Benton RSS Feed

Multistakeholder Meetings to Develop Consumer Data Privacy Code of Conduct Concerning Mobile Application Transparency

National Telecommunications and Information Administration
Department of Commerce
April 4, 2013
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2012-12-20/pdf/2012-30684.pdf

Stakeholders will engage in an open, transparent, consensus-driven process to develop a code of conduct regarding mobile application transparency.

Multistakeholder Meetings to Develop Consumer Data Privacy Code of Conduct Concerning Mobile Application Transparency

National Telecommunications and Information Administration
Department of Commerce
March 14, 2013
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2012-12-20/pdf/2012-30684.pdf

Stakeholders will engage in an open, transparent, consensus-driven process to develop a code of conduct regarding mobile application transparency.

Multistakeholder Meetings to Develop Consumer Data Privacy Code of Conduct Concerning Mobile Application Transparency

National Telecommunications and Information Administration
Department of Commerce
February 21, 2013
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2012-12-20/pdf/2012-30684.pdf

For additional info: http://www.ntia.doc.gov/other-publication/2013/privacy-multistakeholder-...

Stakeholders will engage in an open, transparent, consensus-driven process to develop a code of conduct regarding mobile application transparency.

Multistakeholder Meetings to Develop Consumer Data Privacy Code of Conduct Concerning Mobile Application Transparency

National Telecommunications and Information Administration
Department of Commerce
January 31, 2013
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2012-12-20/pdf/2012-30684.pdf

Agenda

1:00 p.m. Welcome

1:10 p.m. Facilitated Discussion – Issues Tabled or Raised at the January 17, 2012 meeting concerning the Application Developers Alliance, et al. Discussion Draft (1/15/13 Discussion Draft; Redline Version of 1/15/13 Discussion Draft):

• In Section II(A), should the term “Files Stored on the Device (Including, e.g., calendar, pictures, text files and video)” be revised? (5 minutes)
• In Section II(A), should the term “Financial Information (Includes credit, bank and other customer-specific financial information including purchase history other than information collected for a purchase either within or through the app)” be revised? (5 minutes)
• In Section II(A), should the term “Health, Medical or Therapy Information (Including health and disease management, diagnoses, insurance company information such as past and present claims, and information collected by the app that measures your health or wellness)” be revised? (5 minutes)
• Should Section II(A) include “Age of User?” If so, should the term “Age of User (Your age and/or date of birth)” be revised? (5 minutes)
• Should Section II(A) require the disclosure of data collected through direct user submissions? (10 minutes)
• Should Section II(A) require the disclosure of data collection that is necessary for the app to function? (10 minutes)
• In Section II(B), should entity types be disclosed to consumers, or should the degree of third party sharing be disclosed instead? E.g. “no third party sharing,” “sharing directly with third parties but no further disclosure,” or “sharing directly with third parties plus further disclosure by those third parties to others.” (10 minutes)
• In Section II(B), should the list of entity types be revised to reduce overlap between entities, e.g. “affiliated businesses” and “content publishers?” (10 minutes)
• In Section II(B), should short form notices include disclosure of third-party data sharing with “affiliated businesses?” If so, should the term “affiliated businesses” be revised and/or more precisely defined? (10 minutes)
• In Section II(B), should short form notices include disclosure that an app shares data with “data brokers?” If so, should the term “data brokers” be revised and/or more precisely defined? (10 minutes)

2:30 p.m. Break

2:50 p.m. Facilitated Discussion – Issues Tabled or Raised at the January 17, 2012 meeting concerning the Application Developers Alliance, et al. Discussion Draft (continued):
• Should the term “share” be more precisely defined? (5 minutes)
• Should language referencing “responsive design” be included in Section III? (5 minutes)
• How should long form notices be treated in the code? Is the current language in Section IV sufficient? (10 minutes)
• Is the language in Section I best treated as part of a code of conduct or as a separate “principles document?” (10 minutes)

3:25 p.m. Review of Issues Resolved by Consensus at the January 17, 2012 meeting:
• “Shall” and “must” defined as mandatory. “Should” defined as recommended.
• “Other developers or networks” removed from Section II(B) (short form notice).
• Section IV revised to include “These links should include explanations of how consumers may request deletion of their data collected by the app, if such deletion is available.”
• “Stored images (such as files or images)” removed from Section II(A) (short form notice).
• “Already” removed from the bullet “Files Already Stored on the Device (Including, e.g., calendar, pictures, text files and video)” in Section II(A) (short form notice).
• General approach supported for treatment of the terms “financial information” and “health, medical, or therapy information.”

3:35 p.m. Usability Testing Options
• Mark Blafkin (Executive Director, Innovators Network) (15 minutes)
• Facilitated Discussion (30 minutes)

4:20 p.m. Procedural Issues (next steps, proposed agenda items for February 21, 2013 meeting)

4:50 p.m. Farewell

Multistakeholder Meetings to Develop Consumer Data Privacy Code of Conduct Concerning Mobile Application Transparency

National Telecommunications and Information Administration
Department of Commerce
January 17, 2013
1:00 p.m.
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2012-12-20/pdf/2012-30684.pdf

See updated info here: http://www.ntia.doc.gov/other-publication/2013/privacy-multistakeholder-...

Stakeholders will engage in an open, transparent, consensus-driven process to develop a code of conduct regarding mobile application transparency.

