Civic Engagement

The DC branch of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is helping three anti-Trump activists fight what they say is an overly broad government demand for their personal Facebook data. In “motion to quash” court documents filed this month, ACLU lawyers argue that letting federal investigators comb through the contents of individual Facebook pages amounts to an unjustified and unconstitutional invasion of privacy. The motion concerns an ongoing case in which the DOJ has been seeking information related to protests and rioting during the January 20 inauguration of President Trump.

Despite the fact that the case has been going on for months, the activists only recently learned that the US is interested in their Facebook data. While Facebook typically tells users about government warrants, a gag order initially prohibited it from doing so in this case. Facebook challenged that order and the government ultimately agreed to allow it to disclose the warrants.

This report describes “Phish For The Future,” an advanced persistent spearphishing campaign targeting digital civil liberties activists at Free Press and Fight For the Future. Between July 7th and August 8th of 2017 we observed almost 70 spearphishing attempts against employees of internet freedom NGOs Fight for the Future and Free Press, all coming from the same attackers.

A new Consumer Reports survey shows that a majority of Americans favor net neutrality rules that prevent internet service providers (ISPs) from blocking lawful online content.

One main finding was that the majority of Americans—57 percent—support the current network neutrality regulations that ban ISPs from blocking or discriminating against lawful content on the internet. Sixteen percent said they opposed these regulations, while about a quarter didn't express an opinion on the topic. An even larger majority—67 percent—said that ISPs shouldn't be allowed to choose which websites, apps, or streaming services their customers can access. Almost as many—63 percent—don't think an ISP should be allowed to modify or edit content consumers try to access on the internet. When it comes to paid prioritization deals, in which ISPs can provide faster delivery of content to companies that pay a fee for it, roughly half the respondents—48 percent—said they didn't believe such practices should be permitted, while 26 percent said they should be permitted, and 26 percent expressed no opinion.

A group of Democratic senators has joined in a call for the Federal Communications Commission to allow for public "review and comment" on tens of thousands of network-neutrality complaints provided through a Freedom of Information Act request in May, saying the FCC has not provided sufficient opportunity to vet them.

They said the documents were only produced a few days before the August Open Internet Order proceeding deadline and were only posted to the FCC website recently. “Although the Commission has undertaken an historic proceeding to undo the Open Internet Order, the FCC has failed to provide stakeholders with an opportunity to comment on the tens of thousands of filed complaints that directly shed light on proposed changes to existing net neutrality protections,” they wrote in a letter to FCC Chairman Ajit Pai. “The public deserves an opportunity to review and analyze evidence that has a direct impact on the proceeding.” The senators want Chairman Pai to tell them what efforts the FCC has taken to analyze the complaints, responses from ISPs and other documents, how it will incorporate them into the record and when, whether the FCC will issue a public notice and comment cycle on them.

Signing on to the letter were Senators Ed Markey (D-MA), Charles Schumer (D-NY), Ron Wyden (D-OR), Al Franken (D-MN), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) and Kamala Harris (D-CA).

[Commentary] Politicians, in theory, are supposed to be responsive to public outcry. When faced with an avalanche of blast emails from angry constituents, therefore, legislators generally are moved to act. In contrast, independent regulatory agencies are supposed to be (but admittedly often are not) apolitical and immune from such pressure. While it is true that administrative agencies must subject their actions to “public notice and comment” under the Administrative Procedure Act, regulatory agencies should not promulgate rules and regulations based upon the vox populi; rather, these agencies are charged with dispassionately implementing their respective enabling statutes as delineated by Congress based upon the plain text of the statute, the case law interpreting that statute, the economics, and the substantive record before them. If they fail in that task, then administrative agencies can be reprimanded by an appellate court for engaging in arbitrary and capricious behavior or, in very rare cases, be subject to congressional rebuke via the Congressional Review Act. If you want to rant, then have at it on Twitter. But if you want to file something in an official record and meaningfully participate in the regulatory process, then perhaps a few guidelines should apply.

[Spiwak is the president of the Phoenix Center for Advanced Legal and Economic Public Policy Studies]

Today, when we talk about universal service, we have in mind bringing high-speed Internet access, or “broadband,” to any American who wants it. Broadband is important for many reasons: it can help you get a job, start a company, get health care, educate your kids, and the like. But it’s also vital for free speech and political engagement. Fewer today seem to be willing to defend to the death others’ right to say things with which they might disagree. The situation on many college campuses is especially distressing.

A strong platform that allows the people to share their ideas and inform themselves about current affairs forestalls that fate. And in a remarkably short time, the Internet has become one such platform. The FCC’s charge and our cultural traditions remind us that we need to extend that online megaphone to all Americans. I look forward to working with you to do that—and to fulfilling this timeless vision for the digital age.

Network neutrality advocates are planning two days of protest in Washington DC in Sept as they fight off plans to defang regulations meant to protect an open internet. A coalition of activists, consumer groups and writers are calling on supporters to attend the next meeting of the Federal Communications Commission on Sept 26 in DC. The next day, the protest will move to Capitol Hill, where people will meet legislators to express their concerns about an FCC proposal to rewrite the rules governing the internet. Participating organizations in the protest include Fight for the Future, Public Knowledge, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Center for Media Justice, Common Cause, Consumers Union, Free Press and the Writers Guild of America West.

Can calling government offices or officials to insult them — especially after being told to stop — be punished the way that calling a private individual to insult them might be? I think the answer should be “no,” and the lower court precedents on the subject seem to agree; but in two recent cases, government officials seem to think that such speech can indeed be criminalized.

Executives from a Los Angeles-based tech company said they are weighing whether to fight a judge's order to provide prosecutors with e-mail addresses and other information from people who visited an anti-Trump website in the months leading to Inauguration Day. The company, DreamHost, filed a motion with District of Columbia Superior Court Judge Robert E. Morin recently requesting that he put his order on hold while they consider whether to appeal. But prosecutors, concerned that such a delay could hinder their cases against dozens charged in Inauguration Day riots, have asked the judge to force DreamHost to turn over the data immediately.

In a year where DreamHost was looking forward to celebrating its 20th anniversary, the company instead has been propelled into a high-profile privacy rights case as a result of managing the server for a website that authorities say facilitated Inauguration Day rioting. DreamHost co-founder and co-Chief Executive Dallas Kashuba said in an interview that the potential implications go beyond this case. He said there is concern among tech companies that Internet users could become fearful of visiting websites if they know government authorities can monitor such information.

[Commentary] What does gigabit civic engagement look like? The initial winners of the Charles Benton Next Generation Engagement Award demonstrate not just what “could be” but what “is”. Civic engagement is about working to make a positive difference in the life of our communities. It is about developing the combination of knowledge, skills, values, and motivation to make that difference. It means improving the quality of life in a community, through both political and non-political processes. An engaged individual recognizes himself or herself as a member of the larger social fabric and, therefore, considers social problems to be at least partly his or her own. Such an individual is willing to see the community-wide dimensions of issues, to make and justify informed decisions, and to take action for the benefit of the community. My father spent a lifetime advocating for a holistic approach combining access to fast, fair, and open communications networks and the training to develop 21st century skills. He undoubtedly would have been extremely proud that his name is attached to this award and to the project winners in Louisville, Kentucky; Austin, Texas; and Raleigh, North Carolina.