October 2011

Protect IP Act: Minorities Who Produce It, Should Get Paid For It

Debate has recently centered on the Protect IP Act of 2011, whose fate currently lies in the Senate. While hardly sensationalistic for the headline of the day, the bill has far-reaching impact if passed: it establishes a system for blocking the domain names of non-U.S. based sites that the Department of Justice (DOJ) has determined act largely to promote copyright infringement. Meaning: if you are going to produce it, you need to get paid for it.

This is a principle construct fueling copyright law. Minorities in all professions appear impacted by the wealth gap. But minority content creators – those who are responsible for creating music, movies, and other media that sets the tone for popular culture in this nation – have experienced casual and commonplace theft of their creations, which have in many instances left them penniless. Minority artists are impacted the most by this kind of theft because minority artists, writers and filmmakers often have little wealth (the wealth gap being as vast as it is) – except for their intellectual property. And once that gets stolen, nothing is left.

Lifeline/LinkUp Programs Can Help Strengthen Our Communities

Numerous leaders who have fought for equal rights for African Americans and other minorities to have accessible and unbridled systems of communications in their communities have realized something critical: the power and freedom that directly stems from being able to freely reach out to a neighbor, relative, or colleague to send an expression of affection, discuss a work matter, or verbalize an urgent appeal for help – all through the use of the telephone.

Telephone service not only provides personal benefits, but aids in maintaining a sense of balance and containing costs in municipalities across the nation. Just imagine the considerable financial burdens that would be placed on a city’s resources if residents weren’t able to use a phone to dial 911 to quickly diffuse a dangerous situation like a fire, or if a mother did not have access to a phone to find her child, and instead solicited city services to accomplish that task. While telephone service has empowered many African American communities across the nation, many low-income blacks have struggled to pay for phone service – and that is where the federal government has stepped in. The Federal Communications Commission has endeavored to make access to phone service a possibility for low-income Americans citizens by providing subsidies for telephone service and telephone installation costs to low-income Americans through the Lifeline and LinkUp programs. These programs are part of the nation’s Universal Service Fund, which strives to make telecommunications services affordable to all Americans. Some states also have their own Lifeline/LinkUp programs. The FCC is considering reforming Lifeline/ Link Up to make it more efficient and deliver broadband service to more Americans. Specific reform efforts are supported by several civil rights organizations like the NAACP and the National Urban League.

Equality in access to telecommunications services like the telephone and broadband Internet is the civil rights issue of the 21st century.

UK Touts Its Cybersecurity Cred

As Britain this week prepares to host the first global conference on cyberspace—to be attended by officials from 60 countries—it is preparing to market itself as a center of cyberprotection for the private sector.

Most governments, including the U.S., have focused their response to cyberthreats on the military and national infrastructure. But Britain also is focusing on ordinary business, hoping to tout Internet security as a competitive advantage, the way many countries flaunt their tax regimes and pro-business regulations. "We are saying it is not just about government, it's about all of the market, it's about all of the economy," said Francis Maude, the U.K. minister in charge of cybersecurity. Despite deep cuts to the overall budget, Britain will put an extra £650 million, or about $1 billion, into cybersecurity in coming years. The country also is creating a cybersecurity hub in which the government and private sector can share real-time information on attacks and responses. Britain's efforts place more emphasis on private commerce than the U.S. does, some experts say. "There's a whole swath of the private sector and U.S. society that's not covered," a senior U.S. defense official says.

Democracy’s press

[Commentary] As the UK’s Leveson Inquiry into the culture of the press moves into its stride, it is timely to contemplate the proper function of journalism in democratic societies.

The Leveson Inquiry was set up in reaction to the criminal phone hacking at News of the World – a scandal that to some seems the metastasis of innate pathologies of UK journalism. But the scandal was brought to light by a British newspaper, The Guardian. That the wheels of justice were finally put in motion proves that the UK’s independent press still fulfills its public function.

Reform of the regulation of press conduct cannot jeopardize journalists’ ability to expose and hold the powerful to account. Criminal acts by members of the press must, of course, be punished. Legal but appalling conduct will at times happen – but the profession itself should bear the responsibility for preventing it. As with all social activity, a space for judgment by personal and collective conscience should be left free by the law. A country where press standards needed to be enforced by the government would long have ceased being a democracy.

