December 2010

Reports show violations of surveillance limits in US

The federal government has repeatedly violated legal limits governing the surveillance of U.S. citizens, according to previously secret internal documents obtained through a court battle by the American Civil Liberties Union.

In releasing 900 pages of documents, U.S. government agencies refused to say how many Americans' telephone, e-mail or other communications have been intercepted under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act - or FISA - Amendments Act of 2008, or to discuss any specific abuses, the ACLU said. Most of the documents were heavily redacted. However, semiannual internal oversight reports by the offices of the attorney general and director of national intelligence identify ongoing breaches of legal requirements that limit when Americans are targeted and minimize the amount of data collected. The documents note that although oversight teams did not find evidence of "intentional or willful attempts to violate or circumvent the law . . . certain types of compliance incidents continue to occur," as a March 2009 report stated.

Outfoxed by Fox News? No way

A profile of Media Matters for America.

Media Matters watches other conservative media figures - your Rush Limbaughs and Michael Savages - but Fox has become the focus. On most days, the majority of the blog items, video excerpts and commentaries that the organization posts to its Web site concern some perceived outrage perpetrated by one of Fox's pugnacious hosts and commentators. The dogged pursuit of Fox, says Media Matters' founder David Brock, reflects not just the cable network's popularity among conservatives but its power to set, and perhaps distort, the political agenda. Brock and his staff say they regard Fox as something more than just the televised equivalent of talk radio; they describe it as a de facto political operation, with a leading role in disseminating conservative messages, supporting conservative candidates and mobilizing voters.

Groups oppose UK web traffic control

A group of major Internet companies, including Ebay, Yahoo and Skype, have written to Ed Vaizey, UK communications minister, urging the British government not to impose regulation that would allow the country’s Internet service providers to favour traffic from one content provider over another. They cautioned the government not to manage data traffic by allowing operators to discriminate against certain content providers, such as video-streaming websites, by permitting them to charge for “fast lane” access.

It will soon be too late to stop the cyberwars

[Commentary] The world is gearing up for cyberwar.

The US Cyber Command became operational in November. Nato has enshrined cyber security among its new strategic priorities. The head of Britain’s armed forces said recently that boosting cyber capability is now a huge priority for the UK. And we know China is already engaged in broad cyber espionage attacks against the west.

So how can we control a burgeoning cyber arms race? We can set parameters. It is obviously not an act of war just to develop digital weapons targeting another country. Using cyber attacks to spy on another nation is a grey area, which gets greyer still when a country penetrates information networks, just to see if it can do so. Penetrating such networks and leaving a back door open, or even leaving logic bombs behind to be used later, is a harder case – yet the US and China are doing this to each other right now. And what about when one country deliberately damages the economy of another, as one of the WikiLeaks cables shows that a member of China’s politburo did against Google in January 2010? Definitions and rules are hard not just because the tools of war have changed, but because cyberspace puts them into the hands of a broader group of people. Previously only the military had weapons. Now anyone with sufficient computer skills can take matters into their own hands.

There are more basic problems too. When a nation is attacked in a regular conflict, a variety of military and civil institutions respond. The legal framework for this depends on two things: the attacker and the motive. But when you’re attacked on the Internet, those are precisely the two things you don't know.

When you don't know, it’s easy to get it wrong; and to retaliate against the wrong target, or for the wrong reason.

It's too soon for a 'Do Not Track' law

[Commentary] A Federal Trade Commission plan and a congressional hearing this week have raised the intriguing notion of a "Do Not Track" feature on Web browsers, allowing consumers to block advertisers from collecting data on the sites they visit and the purchases they make. Several lawmakers say they'll introduce legislation to require it, even though the FTC didn't recommend that.

It's too soon for government intervention. But the Internet industry is on notice: It must aggressively respond to legitimate privacy concerns or be prepared for Congress to step in, as it eventually did with "Do Not Call" legislation for phone solicitors. The industry should be responding better to privacy concerns. But given the abundance of nascent ideas, it's too soon for government intervention -- if only because of how quickly regulations would become obsolete. The FTC framework this week should serve as a warning to Internet companies that if they don't move quickly and aggressively, Congress will step in.

Government Money Woes Hit the California Museums

When the Oakland Museum of California was founded in 1969 as a “museum for the people,” there was no question about who would pay for it. The museum’s land was owned by the city, its building was operated by the city and its collection belonged to the city. Admission, now $12, was free. But the fiscal crisis affecting governments across California is changing the way museums operate.

The Oakland museum recently announced that it would seek to radically alter its relationship with Oakland by having its nonprofit arm, the Oakland Museum of California Foundation, take over operations from the city. Currently, about 60 percent of the museum’s operating costs are absorbed by the private foundation, and 44 of the 100 or so museum employees are city employees. Until the 1990s, the museum did not even have a private fund-raising body, but the institution was able to raise over $60 million for a capital renovation of its building, which made its debut last spring. While the Oakland museum is the only institution to announce a separation of a formal relationship to a Bay Area city, other hybrid public-private institutions face similarly tough choices.

Congress Acts To Lower Volume On TV Ads

The House gave final congressional approval to a bill that would prevent advertisers from abruptly raising the volume to catch the attention of viewers wandering off when regular programming is interrupted.

