Daily Digest 2/12/2018 (Surveillance)

The budget bill that passed in the wee hours of the morning of Feb 9 included $20 billion for infrastructure initiatives, at least some of which will go to broadband buildouts. The money is divided into two tranches, $10 billion for FY18 and $10 billion for FY 2019, according to House Commerce Committee Chairman Greg Walden (R-OR). The money will be spread among a number of projects--waste and drinking water and transportation--but also for the rural broadband deployment, which President Donald Trump recently said was a priority given the need to connect farmers. “Today’s agreement marks an important step forward on several priorities the Energy and Commerce Committee has championed for many months," Chairman Walden said. 

[Speech] I am crafting a “net neutrality” bill that will put in place common-sense “rules of the road” that will ensure the Internet is an open, competitive place for people to do business. To those who provide the on-ramps to the Internet, my bill ensures that they will not: (1) block, (2) throttle, or (3) establish paid prioritization.  It further requires Internet service providers to be transparent in their network management practices.  In short, consumers are the ones who decide which websites or applications are best for them, not a third party.  My bill also moves past the old debate between Title One and Title Two.  We don’t need to shoehorn the Internet into a heavy-handed Title Two regulatory regime.  The Internet is too important, therefore my bill places “broadband internet access services” under its own, new title. I believe that my bill will provide some much-needed clarity in this area and I look forward discussing it further with you and my colleagues in Congress. 

[Commentary] The recent repeal of network neutrality regulations has concerned cities across the country about how the rollback will impact their communities.  Cities, with the guidance and leadership of their citizens, must begin to form oversight of Internet service providers themselves. And location intelligence is critical to this task. With regards to halting and reversing the growth of the digital divide — and the impact of rescinding net neutrality — communities across the nation must understand the costs to underserved populations before permanent damage is done. In the near future, there will be a need to deploy citizen-driven government oversight with respect to helping the Federal Trade Commission do their job. Communities will need to find a way to more accurately track Internet access and usage on their own. And when it comes to big data, location intelligence technologies such as spatial analytics can connect disparate pieces of data to help local governments make better-informed decisions. [Amen Ra Mashariki is head of urban analytics for Esri. Previously he served as chief analytics officer of New York City and CTO for the US Office of Personnel Management.]

[Commentary]  If you think middle-class children are being harmed by too much screen time, just consider how much greater the damage is to minority and disadvantaged kids, who spend much more time in front of screens. While some parents in more dangerous neighborhoods understandably think that screen time is safer than playing outside, the deleterious effects of too much screen time are abundantly clear. Screen time has a negative effect on children’s ability to understand nonverbal emotional cues; it is linked to higher rates of mental illness, including depression; and it heightens the risk for obesity. Unfortunately, too often the message we send low-income and less-educated parents is that screen time is going to help their children. When politicians and policymakers talk about kids and technology, it is usually about “bridging the digital divide,” making sure that poor kids have as much access as wealthier ones. But there is no evidence that they don’t. The real digital divide in this country is not between children who have access to the internet and those who don’t. It’s between children whose parents know that they have to restrict screen time and those whose parents have been sold a bill of goods by schools and politicians that more screens are a key to success. It’s time to let everyone in on the secret.  [Naomi Schaefer Riley is a visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute]

[Commentary] Individuals certainly need to be aware of how any company, or other entity, is using the information collected. Individuals have the responsibility to read the relevant portions of privacy policies and licenses. But data is not evil. Government regulation is not the answer, or even an answer. Technology companies should not be subject to regulations for using data consumers voluntarily hand over in exchange for services or products those very consumers value so long as that usage is consistent with their disclosed terms. [Jonathon Paul Hauenschild, J.D., is the director of the American Legislative Exchange Council’s Task Force on Communications & Technology.]