Draft agenda

1:00 p.m. Welcome

1:10 p.m. Facilitated Discussion – Issues Tabled or Raised at the December 17, 2012 meeting concerning the Application Developers Alliance, et al. Discussion Draft:

  • Should Section II(A) include “age of user?” If so, should the term “age of user” be revised and/or more precisely defined? (5 minutes)
  • In Section II(A), should the term “financial information” be revised and/or more precisely defined? (5 minutes)
  • In Section II(A), should the term “health, medical, or therapy information” be revised and/or more precisely defined? (5 minutes)
  • In Section II(A), should the term “stored images (such as files or images)” be revised and/or more precisely defined? (5 minutes)
  • Should Section II(A) require the disclosure of data collected through direct user submissions? (5 minutes)
  • Should Section II(A) require the disclosure of data collection that is necessary for the app to function? (5 minutes)
  • In Section II(B), should short form notices include disclosure of third-party data sharing with “affiliated businesses?” If so, should the term “affiliated businesses” be revised and/or more precisely defined? (5 minutes)
  • In Section II(B), should short form notices include disclosure that an app shares data with “data brokers?” If so, should the term “data brokers” be revised and/or more precisely defined? (5 minutes)
  • In Section II(B), should the term “other developers or networks” be revised and/or more precisely defined? (5 minutes)
  • In Section II(B), should the list of entity types be revised to reduce overlap
  • between entities, e.g. “affiliated businesses” and “content publishers?” (5 minutes)
  • In Sections II and III, should the term “share” be more precisely defined? (5 minutes)
  • Should language referencing “responsive design” be included in Section III? (5 minutes)
  • How should Section IV be revised re: disclosure of “how consumers may request deletion of data collected by the app” if such deletion is available? (5 minutes)
  • How should Section IV be revised to clarify the term “these links?” (5 minutes)
  • Are revisions necessary to clarify the use of “shall,” “must,” and “should” throughout the document? (5 minutes)
  • Should the code include language that would limit an app’s liability for failing to provide exhaustive disclosures in the short-form notice? If so, what language? (5 minutes)
  • Should short form notice be required? (5 minutes)
  • How should long form notices be treated in the code? Is the current language in Section IV sufficient? (5 minutes)
  • Is the language in Section I best treated as part of a code of conduct or as a separate “principles document?” (5 minutes)

2:50 p.m. Break

3:10 p.m. Last Call for Objections Regarding Issues Resolved at the December 17, 2012 meeting:

  • Remove the term “persistent identifiers” from Section II(A) (short form notice).
  • Remove the term “time of data collection” from Section II(A) (short form notice).
  • Remove the term “patterns of app usage” from Section II(A) (short form notice).
  • Agree that Section IV requires disclosure of “how consumers may request deletion of data collected by the app” if such deletion is available.

3:20 p.m. Discussion of Plans for Usability Testing

4:20 p.m. Procedural Issues (role of academics, next steps, proposed agenda items for January 31, 2013 meeting)

4:50 p.m. Farewell

Submitted on December 21, 2012

On December 19, the Federal Trade Commission adopted and unveiled final amendments to the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Rule in order to strengthen kids’ privacy protections and give parents greater control over the personal information that websites and online services may collect from children under 13. The COPPA Rule was mandated when Congress passed the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act of 1998. The amendments to the Final Rule will go into effect on July 1, 2013.

The law:

  • requires that operators of websites or online services that are either directed to children under 13 or have actual knowledge that they are collecting personal information from children under 13 give notice to parents and get their verifiable consent before collecting, using, or disclosing such personal information, and keep secure the information they collect from children, and
  • prohibits those websites and online services from conditioning children’s participation in activities on the collection of more personal information than is reasonably necessary for them to participate.

The FTC’s rule contains a "safe harbor" provision that allows industry groups or others to seek FTC approval of self-regulatory guidelines. The updated rule seeks to strengthen oversight of the approved self-regulatory "safe harbor programs" by requiring them to audit their members and report annually to the FTC the aggregated results of those audits.

The final amendments:

  • modify the list of “personal information” that cannot be collected without parental notice and consent, clarifying that this category includes geolocation information, photographs, and videos;
  • recognize users over time and across different websites or online services, such as IP addresses and mobile device IDs;
  • strengthen data security protections by requiring that covered website operators and online service providers take reasonable steps to release children’s personal information only to companies that are capable of keeping it secure and confidential;
  • offer companies a streamlined, voluntary and transparent approval process for new ways of getting parental consent;
  • close a loophole that allowed kid-directed apps and websites to permit third parties to collect personal information from children through plug-ins without parental notice and consent;
  • extend coverage in some of those cases so that the third parties doing the additional collection also have to comply with COPPA;
  • extend the COPPA Rule to cover persistent identifiers that can recognize users over time and across different websites or online services, such as IP addresses and mobile device IDs;
  • require that covered website operators adopt reasonable procedures for data retention and deletion; and
  • strengthen the FTC’s oversight of self-regulatory safe harbor programs.

The FTC also modified some key definitions:

  • The definition of an operator has been updated to make clear that the Rule covers a child-directed site or service that integrates outside services, such as plug-ins or advertising networks, that collect personal information from its visitors. This definition does not extend liability to platforms, such as Google Play or the App Store, when such platforms merely offer the public access to child-directed apps.
  • The definition of a website or online service directed to children is expanded to include plug-ins or ad networks that have actual knowledge that they are collecting personal information through a child-directed website or online service. In addition, in contrast to sites and services whose primary target audience is children, and who must presume all users are children, sites and services that target children only as a secondary audience or to a lesser degree may differentiate among users, and will be required to provide notice and obtain parental consent only for those users who identify themselves as being younger than 13.
  • The definition of personal information now also includes geolocation information, as well as photos, videos, and audio files that contain a child’s image or voice.
  • The definition of personal information requiring parental notice and consent before collection now includes “persistent identifiers” that can be used to recognize users over time and across different websites or online services. However, no parental notice and consent is required when an operator collects a persistent identifier for the sole purpose of supporting the website or online service’s internal operations, such as contextual advertising, frequency capping, legal compliance, site analysis, and network communications. Without parental consent, such information may never be used or disclosed to contact a specific individual, including through behavioral advertising, to amass a profile on a specific individual, or for any other purpose. The final amended Rule also adds a process allowing industry to seek formal approval to add permitted activities to the definition of support for internal operations.
  • The definition of collection of personal information has been changed so that operators may allow children to participate in interactive communities without parental consent, so long as the operators take reasonable measures to delete all or virtually all children’s personal information before it is made public.

