The Entertainment Consumers Association warns that the bill inadvertently targets people who stream playthroughs or walkthroughs of video games.

To get a sense of gaming’s video playthough culture, run a search for “Let’s Play” on YouTube. At present, there are more than 500,000 results. A search for “video game walkthrough” returns more than 600,000 results. A search for “speed run” returns more than 250,000 results. The Senate bill would leave all the users who posted those videos open to prosecution. The ECA calls the measure “draconian” and is helping gamers write letters of opposition to their senators.

It’s not clear where the games industry stands on the bill. Hal Halpin, founder and president of the ECA, told Destructoid that he doesn’t see any support among publishers or developers, but the Copyright Alliance, which includes the games industry’s Entertainment Software Association, endorses the bill. So does the Entertainment Merchants Association, which includes movie and video game retailers. Capcom has indicated that it’ll try to support walkthroughs and playthroughs if the bill passes, but I don’t see any major publishers decrying the bill outright.

The games industry may benefit from an anti-streaming law because it would give publishers more muscle to stomp out leaked pre-release game footage or spoiled plot elements. But anyone who plays video games knows that no amount of footage can replace the experience of playing a game. The benefits of these extra copyright protections don’t outweigh the risk of alienating devoted players. If the bill passes, the Entertainment Software Association should, at least, publicly state that it’s not interested in targeting these people.

Turns out, my assumption was correct. On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down California’s violent video game law for good, with seven of nine justices in agreement. If you love video games and despise the way they’ve been demonized by politicians, read the first couple pages of the decision. It’s quite cathartic.

In a nutshell, the court declared that video games use familiar literary devices to tell stories, just like books, plays and movies. And because the United States has no history of regulating depictions of violence, the California law’s attempt to do so was “unprecedented and mistaken.” As for whether violent games pose a greater risk to society because of their interactive nature, the justices were unconvinced by existing research, none of which has found that violent games cause violent behavior.

Of course, the video game industry is thrilled with the decision, and California Sen. Leland Yee, who sponsored the bill, is disappointed. But what most interests me is whether the Supreme Court’s ruling will, in fact, finally stop individual states from trying to regulate video games. California is the seventh state to try, and the seventh state to fail.

A ruling from the Supreme Court may prevent other states from going down the same path, but it’s no guarantee. Justice Samuel Alito, in his concurring judgment, felt that California’s law was too broad in its description of violence (“killing, maiming, dismembering or sexually assaulting an image of a human being”). For better or worse, Alito said, society regards violence as a suitable feature of violent entertainment, so any future law would have to be much narrower than what California proposed. That at least leaves the door open to future attempts.

But even then, the existing court may not bite, and that’s okay. The games industry already has its own ratings system — just like movies — and works with retailers to keep minors from buying mature-rated games. Compliance is better than any other entertainment industry. In addition, game consoles have parental controls. As the Entertainment Software Association points out, state resources are better spent educating parents than fighting in court.

ESPN reports that as part of the victory celebration, players convene in front of the White House, where a virtual Obama gives a speech and unveils a team jersey with his name on it.

This isn’t the first time a likeness of the president has appeared in video games — notable examples include Bill Clinton in NBA Jam and “President Ronnie” in Bad Dudes — and Obama even advertised in some games when he was running for president. But the use of Obama’s name, while standing in front of the White House, takes the presidential imagery further than I’ve seen before.

Actually, I’m kind of surprised that EA Sports pulled it off. I don’t think using Obama’s image is illegal, but in January 2009 Bloomberg ran a story about how White House lawyers were trying to limit how the president’s image is used. The administration has cracked down on advertisements that look like a presidential endorsement, such as a Weatherproof jacket ad that appeared in Times Square. And the Bush administration tried to stop The Onion from using an image of the presidential seal.

But I guess if U.S. presidents can invite real athletes to the White House when they win the Super Bowl, the same courtesy ought to apply to virtual ones. My prediction: Obama throws out the first pitch on opening day in MLB 2K11.

The new version is a variant of Google Apps Premier edition, and includes the same core apps: Gmail, Calendar, Docs, Sites, Groups, Video, and Postini. Pricing is the same as for Google Apps Premier: $50 per user per year.

The certification says that Google Apps qualifies for is called a FISMA-Moderate rating, which means that it’s authorized for use with data that’s sensitive but unclassified. In addition, Google says that it’s storing government Gmail and Google Calendar on servers that are isolated from those used for non-government customers, and which are located in the continental US.

At the event, Google pointed out the standard benefits of cloud computing: Companies pay only for what they use, don’t have to worry about maintaining servers, get new features automatically, and can access services from any device. It also said that Web-based services offer “best-in-class security.”

Already, Google says, Google Apps, Google Earth, and other business products are widely used by the government–including by every cabinet agency. The new version of Google Apps is also available to state and local governments: Google says that Orlando, the District of Columbia, Kansas, and New Mexico are already Apps customers. (So is the city of Los Angeles, although it’s had some widely-reported bumps in its rollout.) FISMA is a federal government certification, but Google says that it expects the news to also lead to more interest among states and cities.

