January 2015

Debate Over US Government Surveillance Faces a Deadline

Key provisions of the Patriot Act, including Section 215, which authorizes phone-records collection, are set to expire in June after attempts to modify the Sept. 11-era national security law were stymied in the Senate in 2014.

Now, the incoming Republican-dominated Congress faces a variety of tensions as it works to sort out the future of US surveillance programs. Congress and the Administration face a difficult choice: reauthorize the law in some form or risk losing the legal basis for key intelligence programs. “The House is not going to pass a straight reauthorization, and I don’t think President Obama would support one,” said Elizabeth Goitein, co-director of the Brennan Center for Justice’s Liberty and National Security Program, and a supporter of privacy protections. “Something has to happen and there has to be some kind of reform, and the question is: What does it look like?”

Google Strikes an Upbeat Note With FCC on Title II

In a rare public comment by Google on network neutrality, Google said it sees a silver lining in the potential to be regulated like a telecom company.

In a letter to the Federal Communications Commission, Google’s director of communications law Austin Schlick highlighted a potential positive for the company if Title II kicks in. As a regulated telecom service, Google Fiber would get access to utility poles and other essential infrastructure owned by utilities. The FCC should make sure this happens because it would promote competition and spur more investment and deployment of broadband internet service, Schlick argued. Gaining better access to utility poles would be a big boost for Google Fiber, which has been seen as an expensive experiment by some investors and analysts.

Hooking up homes using poles is about a tenth of the price of digging trenches across streets and sidewalks, according to Reed Hundt, who was FCC chairman in the 1990s.

Online Political Opinions Don’t Need Regulating

[Commentary] A decade ago, the Federal Election Commission debated whether it should regulate political communications posted on the Internet. The commission unanimously approved a rule in 2006 that freed the vast majority of political commentary on the Internet from regulation. That Internet freedom rule exempted all political commentary that citizens and groups distribute online free, whether in email or on websites, blogs or various social media platforms. The commission retained jurisdiction over two limited areas: political campaigns, parties and political-action committees that post communications on the Internet; and anyone else who posts express electoral advocacy online for an advertising fee -- like a paid advertisement placed on television or in a newspaper.

The FEC should not only adhere to the 2006 rule but also expand Internet freedom, for several reasons. First, for the low cost of a personal computer and a monthly Internet-connection charge, citizens can reach millions of people. Second, the FEC has no authority to regulate political speech for the sake of limiting speech, but only with regard to large monetary contributions and expenditures with corruptive potential. Third, citizens voluntarily seek the viewpoints they want to hear on the Internet. Government should not impose regulatory burdens that restrict the political information citizens choose to view. Finally, how would the FEC ever monitor the Internet to cull posts meriting investigation?

[Goodman is a commissioner and former chairman of the Federal Election Commission]

FCC Announces Membership of the Task Force On Optimal PSAP Architecture

Federal Communications Commission Chairman Thomas Wheeler has appointed members to the Task Force on Optimal Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP) Architecture (TFOPA or Task Force). The members represent a mix of viewpoints from state, tribal and/or local government agencies and organizations; Federal government agencies; communications service providers and organizations representing them; 911/NG911 system service providers; public interest organizations; and other experts.

The Task Force is directed to study and report findings and recommendations on PSAP structure and architecture in order to determine whether additional consolidation of PSAP infrastructure and architecture improvements would promote greater efficiency of operations, safety of life, and cost containment, while retaining needed integration with local first responder dispatch and support.

The first meeting of the Task Force is tentatively scheduled to take place on January 26, 2015.

Task Force duties may include studying and reporting on:

Optimal PSAP system and network configuration in terms of emergency communications efficiency, performance, and operations functionality;
Cost projections for conversion to and annual operation of PSAPs that incorporate such optimal system design;
Comparative cost projections for annual maintenance of all existing PSAPs annually and upgrading them to NG911;
Recommendations on ways to ensure states use E911 funds for their intended purpose;
Whether states that divert E911 funds should be ineligible to participate on various FCC councils, committees, and working groups.

Web Freedom Is Seen to Be Growing as a Global Issue in 2015

Government censorship of the Internet is a cat-and-mouse game. And despite more aggressive tactics in recent months, the cats have been largely frustrated while the mice wriggle away. But in 2015, the challenges for Silicon Valley will mount, with Russia and Turkey in particular trying to tighten controls on foreign-based Internet companies. Major American companies like Facebook, Twitter and Google are increasingly being put in the tricky position of figuring out which laws and orders to comply with around the world -- and which to ignore or contest. Russia’s president, Vladimir V. Putin, signed the latest version of a personal data law that will require companies to store data about Russian users on computers inside the country, where it will be easier for the government to get access to it. With few companies expected to comply with the law, which goes into effect Sept. 1, a confrontation may well erupt.

Facebook and Beijing

[Commentary] Can information companies participate in China’s huge market without selling their souls to the Communist Party? Facebook is the latest American tech firm to face this question, and critics are blaming the company for taking down a post about self-immolation by a Tibetan monk. The issue deserves more than easy condemnation. If Facebook wants to try to do business in China without internalizing the censorship regime, then more power to it. The potential reward to shareholders and Chinese customers are considerable, but so are the risks to its brand and reputation.

Benton

Search