Benton RSS Feed

Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) warned broadcasters that while he thinks a "clean" reauthorization of the Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act (STELA) would be best, he would not be surprised if there were some expansions.

That came in a speech to a National Association of Broadcasters audience at its annual State Leadership conference. Sen Hatch was referring to the reauthorization of the compulsory license allowing satellite operators to import distant TV station signals. While broadcasters are all for a "clean" reauthorization if the license is not allowed to sunset, cable operators wouldn't mind expanding the license to include, for example, allowing for continued carriage during retrans impasses, while satellite operators would like to be able to import less-than-distant signals in markets that straddle states.

In a sign that Internet giants will help drive the agenda in Washington, more than half a dozen lawmakers representing both sides of the aisle today paid homage to the $8 trillion annual Internet industry -- a part of the economy no lawmaker wants to disrupt, let alone upset.

Some of Congress' biggest names, including House minority whip Steny Hoyer (D-MD), Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and House oversight chairman Darrell Issa (D-CA), either praised the Internet economy or connected their pet issues to the Internet during a set of panels sponsored by The Internet Association. It was a remarkable show of influence for a new association. Formed late last year, the group counts among its members web giants such as Google and Facebook. Both companies have upped their lobbying game, bending the ears of Congress. Google last year spent nearly $16.5 million on such efforts, a 70 percent increase from 2011. In the same period, Facebook's lobbying spending jumped 196 percent to nearly $4 million.

The House Committee on Homeland Security has announced a hearing for Wednesday, March 6, on the Department of Homeland Security's role and responsibilities to protect critical infrastructure. DHS Sec Janet Napolitano will testify. Meanwhile, in the Senate, the Commerce Committee has released its witness list for a March 6 cybersecurity hearing and Sec Napolitano will headline that meeting as well.

[Commentary] The Supreme Court issued its opinion in Clapper v. Amnesty International, a challenge to the surveillance law that afflicts our crazy times.

Section 1881a of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA) as amended provides in relevant part that our government may monitor certain communications by non-Americans located abroad subject to review by (secretive) courts, but without establishing probable cause or furnishing much in the way of details. The government must still comply with the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution, which guards against unreasonable searches and seizures and, generally speaking, requires probable cause and a detailed game plan (particularity) to eavesdrop on citizens. This is a small comfort to foreigners. Of course, the Fourth Amendment does apply to the Americans that foreigners talk to on the phone or by email. A coalition of American journalists, attorneys, and nonprofits challenged FISA on the basis that the government is very likely monitoring their communications with non-Americans located abroad in violation, they claim, of statutory and constitutional law. The members of the coalition could not know for certain they were being monitored because under FISA, the government does not have to tell them. But given who they were talking to, and how often, the coalition assumed the government was listening is on at least some of their conversations.

In a five-four decision written by Justice Samuel Alito, the Supreme Court dismissed the collation's challenge to FISA for lack of standing. The doctrine of standing says that the parties before the court must have been injured in fact, and not merely speculating as to some possible harm. Which generally makes sense: you want the people who really have a stake in the outcome to litigate the case. Here, however, no one knows who has that stake because no one knows which Americans, if any, are being spied upon. The coalition could not prove that any single communication had been intercepted under the authority of FISA, or that their burdensome practice of leaving the country just to talk to non-American sources and clients in confidence was in fact prudence or paranoia. Put another way, the coalition could not challenge our secret surveillance laws because they are secret. There is no one who can complain of his or her rights having been violated, because anyone's whose rights have been violated doesn't know it. That's the catch when it comes to assessing the legality of the government's secret activities.