The updated definitions of personal information and operators that are only “directed to children” have spurred the most controversy. While the privacy advocacy community [including the Benton Foundation (see statement below)] welcomes the changes to personal information, this step has been warily viewed by industry for it’s potential to affect privacy procedures with respect to teens and adults. The definition of personal information now includes “persistent identifiers” which are used both internally (to improve site services) and externally (sent to 3rd parties and for behavioral advertising across sites). While the sites can still collect persistent identifiers, the use of these identifiers is curtailed by the notice and consent rule if sites want to send the information to 3rd parties or behavioral targerters. While most of the privacy community is strongly supportive of the new rules, there is also concern of the potential loophole created by the changes which allow operators of sites whose primary focus is not children. Because these sites do not have to provide notice or seek consent, the concern is that many child focused sites will simply expand their content to become “family focused” so that the burden of notice and consent only exists if they are certain that a user is 13 or under.

In a blog post, the FTC noted the new definitions the commission adopted for "operator," "website or online service directed to children," "personal information," and "support for internal operations." The FTC also highlights that in the notice that operators must send directly to parents before collecting personal info from their kids, the new rule puts key information up front. The rule also streamlines what operators have to put in their online privacy policies about their information practices. The rule allows for new ways for operators to get parental consent including electronic scans of signed parental consent forms, videoconferencing, use of government-issued ID, and alternative payment systems (assuming they meet the same stringent criteria as credit cards). Operators must take reasonable steps to make sure that before releasing information to service providers and third parties, those companies are capable of maintaining the confidentiality, security, and integrity of the information — and that they give assurances they’ll follow through. The rule also requires that operators retain kids’ personal information for only as long as is reasonably necessary and that when they dispose of it, they’ll take reasonable measures to protect against unauthorized access.

Federal officials say the mobile apps space in particular has been a Wild West, where hundreds of apps aimed at children collected personal information and shared it with ad networks without informing parents, according to a study released last week by the FTC.

However, in a departure from rule changes proposed in August, the FTC explicitly exempted app stores like those run by Apple and Google from responsibility for privacy violations by the games and other software that are sold there. Software such as Facebook's "Like" button and ads placed by advertising networks will only have to meet child online privacy regulations if companies have "actual knowledge" that they're collecting information through a website or app that targets kids. Erin Egan, Facebook’s chief privacy officer, said: “We are pleased the Commission clarified the limited circumstances under which providers of social plugins would be subject to Coppa when those plugins are displayed on other websites.”

Even at the FTC, adoption of the new rule was not unanimous. FTC Commissioner J. Thomas Rosch abstained. Fellow Commissioner Maureen Ohlhausen voted no and issued a dissenting statement on the ground that she believes a core provision of the amendments exceeds the scope of the authority granted by Congress in COPPA. She stated that, regardless of policy justifications, she cannot support extending COPPA’s statutory definition of “operator” to impose obligations on websites or online services that do not collect personal information from children or have access to or control of such information collected by a third-party.

The COPPA release event highlighted the strong congressional support for the COPPA updates from both Republicans and Democrats. Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) attended, saying the update was long overdue. "The new rule puts all online companies on notice," said Chairman Rockefeller "that they are required to comply with the law. Under the new Rule, when a children’s website or application allows third-parties to collect information from children, those websites and apps will be liable under COPPA. Furthermore, those third-parties will also be held liable if they know they are collecting information on websites or apps directed toward children." Chairman Rockefeller made clear that while the FTC rules were strong he felt the Senate would have more work to do to develop even stronger protections for consumers. He followed up his statement on COPPA with references to his own "Do Not Track" bill and to the need to review policies around violent video games. Chairman Rockefeller was joined by Senator Mark Pryor (D-AR) and the two chairs of the House Bi-Partisan Privacy Caucus -- Reps. Ed Markey (D-MA) and Joe Barton (R-TX). Rep. Barton supported and praised the FTC changes and even stated that further Congressional action on the issue was necessary." The Members of Congress all mentioned the strong work of the public interest community, highlighting the work of Angela Campbell of Georgetown Law Center’s Institute for Public Representation (Benton’s lawyers on the COPPA proceeding), Jeff Chester of the Center for Digital Democracy, Kathryn Montgomery of American University and even invited a public interest representative, Common Sense Media, to speak.

"With the carefully considered changes to the COPPA rule," said Rep Henry Waxman (D-CA), the ranking member of the House Commerce Committee, "the FTC is ensuring that COPPA continues to meet its goal of keeping parents in control of their children’s information, including their location, their photographic images, and records of their online habits and activities. Congress was well aware that technology can change quickly and gave the FTC enough flexibility and discretion to make sure the law could evolve with technology. In the 14 years since COPPA was enacted, how children interact with online services has changed dramatically as these services have become accessible from almost anywhere on ever smaller mobile devices. The techniques used to collect information about all of us have also changed, becoming both more prolific and opaque."

The advertising industry lobbied hard to make sure updates to COPPA didn't chill advertising and innovation in children’s websites and apps. FTC Chairman Jon Leibowitz addressed advertisers directly, reassuring the industry that the rules would not kill advertising. “Let’s be clear about one thing: under this rule, advertisers and even ad networks can continue to advertise, even on sites directed to children,” Leibowitz said. “Business models that depend on advertising will continue to thrive. The only limit we place is on behavioral advertising, and in this regard our rule is simple: until and unless you get parental consent, you may not track children to build massive profiles for behavioral advertising purposes. Period.” At first blush, advertisers said the new rules addressed a number of their concerns.

Some smaller application developers were disappointed. Jon Potter, president of the Application Developers Alliance, said that the new regulations could prove so burdensome "that talented and responsible developers will abandon the children's app marketplace." Based on the FTC's estimate that the average app or website would need to spend $9,000 to comply with the rules, the Association for Competitive Technology estimated that the extra expense to educational apps alone could add up to $272 million. "While we appreciate the efforts of Chairman Leibowitz, we are particularly concerned with his expectatiion that the industry will simply find a solution to the new rules. It is akin to jumping off a cliff with the plan to build the parachute on the way down. While that may work for big companies, small companies lack the silk and line to build that parahute before they hit the ground," Morgan Reed, executive director of ACT, said in a statement.

