January 2012

PRIVACY

GOOGLE’S PRIVACY CHANGES
[SOURCE: Washington Post, AUTHOR: Cecilia Kang]
Several lawmakers sent a letter to Google chief executive Larry Page, asking if new changes to the company’s privacy policy give users enough control over their data and adequately protect consumers. Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-FL), chairman of the House subcommittee on oversight and investigations, and Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA), ranking member of the House Commerce Committee, were among the lawmakers who asked Page to explain the search engine giant’s new policy.
“Google’s announcement raises questions about whether consumers can opt-out of the new data sharing system either globally or on a product-by-product basis,” the lawmakers wrote. “We believe that consumers should have the ability to opt-out of data collection when they are not comfortable with a company’s terms of service and that the ability to exercise that choice should be simple and straightforward.” The eight lawmakers who signed onto the letter asked Page to describe all information it collects from users now and how that would change after March 1. They asked Page to detail the security measures that were taken with user data after hackers hit Gmail accounts, including those of some White House staff members, last June. And they were also concerned about privacy protections for teenagers and how Android phone users are affected by the changes. The lawmakers asked Page to respond to their questions by Feb. 16.
Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA), co-chair of the Congressional privacy caucus, also signed onto the letter. He said separately in a statement that he will ask the Federal Trade Commission whether the company violated promises made in a settlement with the agency last year. The firm was charged with violating consumer protection laws by spilling the contacts lists of Gmail users to people on its now-defunct social network, Google Buzz.
Google said in a statement that its looks forward to answering questions and “clarifying misconceptions about our privacy policy changes.”
benton.org/node/111778 | Washington Post | | | National Journal | The Hill | B&C
Recommend this Headline
back to top

HOW DOES GOOGLE PRIVACY POLICY COMPARE?
[SOURCE: InfoWorld, AUTHOR: Ted Samson]
Some politicians, privacy advocates, and pundits have been stirred into a frenzy in the wake of Google's newly announced overarching privacy policy. Critics have expressed everything from concern to outrage, suggesting Google will suddenly begin tracking users' each and every move around the Internet and will use that precious data in frightening and unspeakable ways. The fact of the matter is, Google doesn't appear to be doing anything worse than what companies like Apple, Microsoft, Yahoo, and Facebook have doing for years. It's just that Google has taken arguably unprecedented pains to alert the public of imminent changes to its privacy policies and has made the new policy approachable enough for the average person to read it. In a nutshell, Google is effectively replacing the 60 or so separate privacy policies the company currently has for its wealth of services. The new policy (along with a blog post and video on the subject from Google) reiterates what you already should have realized: Google collects data about you as you are logged into your Google account and using a Google service (e.g. Search, YouTube, Gmail, Google+). If you were unaware that Google or any other company was collecting data about you used one of their online services, you must be new to the Internet or (with all due respect) oblivious. Nothing's changed here: Google has long collected your data as you've searched and Gmailed, and it has used that data for such things as targeted ads. The type of data the company is collecting is not changing. What's new is that the policy states clearly that the aforementioned data can be shared among the other Google services that you use while logged into your Google account. It's similar to, say, how Facebook shares varying amounts of data about you among its services -- as well as with the third-party apps on the site.
benton.org/node/111777 | InfoWorld
Recommend this Headline
back to top

WHO WOULD PAY $5,000 TO USE GOOGLE?
[SOURCE: Smart Money, AUTHOR: Quentin Fottrell]
New research finds people fork over $5,000 worth of personal information a year to Google in exchange for access to its “free services” such as Gmail and search. While many view this as a fair trade, privacy experts say the Internet giant’s latest plan to pool user data from its various sites make it less so. Experts say that information is more valuable than people may think. Michael Fertik, CEO and founder of Reputation.com, one of a slew of new paid – and free — services to help consumers keep their web use anonymous, says personal information can be worth between $50 and $5,000 per person per year to advertisers and market researchers – depending on how much they spend and how useful the information is to third parties. Fertik says this explains why online breaches are so lucrative and on the rise. Others say the data may be worth billions of dollars to social networking sites and online marketing agencies.
benton.org/node/111736 | Smart Money
Recommend this Headline
back to top

