June 2013

The Institute of Medicine (IOM), part of the National Academy of Sciences, issued a report finding that, due to a lack of research focused on guns, "a direct relationship between violence in media and real-life firearm violence has not been established and additional research is necessary," but that existing evidence points to a "significant relationship" between media and some real-world violence.

The report reviewed existing research, pointed out where more research could be done, but concluded that even from what it said was “limited” evidence, "a significant relationships exist between violent media exposure and some measures of aggression and violent behavior." The report is a response to President Barack Obama’s executive order -- following the Newtown (CT) school shootings -- requesting that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention "immediately begin identifying the most pressing firearm-related violence research problems." IOM suggests conducting more research on copy-cat acts and suggestions media violence has been imitated in real life. It suggests such research might "advise media purveyors about changes in frequency or type of violent content to help reduce copy-cat effects or encourage help-seeking behaviors." The report also says that there are possible adverse effects from evening news reports about violent incidents and "ongoing, sensationalized stories about high-profile murders and mass shootings" that "has not been the subject of systematic research...Some evidence exists that these types of news stories are associated with unrealistic perceptions of low community safety as well as, in some cases, secondhand trauma-related fear, depression, feelings of vulnerability, and PTSD."

“The research agenda proposed by the IOM would improve our understanding of this content and how it is linked to behavior," said Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Jay Rockefeller (D-WV). "This will inform our work to develop policy that protects our children. We should take the IOM proposal seriously and make sure the research into causes of gun violence can begin in earnest. I have always believed that the cornerstone of good public policy is strong facts rooted in objective evaluation.”

[Commentary] Economic espionage in cyberspace is a pressing issue where progress might be possible. To say that China has carried out a massive stealing campaign is not hyperbole, Chinese denials notwithstanding. The intrusions have been increasingly well documented. The United States also carries out cyberspying against China, and a nascent, offensive U.S. cyberwarfare capability is growing. But U.S. intelligence agencies do not steal technology or proprietary information for the private sector.

China probably can’t turn off the economic espionage like a switch. There’s plenty of nasty stuff in cyberspace that both countries probably can’t control — malicious code, disruptions and hacking. Both will remain wary military competitors, on the ground and in cyberspace. But President Xi Jinping could agree to a sustained and deeper engagement on the topic, perhaps with an accelerated pace of bilateral working groups, both military and diplomatic. A useful long-range goal for these talks would be an agreement on norms and standards of behavior. They could take off the table some of the most egregious actions, such as grand theft of intellectual property.

Maureen Ohlhausen, a Republican member of the Federal Trade Commission, warned against overly aggressive government regulation of online privacy.

Instead, she said the FTC should support voluntary industry-led efforts to develop privacy protection guidelines. "Self-regulation can also offer consumers more privacy choices," Commissioner Ohlhausen said at the Digital Advertising Alliance's conference. "Voluntary codes of conduct and industry-led enforcement are particularly appropriate in dynamic sectors of the economy where traditional regulation may stifle innovation and slow growth." She said companies should develop the privacy guidelines without "undue government involvement." "Otherwise, industry may lose the incentive to participate and instead take a wait and see attitude about whether Congress would ever impose such requirements through legislation," she said.

The co-authors of the CALM Act want the Federal Communications Commission to give them an update on the progress of the law's implementation, which requires video providers to insure advertisement volume is consistent with the surrounding program.

The law went into effect approximately six months ago and they want to know, for one thing, how many complaints the FCC has received about loud commercials since then, as well as how many entities have been granted waivers of temporary relief from that implementation. In a letter to acting FCC chairwoman Mignon Clyburn, Reps. Anna Eshoo (D-CA) and Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) did not indicate any impatience with that implementation, and a spokesperson for Rep Eshoo confirmed it was simply a six-month check-up rather than a response to any complaint. "We have not heard any bad reports," he said.