The Information Technology and Innovation Foundation was not pleased with the new rule. ITIF analyst Daniel Castro said, “Due in part to FTC rule making, the Internet has failed to live up to its potential in bringing forth a new era of compelling and educational child-friendly websites. This recent announcement is just another example of how federal child privacy laws harm children more than help them. The new rule changes do not address the real problems with current privacy restrictions which are woven into the open nature of the Internet and the always changing technology environment. The FTC should have focused on rules to better address these issues and not simply restrict legitimate business practices used by companies in the Internet marketplace."

Adonis Hoffman, a communications professor at Georgetown and former general counsel of the American Association of Advertising Agencies, said, "In the tender aftermath of the tragedy at Sandy Hook, the FTC's decision to protect kids from digital harm is poignant. We are now talking about the role of parents in broader terms, and on a day-to-day basis, one of the clear and present dangers faced by kids could be the misuse of their information. Kudos to the FTC for taking a step in the right direction."

The Center for Democracy and Technology announced support for the new rule, but raised concerns that the updated definition of when a website is “directed to children” could expand COPPA's reach to general audience sites and confuse website owners as to whether these new rules apply to them. This uncertainty will likely prompt more sites to take advantage of the Commission’s new age-screening safe harbor, which could lead to many more sites demanding age or identifying information from all users before allowing access. Requiring age verification from every user runs counter to the First Amendment right to access information anonymously and increases the collection of potentially sensitive information generally. The new rule's uncertainty is magnified for third party plug-in operators, who may now be liable for the decisions of publishers to embed their plug-in on sites directed to children.

“We applaud the FTC for its rigorous and comprehensive review of the [Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act] rules and for bringing them up to date with industry changes,” said Kathryn Montgomery, a communications professor at American University and a leading advocate of the updates. “However, the commission will need to engage in ongoing monitoring efforts, as well as strong enforcement actions, if the implementation of these rules is to be effective in the long run.” “We are at a critical moment in the growth of the children’s digital marketplace as social networks, mobile phones and gaming platforms become an increasingly powerful presence in the lives of young people,” she added. “The new rules should help ensure that companies targeting children throughout the rapidly expanding digital media landscape will be required to engage in fair marketing and data collection practices.”

Jeffrey Chester, executive director of the Center for Digital Democracy and a consumer advocate who has been involved in the COPPA debate for years, said the FTC's decision was a step in the right direction but left loopholes for companies to mine kids' data inappropriately. He said he would continue to push for more scrutiny of the role of the Internet giants that distribute kids' apps. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142412788732377720457818943010187777...

Santa Clara University School of Law Professor Erik Goldman, writing for Forbes, called the new rules “a real mess.” He notes that most websites and apps won’t be affected directly by the rule change. “However, the news is less happy for vendors to kid-oriented websites or apps, including ad networks and app plug-ins, and for kid-oriented websites that haven’t already complied with COPPA.”

Jessica Guynn of the Los Angeles Times was quick to point out that Apple, Facebook, Google and other app purveyors are exempted from the new rules.

Natasha Singer at the New York Times writes that the new rules may allow Facebook to officially open its site to children under 13.

FTC Chairman Leibowitz said the vision is for the commission to be vigorous in privacy protection. That has some worried that the new COPPA rules, by expanding personal information to include device IDs like IP addresses, could be a template to expand privacy regulations to crack down on behaviorally targeted advertising. “This shows a concerted effort to set ground for a greater battle against interest-based advertising,” said Carl Szabo, policy council for NetChoice, a coalition of trade associations, eCommerce businesses, and online consumers.

We’ll do our best to keep you up-to-date on all the debates over online privacy -- and we’ll see you in the Headlines. Happy New Year, dear readers.

Statement of Amina Fazlullah Policy Counsel to the Benton Foundation:

"Today, the Internet is brimming with content directed at children through computers, tablets and smartphones. To safeguard children against the misuse of their personal information, the Benton Foundation strongly supports the Federal Trade Commission's action this week to expand and strengthen the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA). Benton was proud to be a part of the public interest community to help create COPPA in 1998 and was pleased to join in the effort to update these important rules. We are proud to see the FTC include COPPA protections for geo-location information, videos and images. With these rules the FTC hands parents strong tools to protect kids online. We look forward to the FTC's implementation and enforcement of the new COPPA rule."

December 21, 2012 (Fixing the media ownership debate)

As is our tradition, Headlines will be helping Santa’s elves with clean-up next week. We will return WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 2, 2013. Happy Holidays!
BENTON'S COMMUNICATIONS-RELATED HEADLINES for FRIDAY, DECEMBER 21, 2012


FROM THE CHAIRMAN
   Time to Reflect: An End-of-Year Message from Charles Benton - analysis

OWNERSHIP
   How to fix the media ownership debate - op-ed
   Rep Waters to FCC: Don't Wade Into Ownership Just Yet [links to web]

INTERNET/BROADBAND
   Senator Wyden introduces bill to regulate data caps
   Broadband Usage Pricing: Let It Flourish - analysis
   Behind closed doors at the UN's attempted "takeover of the Internet - op-ed
   President Obama likely to issue executive order on cybersecurity as early as January
   Joint defense measure seeks to disarm hackers

WIRELESS/SPECTRUM
   Let's be honest, your smartphone's price makes no sense - analysis
   FCC: Broadcasters Can File Anonymously on Spectrum Auctions
   Why the mobile web vs apps debate is a false dichotomy - op-ed [links to web]
   In 5 Years, 4.4% of All Ads will Appear on a Phone Screen [links to web]
   Before it drops subsidies, T-Mobile offers big smartphone rebate [links to web]