GOOGLE’S PRIVACY POLICY
[SOURCE: Google, AUTHOR: Betsy Masiello]
You still have choice and control. You don’t need to log in to use many of our services, including Search, Maps and YouTube. If you are logged in, you can still edit or turn off your Search history, switch Gmail chat to “off the record,” control the way Google tailors ads to your interests, use Incognito mode on Chrome, or use any of the other privacy tools we offer.
We’re not collecting more data about you. Our new policy simply makes it clear that we use data to refine and improve your experience on Google — whichever products or services you use. This is something we have already been doing for a long time.
We’re making things simpler and we’re trying to be upfront about it. Period.
You can use as much or as little of Google as you want. For example, you can have a Google Account and choose to use Gmail, but not use Google+. Or you could keep your data separate with different accounts -- for example, one for YouTube and another for Gmail.
benton.org/node/111814 | Google
Recommend this Headline
back to top

GOOGLE PRIVACY AND ANDROID
[SOURCE: Washington Post, AUTHOR: Cecilia Kang]
Google doesn’t make much money from its Android phones, but chief executive Larry Page recently vowed in an earnings call that that was about to change. A push by the company to create clearer online profiles of Web surfers may turn the promise into reality, analysts say. Google’s shift in its privacy policies that will allow it to follow the activities of users as they move across the firm’s Web sites, including its highly popular YouTube, Gmail and main search engine. The company emphasized in interviews that the change would apply only to users who are signed on to their Google accounts. The initiative could be of particular significance for consumers of Android devices, who are almost always signed on to their phones and tablets, experts said. Without signing up for an account, an Android smartphone owner would be limited in what he or she could do on the device, they said.
benton.org/node/111813 | Washington Post
Recommend this Headline
back to top

EMPOWERING USERS ON PRIVACY
[SOURCE: GigaOm, AUTHOR: Derrick Harris]
In the fight to determine who dictates online privacy standards, web users are like a child caught in between a bitter custody battle, or a chew toy at risk of being torn asunder by two competing dogs. But the best ones to decide who does what with personal data are the very users who are currently trapped between Google, Facebook and other websites on one side and lawmakers on the other. The answer lies somewhere between the choice that web companies provide and the axe-like control mechanisms that government regulations seek to provide, in the form of creative solutions that help — or force — websites to compete on privacy. Here are some rough ideas for how such solutions might look:
A paywall of sorts, similar to what the New York Times has in place, but users pay for privacy instead of access. Platform providers could perhaps offer an a la carte contract that lets users pick what features they want for free (i.e., what data they’re willing to hand over to advertisers) and what features they want to pay for (i.e., what data they want to keep private).
Third-party-run collectives that operate like insurance companies (or labor unions), only instead of dictating what they’ll pay to hospitals, they dictate what privacy requirements they’ll accept for their members. We have 400 million users signed up (the threat might be) and you’ll either give them these terms or we’ll find someone who will. Conventional wisdom suggests this should be a nonprofit operation, although users might be willing to pay a small premium for guaranteed results.
Monetary credits that reward users for sharing. In Facebook’s ongoing right-to-publicity lawsuit, for example, a major issue is how much more Facebook can charge for Sponsored Stories (i.e., ads that appear in a user’s news stream when a friend interacts with participating companies) than for regular ads. If users don’t want to pay for privacy, and if sites don’t want to stop using user data, perhaps the answer is to give users a piece of revenue pie that’s created by their data.
benton.org/node/111748 | GigaOm
Recommend this Headline
back to top

EU PRIVACY PROPOSAL
[SOURCE: Wall Street Journal, AUTHOR: Liz Gannes]
Internet companies are less up in arms about another proposed bill, this time about a unified approach to online privacy in the European Union. Some initial reactions to the proposal, which was pre-announced at the DLD conference in Munich and then published on Jan 25, were harshly critical. But now that European Commissioner Viviane Reding has formally proposed her legislation, Web companies seemed more measured in their response. Though they didn’t endorse the bill, they seemed willing to work with it. Of course, they’d prefer to avoid walking into fines of up to two percent of their revenue.
http://allthingsd.com/20120126/privacy-less-controversial-than-piracy-fo...
Moves afoot to limit tracking of Web users (USAToday)
benton.org/node/111811 | Wall Street Journal | USAToday
Recommend this Headline
back to top