US Firm Acknowledges Syria Uses Its Gear to Block Web

Blue Coat Systems, a US company that makes Internet-blocking gear, acknowledged that Syria has been using at least 13 of its devices to censor Web activity there—an admission that comes as the Syrian government cracks down on its citizens and silences their online activities.

Lawmakers demand answers on user data from Facebook

Four lawmakers wrote to Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, questioning him about the social network's handling of user data.

In the letter, Reps. Joe Barton (R-TX), Edward Markey (D-MA), Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) and Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) pointed to reports about an Austrian consumer who had asked Facebook to provide him with the data it had collected about him. Facebook sent the man a CD with 1,200 pages of data, including his chat conversations, everyone he had ever "poked," events he had been invited to (regardless of whether he attended) and even the IP addresses of the computers he used to log into his account. The data included information that the consumer thought he had deleted, such as personal messages and people he had "defriended." "We are concerned that although the user was under the impression that this information was deleted at the user's request, Facebook continued to retain the information," the lawmakers wrote. They asked Zuckerberg to describe "all personally identifiable information that Facebook collects," how it stores user information and whether it deletes information when a user requests it. They also asked how Facebook balances user privacy with free-speech rights.

FCC’s New Disclosure Plan: Not Even Close

[Commentary] The Federal Communications Commission vacated its 2007 “enhanced disclosure” rules that would have forced stations to expend untold money and man-hours to detail the various kinds of programming they aired so that self-appointed watchdogs of the public interest could judge whether said programming justified the stations’ continued existence. But FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski couldn’t leave it at that. Instead of congratulating themselves for dumping some unworkable rules and showing the world that a Democrat-controlled agency could actually deregulate something, Chairman Genachowski and the other commissioners moved forward with plans to substitute new disclosure rules that may be just as onerous, unnecessary and wrong-headed as the 2007 rules.

The agency opened a new proceeding that would preserve a key component of the 2007 rules — that stations be required to post their paper public inspection files online so that anybody and everybody could get a look at them. But the agency is also proposing to up the stakes by requiring posting of political files — records of political advertising bought by candidates and advocacy groups — and certain other information like shared services agreements and on-air sponsorship announcements. Significantly, the FCC had rejected the idea of posting political files as too burdensome in 2007. The FCC also said it would start a second proceeding to develop a new programming disclosure form so that it and others could easily track the kinds and amounts of programming that stations were airing in various categories like news and public affairs. The new form would not be as complicated and detailed at the infamous Form 355 of the 2007 rules, but it would still be more demanding than what stations now have to provide and would be another mandatory chore to worry about and pay somebody to do. Chairman Genachowski may be thinking the initiatives are a nice compromise, a way of keeping stations on their toes and placating liberals without actually adopting a concrete public interest programming standard and trying to enforce them.

But I can’t give him points even with that generous spin. To me, the proposals are an indictment of broadcasting. They imply that TV stations are not meeting their public service obligations so must be put on endless probation and carefully monitored to make sure they are behaving themselves. They put stations in the same category as Lindsay Lohan. And unlike Lindsay, broadcasters have done nothing to merit such treatment.

Political Ad Funders Must Not Dodge Scrutiny

[Commentary] Thanks to the Supreme Court’s decision last year to allow corporations and unions to make unlimited campaign contributions, Americans in the coming year may be blitzed by $1 billion of essentially anonymous television ads. Sponsors will hide behind the facade of made-up names for empty organizations. Why? So voters can’t question messages because of ad buyers’ motives. Congress or the Federal Communications Commission could guarantee the common-sense right to judge a political message by the intent of the messenger. But the Republican-controlled House of Representatives has no intention to pass such a disclosure law.