PATENTS
   Apple takes quest for Samsung product ban to appeals court
   Apple's patent victory may be small in larger battle with Samsung
   Samsung Faces EU Antitrust Complaint Over Apple Patent Clash

CONTENT
   The Development and Diffusion of Digital Content - research
   Amazon Studios taps the Onion, Daily Show writers, others for comedy pilots [links to web]
   The Scariest Thing About the Newspaper Business Isn't Print's Decline, It's Digital's Growth [links to web]
   In Social Media and opinion pages, Newtown Sparks Calls for Gun Reforms - research [links to web]
   Entertainment Council Re-Launching Initiative to Focus on Consequences of Gun Violence [links to web]
   MPAA’s Dodd: Film studios ready to 'do our part' after shooting [links to web]
   Kids and digital media: removing the fears - editorial [links to web]
   Privacy Icon Big in Facebook Apps As Facebook Itself Opts-Out [links to web]
   Nielsen Tops of 2012: Digital - research [links to web]
   Give Me Control Of Your Currency, And I Care Not Who Makes The Laws - op-ed [links to web]
   Netflix Facebook Sharing Bill Clears Senate, Waiting For Obama’s OK [links to web]
   Gambling Industry Bets Virtual Money Turns Real [links to web]
   TV Rights Split Soccer Clubs in UK [links to web]
   Apple Maps three times more likely to get you lost than Google Maps [links to web]

PRIVACY
   Children’s Online Privacy Rules: Winners and Losers
   Instagram Walks Back Ad Language, but Leaves the Door Open

HEALTH
   Doctors Move to Webcams [links to web]

GOVERNMENT & COMMUNICATIONS
   Civil liberties groups urge Senate to debate surveillance bill
   The least transparent Senators? [links to web]
   New York Police Department to Use Internet to Try to Stop Mass Shootings [links to web]

POLICYMAKERS
   Sen Patrick Leahy declines powerful Appropriations post [links to web]
   Senate Commerce Committee Leaders Seek to Fast-Track Clyburn Approval

MORE NEWS FROM COURT
   Verizon: FCC Not Best Judge of Its Authority

MORE RESEARCH
   Reading Habits in Different Communities - research

MORE ONLINE
   The Two Freds - op-ed [links to web]
   Deutsche Telekom finance chief to replace CEO Obermann [links to web]

back to top

FROM THE CHAIRMAN

TIME TO REFLECT
[SOURCE: Benton Foundation, AUTHOR: Charles Benton]
[Commentary] Personally and professionally, this year has been one for the books. In September, the United Church of Christ, Office of Communications, Inc., honored me with the Everett C. Parker Award in recognition of what they described as my “many years of leadership and support for promoting the public interest in traditional and digital media.” This recognition has special meaning for me, as Rev Parker truly is both a personal hero and an inspiration to all of us who fight for a just, democratic society. The Benton Foundation and our colleagues in the public interest community are all guided by the spirit of Rev. Parker as we work to ensure that everyone is able to enjoy the benefits made possible by 21st century telecommunications. Also in September, Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski said that we need to connect the hardest-to-reach areas of the country and the least-advantaged consumers to the benefits of affordable, high-speed, high-capacity broadband.
http://benton.org/node/142110
back to top

OWNERSHIP

HOW TO FIX THE OWNERSHIP DEBATE
[SOURCE: Columbia Journalism Review, AUTHOR: Steven Waldman]
[Commentary] The Federal Communications Commission’s proposed media ownership rules changes: a newspaper and a TV station in the same town would be allowed to merge if the station is number five in the ratings or worse and if it is also in one of the top 20 markets in the country and if there would still be at least eight media voices left in the town. Not exactly radical stuff. Internet has increased the number of voices and provided many other benefits, but at the same time undermined the economic models that had previously subsidized local journalism. Newspapers are still laying off reporters by the thousands. So, if an occasional merger can save a local newspaper, we shouldn’t automatically rule it out just because it is a merger. The FCC is considering the reasonable step of lifting the ban on newspapers owning radio stations in the same town. Yes, this change allows “consolidation,” but permitting a newspaper to buy a radio station—perhaps to create a local radio news channel—could actually help communities. After all, commercial news radio has been declining: only 30 all-news commercial radio stations are left, down from 50 in the 1980s. Instead of having a theological debate about consolidation—“good” vs. “evil”?—is it possible to create media policy that allows mergers that are likely to help the local media ecosystems and blocks those that are not?
benton.org/node/142149 | Columbia Journalism Review
Recommend this Headline
back to top

INTERNET/BROADBAND

DATA CAPS BILL
[SOURCE: ars technica, AUTHOR: Timothy Lee]
Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) introduced legislation to regulate the use of broadband data caps. "Data caps create challenges for consumers and run the risk of undermining innovation in the digital economy if they are imposed bluntly and not designed to truly manage network congestion," said Sen Wyden. He hopes to address three issues with his proposal:
First, he wants to increase the amount and accuracy of information provided to consumers. His bill empowers the Federal Communications Commission to regulate ISPs' methods for measuring bandwidth usage with an eye to improving their accuracy. And it requires ISPs to provide their customers with realtime tools for tracking their usage and comparing them with the ISP's established caps.
Second, the bill requires that any data caps employed by ISPs function to "reasonably limit network congestion without unnecessarily restricting Internet use." According to a statement released with the legislation, "some data caps are so blunt that they may work to discourage Internet use even when doing so has no bearing on network congestion."
The most ambitious part of the legislation is a kind of network neutrality rule. It requires that any data cap (which is defined to include metering schemes) not be used to "provide preferential treatment of data that is based on the source or content of the data." That would ban a practice that is frequently mentioned by advocates of network neutrality regulation: the creation of a paid "fast lane."
benton.org/node/142147 | Ars Technica | B&C
Recommend this Headline
back to top


