1. Monthly archive
  2. March 2016

March 2016

FCC Wireline Competition Bureau Chief Matthew DelNero on Privacy

Federal Communications Commission Wireline Competition Bureau Chief Matthew DelNero spoke at the Federal Communications Bar Association/American Bar Association Annual Privacy and Data Security Symposium. He said, "As most of you know, when the FCC reclassified broadband Internet access service as a telecommunications service in the 2015 Open Internet Order, it forbore from applying many of the Title II requirements to broadband services. But the FCC found that applying and enforcing [Communications Act] section 222 for broadband is in the public interest and necessary for the protection of consumers. At the same time, the FCC found that the current section 222 rules are not necessarily well-suited to broadband, and forbore from them – instead suggesting that it would likely move forward with a privacy rulemaking to consider new, modern rules to protect the privacy interests of broadband subscribers. What we are focused on are the privacy practices of broadband providers regarding the data they obtain by virtue of providing broadband service. The privacy laws and best practices that govern the rest of the Internet ecosystem are helpful in informing our thinking. But section 222 applies to telecommunications services; that is section 222’s “strand” of US privacy law. It does not apply to other activities, including the activities of edge providers."

Speaking at the same event, DelNero told attorneys that the agency's upcoming rulemaking on broadband privacy will likely be driven by basic principles of transparency, consumer choice and security. DelNero said FCC staff has been speaking with industry associations, broadband providers and looking to the Federal Trade Commission as the agency works to craft proposed rules. "It's fair to say there's no shortage of good ideas," DelNero said. There's a chance the commission will use the proceeding to harmonize its existing telephone privacy rules with the new broadband rules, he said, saying staff believe it is an "opportune time" to do so.

iPhone judge focused on 'burden' on Apple

The federal magistrate handling the government's demand that Apple help the FBI hack into an iPhone used by a dead terrorist is focused on the burden the request will place on the company, as well as the details of what's technically required to carry it out. During a telephone conference in Feb with Apple lawyers and federal prosecutors, US Magistrate Judge Sheri Pym identified those issues as her primary concerns as the two sides and outside groups file a flurry of legal briefs in the high-profile legal fight. "I am looking for full briefing on this and particularly with respect to, among other things...what technically is involved here, obviously going to the burden and some other issues," Judge Pym declared during the Feb 18 call. "I would like really as full a record as possible on this." Most of the call was devoted to scheduling issues, but the exchange does shed some new light on the early maneuvering in the dispute over the phone used by one of the shooters in the San Bernardino (CA) terrorist attack last December.

Why Your Bank Wants to Track Your Phone

Banks are starting to experiment with a new way of reducing credit-card fraud: tracking their customers’ cellphones. The principle is straightforward enough. People are wedded to their phones, so if their phone and card are in the same place, the transaction is probably legitimate. That could help authenticate suspicious purchases, for example, when a customer from Dallas (TX) tries to buy electronics in Miami (FL). Making use of that information faces a number of hurdles, however—from privacy concerns to more basic impediments, including that card issuers don’t always know their customers’ cellphone numbers. US Bancorp will be one of the first big US lenders in 2016 to launch the service after pilot tests showed tracking cellphone locations helped identify fraudulent transactions that might otherwise have been approved.

Trump FCC: Winners and LOSERS Edition Revisited

We admit it. When we wrote our original Donald Trump telecommunication analysis last July, we, like Vegas and every Washington pundit, thought the prospect of a Trump presidency quite low. Therefore, our analysis—big shocker here—was largely tongue in cheek. We tried to accurately predict the stock impact (we would never kid about actual stock directions) but we were, um, creative in our analysis. In light of the Super Tuesday results, however, we feel we should expand and revise our original comments to reflect the expanded and revised possibility of a Trump Presidency (and with only a little tongue in cheek.)

