1. Monthly archive
  2. April 2016

April 2016

Chairman Walden: People 'astonished' over mobile vulnerabilities

House Communications Subcommittee Chairman Greg Walden (R-OR) said the House should look into whether mobile phone networks are vulnerable to hackers. Chairman Walden said that a “60 Minutes” report on the vulnerability was worrisome. The “60 Minutes” segment, aired April 17, showed how hackers could listen in on phone calls and track other data from smartphones with only the number associated with the device. The hackers said they were exploiting a vulnerability in a mobile network called SS7, which helps connect calls.

Chairman Walden called it “an issue of deep concern” and said he thinks "people will be astonished” by the existence of the vulnerability. He said he expected lawmakers associated with his committee to examine the issue in some form. “It’s something we’re looking at, yes, because it just went public here last night,” he said, before cautioning that it was possible lawmakers could do so in private sessions rather than an open hearing. “We’ll get briefed up on it first and then see where we go,” he said, adding later, "Some of these issues are better dealt with maybe even in a classified setting.” He is not the first lawmaker to call for lawmakers to examine the report. Rep Ted Lieu (D-CA) said that the House Oversight Committee should take a look at the vulnerability.

A brief history of US encryption policy

The FBI’s recent attempt to force Apple to unlock the iPhone of Syed Farook brought the battle over encryption directly to the pockets of many Americans. For perhaps the first time, encryption was a topic for dinner table discussion. Though widely believed to be a new battle, a brief survey of the history of encryption regulation shows that law enforcement, intelligence agencies, and technologists have been struggling over encryption backdoors since the early 1990s.

The Media vs. Trump story that’s been overlooked: Freedom of Speech

[Commentary] There’s one complicated Media vs. Donald Trump story playing out that’s been overlooked. I speak of the media coverage of the Trump protests that have disrupted many of his appearances and, somewhat regrettably, they leave me having to stand up for Donald Trump. Why? Because the First Amendment does not take sides, not even against pumpkin-haired, nonsense-spewing, bloviating demagogues.

I was once part of the Beltway media elite, now transplanted to Arizona. Maybe it’s because I’m far from the center of the media action, but to me this particular coverage is distinctive in two ways. One, the media is having a material effect on the race. And two, it’s on the wrong side. It is the most unfair thing that this decidedly unfair man has suffered. Donald Trump is in a zone that deserves protection; he’s trying to run for office and wants to make his case. There’s a process in place to oppose him; it’s called an election. Do we really want disruptive, free speech-shattering protests part of our political process? If Trump doesn’t get the nomination, his supporters could well decide, not without justification, that since his campaign had been sabotaged they might well embark on similar activities. At minimum, a lingering resentment will forever give his adherents a dim but justified sense that they’ve been screwed. If you don’t like his ideas, vote for someone else. But if the people opposing him can’t get their message out without using anti-American tactics—and if we in the media don’t call them on it—we all cede the high ground. Is our democracy so weak it can’t handle Donald Trump?

[Bill Wyman is the former arts editor of NPR and Salon.com]

5 ways Americans and Europeans are different

There are notable differences across the Atlantic. As our polling has found over the years, Americans and Europeans often have different perspectives on individualism, the role of government, free expression, religion and morality.

1) Americans are more likely to believe they control their own destiny.
2) Americans tend to prioritize individual liberty, while Europeans tend to value the role of the state to ensure no one in society is in need.
3) There is greater tolerance in the US than in Europe for offensive speech. A solid majority (77%) of Americans believe citizens should be allowed to make statements that are offensive to people’s religious beliefs, a significantly higher share of the public than in any of the European Union nations included in our 2015 survey. In Poland, Germany and Italy, fewer than half think this kind of speech should be legal. Similarly, Americans are more likely to say offensive statements about minority groups should be permitted.
4) Religion is significantly less important to Europeans than to Americans.
5) Americans and Europeans don’t always agree on questions about morality.

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