PIRACY

NATIONS SIGN ACTA
[SOURCE: IDG News Service, AUTHOR: By Jennifer Baker]
The European Union signed up to the controversial Anti Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) despite widespread opposition, particularly in Poland, where people took to the streets in protest. The agreement was officially signed in Tokyo by 22 European member states. Cyprus, Estonia, Slovakia, Germany, and the Netherlands did not sign, but committed to do so in the near future, according to the European Parliament's Green party. The agreement seeks to enforce intellectual property rights and combat online piracy and illegal software. But opponents of ACTA claim it goes far beyond the U.S.' doomed SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act) legislation and encourages ISPs to police the internet without any legal safeguards. SOPA is being revised after receiving broad criticism. The ACTA agreement, meanwhile, has been mired in controversy from the beginning due to secrecy imposed by the U.S. and worries that it may not uphold E.U. rules on data privacy. The most controversial paragraph in the final text leaves the door open for countries to introduce the so-called three-strikes rule, which would require Internet users to be cut off if they continue to download copyright material after receiving two warnings, as national authorities would be able to order ISPs to disclose personal information about customers. Although the agreement has been signed, it still has to go through a ratification procedure in the EU.
benton.org/node/111729 | IDG News Service | Fortune
Recommend this Headline
back to top

THERE’S NO FIXING SOPA/PIPA
[SOURCE: Forbes, AUTHOR: Gigi Sohn]
[Commentary] The sudden Congressional decisions to ditch the very bad intellectual property bills, the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and Protect Intellectual Property Act (PIPA) have raised all sorts of new questions about how discussion around the bills should proceed and, as importantly, how was it the opposition managed to have such a devastating impact on such a powerful lobby as the movie studios and their friends. Those are important and related questions which have been answered in recent days with a lot of speculation. Let’s start with the question of how to proceed from here on in, because the answer to that question will largely explain how we got to this point. Trying to “fix” SOPA and PIPA and all of the bad provisions in those bills is the wrong approach. Conceptually, it’s like trying to build a building starting on the second floor. The most logical way to proceed would be to start building a structure from the foundation and working up from there.
benton.org/node/111738 | Forbes
Recommend this Headline
back to top

WIRELESS/SPECTRUM

SUPER WI-FI NETWORK
[SOURCE: GigaOm, AUTHOR: Stacey Higginbotham]
New Hanover County in North Carolina became the first county in the United States to deploy a Super Wi-Fi network, but the real question is will it also be the last? The technology, which uses the unlicensed spectrum between the digital TV broadcasting airwaves to deliver a wireless broadband signal, is not as healthy as the pomp and circumstance surrounding the launch may indicate. And as of now it’s fate as a mainstream technology is in doubt. The current spectrum bill wending its way through Congress makes delivering Wi-Fi in the digital TV spectrum an iffy proposition, and the tech firms that so ardently supported the technology have fallen silent on the importance of using this spectrum for unlicensed broadband. The spectrum bill, that is part of an effort to take some of the digital TV airwaves away for cellular use, will make it hard for crowded urban markets to find enough channels to deliver plentiful Super Wi-Fi service.
benton.org/node/111770 | GigaOm
Recommend this Headline
back to top

PLEADING CYCLE
[SOURCE: Federal Communications Commission, AUTHOR: Public Notice]
T-Mobile and AT&T have filed four applications seeking approval to assign AWS-1 spectrum licenses. The Applicants request consent to assign 13 AWS-1 licenses in full and partitioned portions of 23 AWS-1 licenses from AT&T Mobility to T-Mobile License. The Applicants also request consent to assign seven AWS-1 licenses in full and partitioned portions of four AWS-1 licenses from New Cingular Wireless to T-Mobile License. The proposed license assignments are part of the break-up provision of AT&T’s proposed, but failed, acquisition of T-Mobile. The Applicants assert that the proposed license assignments will serve the public interest by allowing T-Mobile USA to acquire spectrum to enable it to better address the growing demands of consumers for wireless data and content. The Applicants also assert that the proposed license assignments raise no competitive concerns. They note that AT&T will retain spectrum, and continue to serve customers, in each of the affected markets and therefore conclude that the proposed transaction will in no way reduce the number of wireless competitors or choices available to consumers in any market. Petitions to Deny the transaction are due February 27, 2012. Oppositions are due March 8 and Replies are due March 19, 2012.
benton.org/node/111805 | Federal Communications Commission
Recommend this Headline
back to top