[Commentary] On our individual phone bills a line item is typically included for 9-1-1 service. It’s a relatively small fee that states and localities charge to support emergency calling services. But too many states are stealing these funds and using them for other purposes, like filling budget gaps, purchasing vehicles, or worse.  It’s time for 9-1-1 fee diversion to stop. Fixing it should be easy. But with the responsibility for funding 9-1-1 chiefly a state-level duty, a concerted effort is required. This can start with ensuring that public safety programs in Washington are only available to those that do not engage in fee diversion. Thankfully, we are already taking a step in that direction with a grant program tucked into the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act that is designed to kickstart key 9-1-1 upgrades. This program offers $115 million for states and localities seeking additional support for incorporating new technologies into their 9-1-1 systems. The National Telecommunications and Information Administration and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), which are jointly running the program, are prohibited by law from making these funds available to jurisdictions that have been diverting 9-1-1 fees. This can serve as a template for any other funds provided at the federal level, including in new infrastructure legislation.

[Commentary] We like to imagine American politics as a kind of scored debate, with political actors acting as the debaters, the media acting as the judge, and the public acting as the audience. Much of cable news is based, implicitly or explicitly, on this metaphor. Panelists from different sides of issues are introduced to “debate” an issue; shows sell themselves as “no-spin zones”; networks brag that they’re “fair and balanced” or place “facts first.” Under this conception of American politics, a memo that proves a fraud, an argument that proves a bust, a politician who is seen to lie — all of it is revealed and punished, the system self-regulates. But that metaphor is often wrong, and it’s particularly wrong in the ecosystem driven by Fox News and President Donald Trump’s Twitter account. What Kellyanne Conway and others understand is that if you’re just trying to activate your tribe, you don’t have to win the argument, you just need to have an argument; you need to give your side something to say, something to believe. Something like the Nunes memo or the various out-of-context texts aren’t part of a search for truth — they’re an ammo drop. All you need is to offer your side an alternative story in which to believe, a story that makes you sound trustworthy and your enemies untrustworthy. And over the past week, Fox News and President Donald Trump have done exactly that. [Erza Klein]

The New York Times has flourished under President Donald Trump, witnessing a surge in digital subscriptions and regularly breaking major news about the administration and the Russia inquiry (not to mention #MeToo). Yet liberal criticism of the Times has also intensified, especially on social media. Not a day passes, it seems, without a prominent Twitter user complaining that the Times is biased against the left, too friendly to President Trump and his supporters, or engaging in false equivalences between Democrats and Republicans. But overall, the complaints against the Times raise important questions. What is the Times’ responsibility to the public—liberals and conservatives alike—at a time when the president attacks the mainstream press as “fake news”? Was the paper complicit in President Trump’s election victory, and does it continue to enable him and his supporters today? Or are the Times’ left-wing critics being unreasonable, expecting it to be the kind of partisan publication that it has never claimed to be?

If YouTube was looking for a little love from British lawmakers for its new initiative to label videos from news outlets that receive state funds, the company was in for a surprise. The lawmakers, who came to Washington to hold a hearing into fake news, were even more scathing than US critics of YouTube’s idea for helping audiences understand where their news comes from. Conservative Party lawmaker Damian Collins, chairman of the Digital, Culture, Media and Sports Committee in the House of Commons, said YouTube’s proposal risked roping in public, independent broadcasters, such as the BBC, alongside state-backed propaganda outlets, such as Russia’s RT. The US public broadcaster PBS has also argued that YouTube’s decision is misguided. “Labeling PBS a ‘publicly funded broadcaster’ is both vague and misleading,” a spokesman said when the labels were announced. “YouTube’s proposed labeling could wrongly imply that the government has influence over PBS content, which is prohibited by statute. If YouTube’s intent is to create clarity and better understanding, this is a step in the wrong direction.”

A group of Democratic Reps are seeking documents from Attorney General Jeff Sessions relating to the Justice Department’s decision to file a lawsuit to block AT&T’s planned merger with Time Warner. They are interested in whether the decision was in any way impacted by President Donald Trump’s disdain for CNN, a unit of Time Warner. Makan Delrahim, the chief of the Antitrust Division, denies that the lawsuit was influenced by the White House. The House Democrats take “no position” on “the legality of the transaction or the merits of the lawsuit itself,” but are seeking communications between AG Sessions and the White House. The lawmakers — including House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) and House Oversight Committee Ranking Member Elijah Cummings (D-MD) — cited President Trump’s comments on the campaign trail and reports of meetings between the President and Justice Department officials.