With two exceptions noted below, nothing to date on the campaign trail provides much of a hint on real policy direction on telecom and media. The exceptions, however, are revealing. First, he clearly stated that he would reverse the current Title II reclassification, tweeting “[President Barack] Obama's attack on the Internet is another top down power grab. Net neutrality is the Fairness Doctrine. Will target the conservative media." Second, he supports removing unspecified libel protections. He told the press that when the New York Times or Washington Post (the two he mentioned, though presumably it would cover a wide range of content providers) publish articles he believes are “hit jobs…we can sue them and win money instead of having no chance of winning….we’re going to have people sue you like you have never been sued before.”

Idea to Retire: A closed-platform Internet of Things

[Commentary] The Internet has gone through a major transition: in the year 2015, the number of devices connected by the Internet surpassed the number of people connected by the Internet. Public policymakers need to move past the idea that the Internet is something that we experience through a browser, using our mobile phones and personal computers. The Internet of Things (IoT) is here. With billions of sensors to learn from, there’s no reason governments shouldn’t use them to make better public policy. And firms should be allowed to do in-depth market research on the behavior of their customers and use smart devices to run their business efficiently.

It’s very likely that citizens and consumers will benefit from IoT innovations, but policymakers have to let go of the idea that the Internet is made up of cellphones and laptops. First and foremost, they must provide ways to ensure that people are presented with choices about who gets to use their individual data for politics. And they have to treat device networks as common carriers for the public good. The devices that are being connected to the IoT aren’t smart because they obey us as consumers and citizens. They are smart in that they obey the device manufacturers. Policymakers need to realize that for the IoT to work well, and in support of our civic and political values, we all need to be able to see what’s under the hood.

[Philip N. Howard is a professor of communication, information and international affairs at the University of Washington.]

Center for Internet and Society at Stanford Law School
March 7, 2016
12:50 PM - 2:00 PM
http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/events/introduction-european-data-protectio...

This talk will introduce the basic concepts of European data protection and privacy law and explore the fundamental differences between the European and US approaches, including by examining recent events (e.g., the Schrems case, the EU/US Privacy Shield, and the General Data Protection Regulation).

Neal Cohen is a New York and English qualified lawyer in Perkins Coie’s Privacy and Security Group and a former Research Fellow at the Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University. Prior to joining Perkins Coie in the United States, Neal spent several years practicing data protection and privacy law in London at another multinational law firm. Neal began his career as a law clerk in the Privacy Office at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.


Spatial inequality and the Internet divide in Indonesia 2010–2012

Spatial inequality has been one of the key development characteristics considered across developing countries. However, relatively few studies examine the mechanisms by which spatial inequality explains the existing digital divide in a developing country. Applying the normalisation and stratification thesis in diffusion theory, this study examines the ways in which spatial inequality is related to the Internet divide in Indonesia, a developing country that is currently growing in its use of Information and Communication Technology (ICT), but that has experienced unequal regional development in the last three decades.

Data comes from the Indonesian national socio-economic survey (Susenas) 2010–2012, which comprises 3.3 million individuals, 750,000 households and 292 districts. Far from moving towards convergence, the Internet divide expanded during this period; the inequality of Internet access by age, gender, income, and education deepens and widens across urban–rural, city–countryside, and remote island–mainland island areas. The results of analyses using both stratified and multilevel models indicate that supply factors across districts – particularly district disparities in telecommunications infrastructures, human capital and education services – are associated with the Internet divide. The results are robust against individual, household and district socio-economic characteristics associated with the Internet divide. Enlarging the distribution of telecommunication infrastructures and education facilities, particularly across districts in rural, countryside and remote islands, may thus help to bridge the Internet divide in Indonesia.

[Sujarwoto Sujarwoto is associated with Brawijaya University in Malang, Indonesia. Gindo Tampubolon is associated with the University of Manchester in the United Kingdom]

© 1994-2026 Benton Institute for Broadband & Society. All Rights Reserved.