AT&T TRAILS VERIZON
[SOURCE: Wall Street Journal, AUTHOR: Greg Bensinger]
AT&T posted a large quarterly loss as it took a $4 billion charge for its failed T-Mobile USA takeover bid, and the phone giant continued to lag behind rival Verizon Wireless in the race to add new subscribers. Chief Executive Randall Stephenson lashed out at the Federal Communications Commission, faulting the agency for standing in the way of industry growth by failing to organize an auction for spectrum licenses and for opposing the T-Mobile deal. "This FCC made it abundantly clear that they'll not allow significant M&A to help bridge and free up spectrum," Stephenson said. "The FCC is intent on picking winners and losers rather than letting these markets work." Harold Feld, legal director for Public Knowledge, said, “It is unfortunate that AT&T Chairman Randall Stephenson still believes that buying out the wireless industry is the only way to improve his company’s spectrum efficiency. His comment in this morning’s earnings call that the FCC has made it clear the agency won’t allow acquisitions as a means of increasing spectrum holdings is inappropriate for two reasons. The failed acquisition of T-Mobile would have had far wider implications than simply a spectrum acquisition. It is unfortunate that AT&T thinks that the only way it can increase its spectrum holdings is to purchase a competitor. Using its current holdings more efficiently would also go a long way to relieving the company’s purported spectrum shortage. In addition, the Commission did allow AT&T to purchase spectrum from Qualcomm.” [for much more, visit the URL below]
benton.org/node/111763 | Wall Street Journal | Public Knowledge press release | The Verge | CNet | LATimes | CNNMoney
Recommend this Headline
back to top

AT&T PUNISHES CUSTOMERS
[SOURCE: GigaOm, AUTHOR: Kevin Fitchard]
[Commentary] Wondering why AT&T smartphone data rates just went up? Because the operator was denied its acquisition of T-Mobile – at least that’s what AT&T CEO Randall Stephenson implied. AT&T seems awfully bitter about AT&T-Mo’s failure, and now it appears to be taking it out on its customers. After blasting the Federal Communication Commission for “picking winners and losers” in the wireless industry by scrutinizing every deal, Stephenson claimed AT&T is now in a mobile capacity-constrained environment which has forced it to raise prices and manage connection speeds (aka throttle) for its highest volume subscribers. This is just plain vindictive.
benton.org/node/111762 | GigaOm
Recommend this Headline
back to top

WAS THE AT&T/T-MOBILE BATTLE WORTH IT?
[SOURCE: GigaOm, AUTHOR: Kevin Fitchard]
[Commentary] The government scored a huge victory for consumers when it defeated AT&T’s acquisition of T-Mobile, preserving a wireless landscape with four nationwide competitors. Now that the dust has settled, though, there’s a lingering question in my mind: Was the fight worth it? Would we have been better off if the AT&T-Mo saga never happened, or are we better off that AT&T tried and failed? Here are three reasons why the merger’s failure shaped the U.S. wireless market for the better.
We know what to watch for: Regulators, lawmakers and a large part of the public now realize that preserving what remaining competition is left in the U.S. wireless market is vital. Just as AT&T can’t buy T-Mobile, Verizon can’t buy Sprint, and either would face stiff opposition if it tried to pick up a smaller regional operator like MetroPCS or Leap Wireless. And AT&T and Verizon now know better than to try.
Regulators have grown fangs: After a decade of nearly unfettered consolidation in the wireless industry, regulators took a huge stand against the most egregious anticompetitive deal of them all, showing AT&T absolutely no deference. What’s more, those regulators don’t appear to be returning to hibernation. John Hane, an antitrust lawyer with Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, said that we may be witnessing the rebirth of much more aggressive Department of Justice, one that is willing to examine every telecom deal through a trust-busting lens.
Dormant spectrum is finally being put to use: Though AT&T has claimed that the U.S. is facing a spectrum crisis, the deplorable fact remains that it and many other operators have been hoarding frequencies for years. If operators can no longer buy networks from their competitors, they will have to build them.
benton.org/node/111760 | GigaOm
Recommend this Headline
back to top