The bill's House sponsor, Rep Anna Eshoo (D-CA) said it was her own "earsplitting experiences'' that got her involved, recalling how the ads "blew us out of the house'' when she watched television, already set at a high volume, with her parents. But she said her office also has gotten many messages of support and that at home people come up to her in restaurants and supermarkets to ask how the bill is doing. "TV programs use a variety of sound levels to build dramatic effect. But advertisements have been neither subtle nor nuanced,'' Eshoo said after the House passed the bill on a voice vote. When the law goes into effect, she said, "consumers will no longer have to experience being blasted at.''

Under the legislation, now heading to President Barack Obama for his signature, the Federal Communications Commission would be required within one year to adopt industry standards that coordinate ad decibel levels to those of the regular program. The new regulations, applying to all broadcast providers, including cable and satellite, would go into effect a year after that.

Broadband vs. Open Internet, Open Internet scores a point

[Commentary] It is possible to read Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski's statement very carefully and see a distinction between Internet and Broadband that *might* be there (or it might not). If it comes through in the rules, I will be happy, because the FCC at least got started on the right foot.

For a while there it looked as if it was going to have two left feet (Broadband and InternetBroadband), and we know where that leads. I'm sure many will write that there are zillions of “loopholes” in that ruling allowing for all kinds of bad behavior by Broadband providers in the services they offer to customers. And I would tend to agree with those concerns. There is nothing that preserving a free and open internet can do, nothing at all, for many of the problems of telecom and information services in the broad sense of the term Broadband. But when those broadband providers offer a connection to the Internet, that is, when they offer the ability to access all of the services that are made available anywhere in the world from any other user or company that connects to the Internet, the rules the FCC proposes will apply. This is a good thing, in my opinion.

FCC Quietly Selling Net Neutrality on Capitol Hill

On Dec 3, the Federal Communications Commission will conduct bipartisan briefings for Senate and House staffers on the just-announced open Internet proposal, which would establish enforceable rules prohibiting anticompetitive behavior on the Internet.

The outreach comes as Republican lawmakers express outrage that FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski has scheduled a Dec. 21 vote on the proposal despite their insistence that new rules are unnecessary and that only Congress should set policy in this area. Chairman Genachowski is widely expected to face what's shaping up to be a major backlash in next year's GOP-controlled House. At the invitation of the Senate Commerce Committee, FCC General Counsel Austin Schlick and top advisers from the chairman's office will brief bipartisan staffers Friday from noon to 1p.m. in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building. On the House side, the commission will conduct a similar briefing at 2pm in room 2123 of the Rayburn building.

Do-Not-Track Hearing Recap

The House Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection held a hearing on possible "Do-Not-Track" legislation on December 2. The aim of the hearing was to examine the feasibility of establishing a mechanism that provides Internet users a simple and universal method to opt-out from having their online activity tracked by data-gathering firms.

Currently, no federal law specifically governs the online advertising industry or the practice of tracking Internet consumers to deliver behaviorally target ads. Nor are there any federal laws that comprehensively govern the collection, use, and dissemination of consumer information across the board. Specific federal laws, however, do address certain categories of personal information or specific entities.

Subcommittee Chairman Bobby Rush (D-IL) plans to introduce online privacy legislation next year and is considering including a do-not-track requirement. He indicated he was still undecided, but noted there were benefits to such a tool. “Through such a mechanism, consumers could advise would-be trackers unambiguously and persistently that they do not wish to be followed by digital snoopers and spies across websites and their various fixed and mobile computing devices," Chairman Rush said.

The Obama administration endorsed the idea of voluntary industry compliance with stronger consumer privacy protections, but has not backed the call for a broad do-not-track function, said Daniel J. Weitzner, associate administrator for the Office of Policy Analysis and Development at the National Telecommunications and Information Administration. The Commerce Department will soon publish a series of policy ideas and questions through a Department of Commerce “green paper,” which are intended to play a key role in our effort to close gaps in consumer protection, strengthen online trust, and bolster the Internet economy. The paper will contain both proposed recommendations for discussion and a further set of questions on topics about which we seek further input.

David Vladeck, Director of the Federal Trade Commission’s Bureau of Consumer Protection, said that while the FTC recognizes that consumers may benefit in certain ways from the practice of tracking consumers online to serve targeted advertising, the agency supports giving consumers a “Do Not Track” option because the practice is largely invisible to consumers, and they should have a simple, easy way to control it. The FTC proposes that Do Not Track would be a persistent setting on consumers’ Web browsers. He said the practice of tracking consumers’ activities online to target advertising, known as behavioral advertising, holds value for consumers because it supports content and services on the Web and delivers more personalized ads. He noted, however, that more transparency and consumer control regarding the practice are needed.

Republicans greeted the idea of Internet "do not track" proposal coolly, expressing concern that hindering advertiser access to consumers web browsing habits would slow innovation. Rep Ed Whitfield (R-KY), the ranking member on the subcommittee, expressed concern that the free services now financed by advertising would be hurt, and that consumers would lose access to ads they want to see. "What will happen to advertising-supported Internet content? We need to be mindful not to enact legislation that would hurt a recovering economy."

Benton

Search