“Everyone knows we’re quite committed to the enterprise and quite committed to cloud computing–it’s an open field now,” said Google CEO Eric Schmidt, who dropped in for part of the event. He knocked past productivity solutions–presumably including Microsoft Office–for having “a high degree of lock-in and high degree of non-standard data structures.”

Google Apps’ modules tend to have strong collaboration features but be far shorter on features than their rivals from Microsoft and other traditional desktop-software companies, and they’re designed to be used when Internet access is available. But “almost all government “are perfectly suited to relatively simple Web apps,” contended Schmidt. FISMA certification, he said, is about “knocking down barriers” to acceptance of what he said is already a hit product.

I asked him whether Google sees its upcoming Chrome OS as having potential for government use, and whether it would seek FISMA certification for it.

“That’s like a ‘yes, absolutely,’” he told me. “Let’s ship it first…All the apps we’re talking about will run incredibly well and incredibly securely on Chrome OS.”

Government agencies have never had a reputation for technical sophistication, and the current financial crisis hasn’t helped matters. Google executives at the event said that adapting Google Apps makes sense because it has the potential to both streamline IT and reduce costs. And Schmidt said that paperless government is an inevitability: ”there will be a point where governments will move to 100 percent online only. And the reason they’ll do it is it’s more efficient.”

As with all news relating to Google Apps, it’s impossible to resist framing it in the context of Google’s competition with Microsoft Office–a battle in which Google remains a David and Microsoft is still a Goliath. (Microsoft is already seeking FISMA certification for its Business Productivity Online Suite and told me it expects it receive it soon.) The introduction of Google Apps for Business doesn’t sound like a landmark moment, but it’s one more piece of evidence that Google sees Apps as a core offering rather than a quirky side project.

I’m a Google Apps user and fan myself, but there are still plenty of instances when it falls far short of Microsoft Office’s abilities. Two obvious ones: Apps’ presentations module is extremely basic compared to PowerPoint, and most of Apps is unusable when you don’t have an Internet connection. I can see today’s news appealing to government agencies of all sizes, but I wonder just how many are ready to truly give Office the boot.

No-brainer prediction: Microsoft will swiftly respond to Google’s move in a blog post or other document which rattles off stats about just how dominant Office remains among government users…

This article on the proposed technoplates doesn’t provide much detail, other than that the ads would kick in only when a car was stopped for at least four seconds, and that a company called Smart Plate might be involved. But even if you aren’t worried about the potential for the plates being dangerously distracting, the government mandating that we put ads on our cars doesn’t sound wildly different from insisting that we install neong signs in our living-room windows. (No, Governor Schwarzenegger, that wasn’t a suggestion.)

Howsabout this: What if the plates were strictly optional–but driver who elected to use them got a cut of the ad revenue? Each citizen could choose whether to go commercial or keep his or her car a commercial-free zone. Or raise auto-related fees but offer the plate ads as a way of avoiding the hikes. Or something. Your ideas welcome…

Government officials posted a picture of Stoltenberg hovering over his iPad on the government website, saying “the prime minister is working at the airport.” Along with the iPad, Stoltenberg is using a mobile phone and the Internet to stay abreast of the situation back home. Apple couldn’t get any better PR for its highly popular device than this…

Government officials supporting the plan argue that the investment will stimulate the economy and create “tens of thousands of jobs.” The issue of unemployment has begun to nag the Adminstration, which for much of 2009 has been bogged down in the morass that has become health care reform.

Monies received through the broadband stimulus program may not be exactly for Internet access, however. Improvements to the electrical grid, work in electronic medical records, and high-speed rail projects are also set to receive some funds as a result of the move, officials say.

While I know some of Obama’s opponents will see this as a foolhardy way to spend money, I think it is a good idea to start investing in our broadband infrastructure. Lets put it this way: in the modern economy, broadband Internet access has become ever more vital to success. With the US falling behind globally, you could argue that our businesses are also suffering as well. Add to this the patchwork nature of our broadband footprint, and well, you get the point.

The CIA has invested in Visible Technologies, a company that produces technology for search engine marketing for social media. The CIA’s interest in its technology is obvious–the agency needs to keep pace with the latest communications technology.

Over 70 percent of Facebook’s users are located outside of the United States, in over 180 countries. “There are more than 200 non-U.S., non-English-language microblogging Twitter-clone sites today. If the intelligence community ignored that tsunami of real-time information, we’d call them incompetent,” Lewis Shepherd, the former senior technology officer at the Defense Intelligence Agency, told Wired.

The advent of cloud computing raises more concern, because services store data among data centers all around the world. I recently wrote a detailed report about how laws that safeguard your privacy are not the same in every country. If messages pass through a server overseas, does that give the CIA the right to browse the content even if a user is a U.S. citizen?

The CIA is barred by law from domestic spying in the United States, but in the past, the agency has employed creative ways to bypass the law, to hide documents from Congressional review, and to set up an illegal dragnet of domestic communications services. In the last case, Congress gave telecommunications companies immunity from prosecution after it allegedly learned about the spying.

Of course, most folks’ Tweets are public, and even if you don’t share everything with the entire world on Facebook, it’s less private than a phone conversation. Does the notion of the government monitoring social network activity make you nervous?