HONIG ON SPECTRUM AUCTIONS
[SOURCE: Broadcasting&Cable, AUTHOR: John Eggerton]
David Honig, president of the Minority Media & Telecommunications Council said incentive auctions need to happen now, that broadcasting was still relevant, that minority participation in the media was woefully lacking, that the Federal Communications Commission was well-meaning but failed to see the unintended consequences of media concentration on minorities, and that antipiracy legislation was crucial to preventing the digital theft of the cultural heritage of people of color. "We are still nowhere close to closing the wealth gap, alleviating the impending spectrum crunch, or preserving entrepreneurship and career opportunities in traditional and new media." That was the "don't rest on your laurels" message from Honig, who touched on many areas of concern in his opening address at MMTC's annual Broadband and Social Justice Summit in Washington.
benton.org/node/111755 | Broadcasting&Cable
Recommend this Headline
back to top

LIGHTSQUARED FILES COMPLAINT
[SOURCE: Politico, AUTHOR: Eliza Krigman]
Exasperated by a government process that has left them scrambling to avoid bankruptcy, LightSquared filed a complaint with NASA’s inspector general’s office alleging that a key member of a panel that advises the government on GPS violated ethics laws. Bradford Parkinson, second in command of a federal advisory board that has played an integral role informing the government’s views of the LightSquared-GPS controversy, “appears to have violated a federal conflict of interest statute” as a special government employee, the filing states. Parkinson serves as vice chairman of the National Space-Based Positioning, Navigation and Timing Advisory Board, which advises the Defense Department, the Transportation Department and a host of other federal agencies on GPS policy. Parkinson has a multimillion dollar stake in Trimble, a GPS manufacturing company at the heart of a campaign to derail the broadband company from entering the market. The PNT Advisory Board operates under the auspices of NASA. In the 27-page complaint, LightSquared argues that Parkinson, as a Trimble board member who has publicly called the broadband company a “bunch of greedy guys that are like the worst of the people in real estate," has a clear conflict of interest pursuant to the law. Absent a waiver from NASA, which Parkinson did not receive, he should not have been advising the government on this matter, LightSquared attorney Curtis Lu argues. Essentially, the company makes the case that Parkinson created an unfair playing field, which undermines LightSquared’s chances of success.
benton.org/node/111741 | Politico
Recommend this Headline
back to top

INTERNET/BROADBAND

THE DECLINE OF DSL
[SOURCE: GigaOm, AUTHOR: Om Malik]
For a brief moment in the past decade, Verizon and AT&T gave cable broadband a good run for its money. Not anymore. As two of the largest phone companies have shifted focus to their more lucrative wireless business, cable broadband has been running away with the wired broadband market. The proof — admittedly in bits and pieces — comes from the recently reported earnings of AT&T, Verizon and Time Warner Cable. Both major phone companies reported astonishing revenue growth, most of it from the sale of smartphones and lucrative (and increasingly expensive) data plans for the customers.
During the fourth quarter of 2011 (which ended on Dec. 31, 2011), Verizon lost 103,000 DSL lines. In comparison, it lost 118,000 DSL lines during the third quarter of 2011 (which ended on Sept. 30, 2011) and 127,000 in the quarter ending June 39, 2011.
The numbers at AT&T are worse. During the fourth quarter of 2011, Ma Bell lost 636,000 DSL lines, up from 501,000 during the third quarter of 2011 and 451,000 during the three months ending on June 30, 2011.
Now compare this with Time Warner Cable, which added a whopping 130,000 broadband connections.
So why is DSL continuing to nose-dive? First of all, the phone companies themselves are not interested in pushing the envelope on DSL and instead are focusing on their higher-end offerings.
benton.org/node/111749 | GigaOm
Recommend this Headline
back to top