BROADBAND USAGE PRICING
[SOURCE: Multichannel News, AUTHOR: Todd Spangler]
[Commentary] Are Internet data-usage limits and overage fees a way for service providers to extract more dollars from their heaviest-consuming users -- or are they tools that will increase consumer choice and competition in the market? The reality is, they’re both. And ultimately, usage-based pricing models will result in healthier competition among ISPs. Two different policy papers, released within days of each other, reach diametrically opposite conclusions on this issue.
Taking a pro-industry stance is “The Economics of Usage-Based Pricing in Local Broadband Markets.” The paper, funded by the National Cable & Telecommunications Association, argues that usage-based broadband pricing gives ISPs incentives to invest in their infrastructure, to access small markets and to offer lower-priced tiers.
That’s hogwash, according to the second paper, “Capping the Nation’s Broadband Future?” published Dec. 17 by New America Foundation’s Open Technology Initiative. Data caps and usage-based pricing exist precisely because there’s not enough broadband competition in the U.S., according to the paper’s authors. “Data caps may offer an effective means for incumbents to generate more revenue from subscribers and satisfy investors, but making bandwidth an unnecessarily scarce commodity is bad for consumers and innovation,” the OTI paper says.
benton.org/node/142146 | Multichannel News
Recommend this Headline
back to top


THE STORY FROM WCIT
[SOURCE: ars technica, AUTHOR: Eli Dourado]
[Commentary] The first few days of the World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT) were mostly, for me, spent figuring out how everything worked. The highest-level meeting was the Plenary, which established several committees, of which Committee 5 (COM5) did the substantive work of revising treaty text. COM5 established two working groups that split up the treaty text between them. At each official meeting, the name of the game was consensus. Where consensus could not be reached on a particular issue, an ad hoc group was created to deal with that issue. The ad hoc group would spend additional time trying to forge a consensus. If a particular meeting could not find language that every member state could agree to, it would report back to the next-highest level meeting with the contentious text in square brackets. The first five days of the conference followed a pattern. Any issue not immediately agreed to on the first day was referred to COM5. Any issue not immediately agreed to in COM5 was referred to a working group, which referred them to ad hoc groups. Because there was little consensus, the ad hoc groups reported back to the working groups with proposals that were filled with brackets, and this bracketed text likewise worked its way back up through COM5 to the Plenary. The host country United Arab Emirates (UAE) dropped a bombshell. It announced that it was putting forward a new “multi-regional common proposal,” a complete rewrite of the treaty to substitute for all the bracketed text we had worked on. It had support from numerous member states. Bahrain, Russia, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Oman all expressed support for the document, which was not yet available for inspection.
benton.org/node/142145 | Ars Technica
Recommend this Headline
back to top


EXECUTIVE ORDER ON CYBERSECURITY
[SOURCE: The Hill, AUTHOR: Jennifer Martinez]
An executive order from President Barack Obama aimed at protecting the nation from cyberattacks is likely to be issued in early 2013, and perhaps as soon as January, observers say. The long-awaited executive action is unlikely to be taken before the end of the year, given the delicate negotiations over the “fiscal cliff.” Republican lawmakers have made it known that they strongly oppose an executive order on cybersecurity. GOP members in both chambers of Congress fear the cyber order will pile new regulations onto companies that operate critical infrastructure, such as water plants, financial systems and the electric grid. They argue that boosting the country’s cyber defenses requires a permanent legislative solution, not an executive order that might not carry over into the next administration.
benton.org/node/142162 | Hill, The
Recommend this Headline
back to top


DEFENSE BILL INCLUDES CYBERSECURITY
[SOURCE: Politico, AUTHOR: Tony Romm]
Lawmakers are poised to greenlight a defense bill that would add millions of dollars to federal cybersecurity programs while requiring contractors to inform the government in the event of a cyberattack. The conference report on the House and Senate floors preserves notable increases to Pentagon programs meant to stave off foreign hackers and research new ways to defeat them. But the reconciled 2013 bill also includes new cybersecurity reporting and procurement rules that many in the tech industry are just now reviewing. he House and Senate are barreling before Christmas toward passage of the National Defense Authorization Act after lawmakers from both chambers huddled for weeks to reconcile significant differences between their bills. Many of the disputes have focused on thorny political matters like indefinite detention and not technology policy.
benton.org/node/142161 | Politico
Recommend this Headline
back to top

WIRELESS/SPECTRUM

PHONE PRICING MAKES NO SENSE
[SOURCE: The Verge, AUTHOR: Chris Ziegler]
[Commentary] Cellphone models are still being updated and replaced at an unprecedented pace that simply isn't sustainable. Seven months is not a reasonable life cycle for any durable product. You wouldn't buy a new TV, game console, Blu-ray player, refrigerator, or car every seven months. In fact, if a manufacturer discontinued and replaced your TV after seven months, you'd be pissed. But it's like an addiction: carriers and original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) need the high they get from the fleeting sales bump after the release of an incrementally new model, a bump that quickly flatlines. Hilarious price adjustments ensue; a $199.99 phone falls to $149.99, $99.99, $49.99, and eventually free over the course of a single year. And that leads to a traffic jam of phones and price points. This industry is eating itself alive, and these nonsensical prices are an early warning sign. Carriers urgently need to incentivize OEMs to slow down, not speed up. While Apple — and to some extent, Samsung — stay even-keeled with a single flagship phone per year, the rest of the industry is still chasing its collective tail, confusing customers, and leaving a mess of the store shelves.
benton.org/node/142117 | Verge, The
Recommend this Headline
back to top


BROADCASTERS AND THE INCENTIVE AUCTIONS
[SOURCE: Broadcasting&Cable, AUTHOR: John Eggerton]
The Federal Communications Commission wants television broadcasters to know that they can file anonymous comments on the commission's proposed framework for incentive spectrum auctions. In a public notice, the FCC told broadcasters that its rules allow for anonymous comment so long as they have an attorney of record, and even without one they can seek a waiver of that requirement. The legislation creating the auctions recognized that, for business reasons, broadcasters might not want to signal they were interested in selling some or all of their spectrum, and so required the FCC not to identify the bidders publicly. In that spirit, the FCC recognized that some commenters might not want to be associated with the issues or questions they raise. "We want to encourage those broadcasters interested in auction participation to raise issues of specific concern to them regarding the incentive auction process so that we may develop a robust record to assist us in devising auction-related rule," the FCC said in the notice for those providing comment. "At the same time, we recognize that broadcasters may have legitimate reasons for not wanting to disclose their potential interest in reverse auction participation."
benton.org/node/142127 | Broadcasting&Cable
Recommend this Headline
back to top