Indeed, Greg Walden (R-WA), chairman of the House committee with jurisdiction over the FCC’s budget, has promised to go “nuclear” with budgetary reprisals if the commission dares require full identification of campaign ads’ funders. No one questions the FCC’s authority under existing law to pierce the veil by requiring companies that buy ads to say where their revenue comes from. The FCC could require this information be included in broadcasters’ existing political files. If ads are being placed by conduit companies that rely on political campaign placements for 70 percent or more of their business, the disclosure would have to reveal the entity ultimately responsible for the political speech in question. As the FCC politely suggested this week, that political file could go online. This enhanced disclosure requirement would embody the deal struck by the Supreme Court in Citizens United: Transparency provides balance. One of the FCC’s five commissioners understands the case for action. As Commissioner Michael J. Copps puts it: “Democracy is not well-served when those who are attempting to manipulate our political dialogue through unidentified advertising won’t even stand up and tell us who they are. The fissures in our democracy will continue to widen if big money retains its unchecked influence in our elections.” The FCC’s other four commissioners should heed his warning. Voters should insist on bold action in the public interest, now.

[Crawford is a professor of law at Cardozo School of Law]

Awards for Advancement in Accessibility

Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski and Commissioner Michael Copps presented the Chairman’s (AAA) to several organizations that have made significant technological innovations to help consumers with disabilities benefit from the country’s communications technologies. The Chairman also honored the winners of an FCC Challenge: Lifted by the Cloud: Visions of Cloud Enhanced Accessibility (Cloud Challenge) and presented a special award to Apple, Inc., for its visionary leadership in, and contributions to, accessibility.

The Chairman’s AAA are intended to encourage technological innovation in communication-related areas and to recognize engineers, researchers and other technologists whose energies and perseverance have been successful in crafting innovative ways for consumers with disabilities to benefit from our nation’s communications technologies. The work of these honorees has improved the ability of people with disabilities to obtain and succeed at jobs and participate more
actively in the community.

The awards ceremony was held in conjunction with National Disability Employment Awareness month and the one year anniversary of the 21st Century Communications and Video Programming Accessibility Act (CVAA). The FCC also launched the Accessibility Clearinghouse, which was required by the CVAA.

Awards were being presented for the development of mainstream or assistive technologies, the development of standards, and the implementation of best practices that foster accessibility. The awards are a project of the FCC’s Accessibility and Innovation Initiative (A&I Initiative), as recommended in the National Broadband Plan. The A&I Initiative seeks to facilitate dialogue among industry, assistive technology companies, app developers, government representatives and consumers to allow these stakeholders to share best practices and solutions for accessible communications technologies.

The Chairman’s 2011 AAA Winners are:
• Accesswireless.org (CTIA: The Wireless Association)
• LookTel Money Reader
• Microsoft Accessibility Tools and Training Resources
• Non-Visual Desktop Access
• Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) Coach
• Universal Subtitles
• iPhone 4 (Apple)

The Chairman’s 2011 AAA Honorable Mentions are:
• Apps4Android
• AT&T Speech Mashups for Accessibility
• The Farfalla Project
• Interpretype
• Phlixie
• Verizon Center for Customers with Disabilities

Winners of the Cloud Challenge are:
• AT&T Speech Mashups for Accessibility
• The Farfalla Project

Public Knowledge Disappointed With FCC Refusal To Make Recusal Information Public

On October 28, the Federal Communications Commission declined to make public recusal statements from Commission employees.

On May 19, 2011, Public Knowledge asked the FCC to require commissioners and staff negotiating for new employment to make those intentions public. PK noted the lack of transparency in post-FCC employment. The letter also noted that officials recusing themselves from dockets or issues because of employment negotiations had in the past been required to file a publicly available letter with the recusal information. That requirement has lapsed, and Public Knowledge said FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski should "immediately reinstitute this requirement."

Harold Feld, legal director of Public Knowledge said on Oct 28:
“At a time when public confidence in government is at a low ebb, and when the Obama Administration has promised high levels of transparency, it is disappointing that the Federal Communications Commission would shield from the public potential transitions of Commission staff to private industry. It is even more disappointing that the Commission did not even attempt to craft a solution to balance the privacy concerns of employees against the public perception of perpetual revolving doors at regulatory agencies. It could have put the issue out for comment to consider possible remedies to bolster public confidence in the agency. The FCC has the authority to do so, but chose not to. While we recognize the need for privacy, we also recognize the need for the public to be aware of the extent to which regulators may be seeking or discussing employment with companies they regulate. There seemed to be no lack of job opportunities for staff when the agency made voluntary recusals public in the past, and we see no harm in continuing that policy or some variation of it.”