ADMINISTRATION’S CYBERSECURITY PROPOSAL
[SOURCE: The White House, AUTHOR: Howard Schmidt]
To follow up on his State of the Union speech, I would like to highlight a few key points about the legislation the President mentioned that we sent to the Congress last May to secure our country from the growing danger of cyber-threats. The Administration sent the Congress a package of legislative proposals in May 2011 to give the federal government new authority to ensure the corporations that own the assets most critical to our nation’s security and economic prosperity are adequately addressing the risks we as a nation all share. Additionally, our proposals would provide new tools to help our citizens and law enforcement professionals defend against cybercrime and identity theft, while, at the same time, safeguarding individuals’ privacy and civil liberties. Further, our proposals would give the federal government new authority to share information about cyber threats with businesses, and when asked, provide them with federal assistance to prevent attacks and defend against the theft of intellectual property, which, when stolen, erodes their corporate competitive advantages among global peers and our competitiveness as a nation. Our legislative proposals will move us toward accomplishing these goals, and while the task of securing our nation is never done, enacting them would be an incredibly important step. At the same time, addressing only a portion of these needs by our cybersecurity professionals will continue to expose our country to serious risk. For example, only providing incentives for the private sector to share more information will not, in and of itself, adequately address critical infrastructure vulnerabilities. The American people expect the federal government to work with the private sector to ensure our critical infrastructure is protected. Our professionals in the federal government, as well as those in state, local and private sector entities need new legislatively-enacted authorities to do so.
benton.org/node/111803 | White House, The
Recommend this Headline
back to top

CYBER THIEVERY AS NATIONAL POLICY
[SOURCE: Wall Street Journal, AUTHOR: Mike McConnell, Michael Chertoff, William Lynn]
[Commentary] Only three months ago, we would have violated U.S. secrecy laws by sharing what we write here—even though, as a former director of national intelligence, secretary of homeland security, and deputy secretary of defense, we have long known it to be true. The Chinese government has a national policy of economic espionage in cyberspace. In fact, the Chinese are the world's most active and persistent practitioners of cyber espionage today. The bottom line is this: China has a massive, inexpensive work force ravenous for economic growth. It is much more efficient for the Chinese to steal innovations and intellectual property—the source code of advanced economies—than to incur the cost and time of creating their own. They turn those stolen ideas directly into production, creating products faster and cheaper than the U.S. and others. So how to protect ourselves from this economic threat? First, we must acknowledge its severity and understand that its impacts are more long-term than immediate. And we need to respond with all of the diplomatic, trade, economic and technological tools at our disposal. The U.S. also must make broader investments in education to produce many more workers with science, technology, engineering and math skills. Corporate America must do its part, too. If we are to ever understand the extent of cyber espionage, companies must be more open and aggressive about identifying, acknowledging and reporting incidents of cyber theft.
benton.org/node/111802 | Wall Street Journal
Recommend this Headline
back to top

ACCESSIBILITY

EAAC RECOMMENDATIONS
[SOURCE: Federal Communications Commission, AUTHOR: ]
The Emergency Access Advisory Committee (EAAC) has offered the Federal Communications Commission recommendations to meet the goals of the Twenty-First Century Communication and Video Accessibility Act (CVAA) of 2010 and achieve equal access to 9-1-1 emergency services by individuals with disabilities as part of the migration to the national Internet protocol (IP)-enabled emergency network (NG9-1-1).
benton.org/node/111771 | Federal Communications Commission
Recommend this Headline
back to top