PATENTS

APPLE APPEALS
[SOURCE: Los Angeles Times, AUTHOR: Chris O'Brien]
Apple has decided to appeal a federal judge's ruling that denied the company's request to ban 26 Samsung products. In August, a jury ruled that the Samsung products had infringed a handful of Apple patents and ordered the South Korean tech giant to pay $1.05 billion in damages to the maker of the iPhone. Apple then sought a potentially more devastating punishment against Samsung by requesting a permanent injunction against those products. While many of the Samsung products in question are older, such a move could be used as leverage in a second lawsuit pending in federal court that involves some of Samsung's most popular current products, including the Galaxy S III smartphone. However, U.S. District Court Judge Lucy Koh recently ruled that Apple had failed to demonstrate that the features at issue were significant enough to play a big role in persuading consumers to buy one phone or the other. As expected, Apple informed Koh on Thursday that it intends to appeal that decision to 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco. Judge Koh still has yet to rule on Apple's request to increase the damages verdict by $500 million. Samsung, which was denied by Koh its request for a new trial, is also expected to appeal the case.
benton.org/node/142142 | Los Angeles Times
Recommend this Headline
back to top


APPLE PATENT WIN AND THE LONG WAR
[SOURCE: Los Angeles Times, AUTHOR: Chris O'Brien]
In denying Apple's motion to ban sales of some Samsung Electronics products that a jury had determined infringed its smartphone patents, legal observers say a federal judge delivered a potentially troublesome message to the technology giant: These violations are small potatoes. That might sound odd, considering that a jury in August found the patent infringements serious enough to award Apple $1.05 billion in damages. But U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh made it clear in a ruling this week that the scope of the violations was tiny relative to the enormous number of features contained in a smartphone. In winning the jury verdict, Apple successfully proved that Samsung had willfully copied several features. But Apple faced a great burden to persuade Koh to issue a permanent injunction against the 26 Samsung products in question. Apple had to prove that the features played a decisive role in why consumers might choose to buy a Samsung phone over an iPhone. "Apple has simply not been able to make this showing," Judge Koh wrote. That ruling was a surprise to some legal experts and will almost certainly be appealed by Apple. But should it stand, the decision could substantially blunt Apple's two-year quest to use litigation to tilt the competitive playing field against Samsung, now the world's leading seller of smartphones.
benton.org/node/142134 | Los Angeles Times
Recommend this Headline
back to top


SAMSUNG FACES COMPLAINT
[SOURCE: Bloomberg, AUTHOR: Aoife White]
Samsung faces a European Union antitrust complaint over its use of standard- essential patents in legal disputes with Apple, the EU’s competition commissioner said. “We will adopt the statement of objections very soon,” said Joaquin Almunia, the bloc’s antitrust chief. He said the formal notice listing antitrust concerns could be sent as soon as the end of the year. The EU is probing whether Samsung violated agreements to license key patents to other mobile-phone manufacturers on fair terms. “We are dissatisfied every time that we see the launching of injunctions” involving standard-essential patents,” Almunia told reporters at a press conference in Brussels. “The injunctions in the Apple-Samsung case were launched; it was not only a threat.”
benton.org/node/142133 | Bloomberg | Reuters
Recommend this Headline
back to top

CONTENT

DIGITAL CONTENT
[SOURCE: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, AUTHOR: Kevin Werbach]
Viewers are watching a growing share of video via Internet-based distribution systems. New digital content distribution services are having appreciable impacts on established media industries and network service providers in many OECD countries. The competitive landscape in media, already complex, will become even more multifaceted. Public policy frameworks in the media and telecommunications sector must be reviewed in light of these developments. This paper argues that convergence should be taken as the rule, rather than the exception. Careful application of best practices can address most policy concerns.
benton.org/node/142112 | Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development
Recommend this Headline
back to top

PRIVACY

COPPA’S WINNERS AND LOSERS
[SOURCE: New York Times, AUTHOR: Natasha Singer]
Now that the Federal Trade Commission has published its updated privacy protections for children online, Facebook may finally open its site to children under 13, industry analysts say. But those very same new rules, they say, may prompt some small app developers to pull out of the children’s market altogether. The revised rules, widen the list of children’s personal information that will require parental permission to collect. It will now include children’s photos, videos or voice recordings, the IP addresses of their computers and the locations of their mobile phones. The updated rule also requires social networks, advertising networks and other third parties to get parents’ permission before knowingly collecting data from children’s sites and apps. But the rules have radically different implications for big Web sites and small app developers. The final children’s online privacy rule uses an “actual knowledge” standard for collecting information about children. That means social networks and ad networks that collect information from children without knowing that their software is operating on a children’s site or app will not be liable.
benton.org/node/142154 | New York Times
Recommend this Headline
back to top


INSTAGRAM TERMS OF SERVICE
[SOURCE: Wall Street Journal, AUTHOR: Peter Kafka]
Instagram has taken another step to mollify users who balked at the photo-sharer’s recent terms of service changes. But it has left itself plenty of room to maneuver. Co-founder Kevin Systrom says the company will change part of its new contract with users that deals with advertising, and will use the same language the company has always employed. But to be clear: Instagram still plans on introducing advertising to the service. And that advertising could conceivably incorporate users’ photos. And to be clearer: Instagram’s original language already said that. If you don’t want to see ads on the service, or want to be assured that your stuff won’t show up in an ad, you’re going to want to look somewhere else.
benton.org/node/142153 | Wall Street Journal
Recommend this Headline
back to top

GOVERNMENT & COMMUNICATIONS

FISA AMENDMENTS ACT
[SOURCE: The Hill, AUTHOR: Jennifer Martinez]
Civil liberties and privacy groups are urging the Senate to debate a handful of amendments that are aimed at beefing up the privacy protections in a controversial surveillance bill. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) said he plans to file cloture by the end of the Dec 20 on the FISA Amendments Act, which would reauthorize the 2008 surveillance bill for another five years. The measure gives U.S. officials the authority to conduct surveillance on suspected terrorists abroad without a court order. Sen Reid is currently in discussions with lawmakers about taking up the bill with a limited number of amendments, a Senate aide said. Sens. Ron Wyden (D-OR) and Jeff Merkley (D-OR) are among the senators that hope to have their amendments considered. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and Free Press have pressed the public to contact their senators this week about debating these amendments. The groups charge that the surveillance measure lacks transparency and could be used to sweep up American citizens' communications without a warrant.
benton.org/node/142143 | Hill, The
Recommend this Headline
back to top

POLICYMAKERS

NOMINATION VOTE
[SOURCE: Broadcasting&Cable, AUTHOR: John Eggerton]
With Senate floor time "in flux" and unable to get a quorum of the Senate Commerce Committee to vote on the nomination of Federal Communications Commission commissioner Mignon Clyburn, the heads of the committee have come up with plan B -- seeking unanimous consent from the Senate on discharging the nominees from the committee. That would mean they would only need a full Senate vote to be confirmed. If no Senator objects, the nominations would not have to go through a committee markup and vote. There would still need to be a vote in the full Senate, but that one could happen quickly, too.
benton.org/node/142151 | Broadcasting&Cable
Recommend this Headline
back to top

MORE NEWS FROM COURT

VERIZON ON FCC AUTHORITY
[SOURCE: Broadcasting&Cable, AUTHOR: John Eggerton]
Verizon Wireless is hoping to have its wireless deregulatory cake and eat it too. In a brief in the Supreme Court, the company said the court should rule that the deference the courts generally give an expert agency's subject area expertise when it reviews a challenge to one of those decisions should not extend to the agencies' determination of the scope or existence of its statutory authority. In other words, the Federal Communications Commission should not be the arbiter of the limits of its own authority, which should be the purview of the courts. But the case at issue was one in which the FCC determined it had the authority to cut through local delays in tower citing approvals, a move applauded by cell companies including Verizon Wireless. In its filing, Verizon says as a general matter, courts should not give Chevron deference, but instead adjudicate de novo on whether there is statute providing the authority, but that the court need not overturn the ruling itself, since the company argues Congress has given the FCC that express authority to preempt local and state regulations.
benton.org/node/142144 | Broadcasting&Cable
Recommend this Headline
back to top

MORE RESEARCH

READING HABITS
[SOURCE: Pew Internet and American Life Project, AUTHOR: Carolyn Miller, Kristen Purcell, Lee Rainie]
Reading is foundational to learning and the information acquisition upon which people make decisions. For centuries, the capacity to read has been a benchmark of literacy and involvement in community life. In the 21st Century, across all types of U.S. communities, reading is a common activity that is pursued in myriad ways. As technology and the digital world expand and offer new types of reading opportunities, residents of urban, suburban, and rural communities at times experience reading and e-reading differently. In the most meaningful ways, these differences are associated with the demographic composition of different kinds of communities — the age of the population, their overall level of educational attainment, and the general level of household income. Several surveys by the Pew Research Center’s Internet & American Life Project reveal interesting variations among communities in the way their residents read and use reading-related technology and institutions.
benton.org/node/142113 | Pew Internet and American Life Project
Recommend this Headline
back to top

December 21, 2012
Source 
Hill, The
Author 
Jennifer Martinez
Coverage Type 
Lauren Frayer

An executive order from President Barack Obama aimed at protecting the nation from cyberattacks is likely to be issued in early 2013, and perhaps as soon as January, observers say.

The long-awaited executive action is unlikely to be taken before the end of the year, given the delicate negotiations over the “fiscal cliff.” Republican lawmakers have made it known that they strongly oppose an executive order on cybersecurity. GOP members in both chambers of Congress fear the cyber order will pile new regulations onto companies that operate critical infrastructure, such as water plants, financial systems and the electric grid. They argue that boosting the country’s cyber defenses requires a permanent legislative solution, not an executive order that might not carry over into the next administration.

President Obama likely to issue executive order on cybersecurity as early as January

Topics

Related Headlines

December 21, 2012
Source 
Politico
Author 
Tony Romm
Coverage Type 
Lauren Frayer

Lawmakers are poised to greenlight a defense bill that would add millions of dollars to federal cybersecurity programs while requiring contractors to inform the government in the event of a cyberattack.

The conference report on the House and Senate floors preserves notable increases to Pentagon programs meant to stave off foreign hackers and research new ways to defeat them. But the reconciled 2013 bill also includes new cybersecurity reporting and procurement rules that many in the tech industry are just now reviewing. he House and Senate are barreling before Christmas toward passage of the National Defense Authorization Act after lawmakers from both chambers huddled for weeks to reconcile significant differences between their bills. Many of the disputes have focused on thorny political matters like indefinite detention and not technology policy.

Joint defense measure seeks to disarm hackers

Topics

Related Headlines

December 21, 2012
Source 
Wall Street Journal
Author 
Peter Kafka
Coverage Type 
Lauren Frayer

The Senate passed a bill that would give Netflix the go-ahead to facilitate “frictionless sharing” of users’ viewing history with Facebook or other online services. The House passed the same legislation earlier in the week, which means it now just needs a signature from President Barack Obama. Facebook has pushing for the legislation, designed to update the 1988 Video Privacy Protection Act, for more than a year.

Netflix Facebook Sharing Bill Clears Senate, Waiting For Obama’s OK

Topics

Related Headlines

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