MORE ON CONTENT

SOCIAL MEDIA WIN A BIG ONE IN WASHINGTON
[SOURCE: Project for Excellence in Journalism, AUTHOR: Mark Jurkowitz]
In a powerful show of strength for social media and technology leaders, the online community derailed, at least temporarily, major legislation that had garnered significant support among Washington politicians and lobbyists. Last week, Congress was scheduled to vote on two bills aimed at combating illegal downloading and streaming of movies and TV shows on the internet-the House's Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and the Senate's Protect IP Act (PIPA). However, bloggers, Twitter users and social media giants like Google united against the bills because of fears the legislation would give media companies too much power and constitute internet censorship. The online pressure was so strong that despite efforts from 115 companies and organizations that had lobbyists working on the bills, both houses of Congress announced on January 20 they would postpone the legislation. For the week of January 16-20, the protests over the piracy legislation was the No. 1 subject on both blogs and Twitter, according to the New Media Index from the Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism. And on both types of social media, there was overwhelming agreement that the bills would be detrimental to freedom on the web. In a related finding, the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press found that nearly one-quarter (23%) of adults between the ages of 18 and 29 followed the SOPA battle more closely than any other topic last week, making it a bigger story among that youthful demographic than the presidential race. That level of interest was in full display online. A massive online protest was staged on January 18, with Wikipedia taking its site down for the day and thousands of other sites following suit. At the same time, millions of individuals signed online petitions and voiced their opposition to the bills. The relationship between the protests and the reaction by Congress was seen as a clear and crucial victory for online activism.
benton.org/node/111739 | Project for Excellence in Journalism
Recommend this Headline
back to top

TWITTER CENSORSHIP
[SOURCE: New York Times, AUTHOR: Somini Sengupta]
So much for the free-wheeling, libertarian reputation of Twitter. The company announced that it could start censoring certain content in certain countries, a sort of micro-censorship widget that would pop up in a grey box on the Twitter feed. “Tweet withheld,” it would read “This tweet from @username has been withheld in: Country.” Twitter explained the change in a blog post: “We haven’t yet used this ability, but if and when we are required to withhold a Tweet in a specific country, we will attempt to let the user know, and we will clearly mark when the content has been withheld.” Within hours of the announcement, people had figured out ways to subvert Twitter’s blocking.
benton.org/node/111819 | New York Times | LATimes | WSJ
Recommend this Headline
back to top

GOVERNMENT & COMMUNICATIONS

FBI PLANS TO MONITOR SOCIAL NETWORKS
[SOURCE: New Scientist, AUTHOR: Jim Giles]
The US Federal Bureau of Investigation has quietly released details of plans to continuously monitor the global output of Facebook, Twitter and other social networks, offering a rare glimpse into an activity that the FBI and other government agencies are reluctant to discuss publicly. The plans show that the bureau believes it can use information pulled from social media sites to better respond to crises, and maybe even to foresee them. The information comes from a document released on 19 January looking for companies who might want to build a monitoring system for the FBI. It spells out what the bureau wants from such a system and invites potential contractors to reply by 10 February. The bureau's wish list calls for the system to be able to automatically search "publicly available" material from Facebook, Twitter and other social media sites for keywords relating to terrorism, surveillance operations, online crime and other FBI missions. Agents would be alerted if the searches produce evidence of "breaking events, incidents, and emerging threats". Agents will have the option of displaying the tweets and other material captured by the system on a map, to which they can add layers of other data, including the locations of US embassies and military installations, details of previous terrorist attacks and the output from local traffic cameras.
benton.org/node/111732 | New Scientist
Recommend this Headline
back to top

ELECTIONS AND MEDIA

CITIZENS INUNDATED
[SOURCE: The Huffington Post, AUTHOR: Timothy Karr]
[Commentary] The Supreme Court's Citizens United decision has already picked a winner in the 2012 elections: TV broadcasters. Companies like CBS Corp, News Corp. and Sinclair Broadcast Group are already dividing the spoils of an election year that will see unprecedented spending on political ads. More than $12 million was spent on ads during the Iowa Republican caucus. More than $14 million was spent on the South Carolina primary. And Floridians are already seeing the effect of millions more in ad buys as the state readies for Jan 31’s vote. But that's just the first glimpse of an election year that will leave viewers awash in misinformation. All told TV broadcast companies stand to pocket more than $3 billion in political ad revenues by November. What they're not doing is letting viewers and voters in on the full story behind all this money and all these ads.
benton.org/node/111746 | Huffington Post, The | read the Free Press report
Recommend this Headline
back to top

BOZELL’S CAMPAIGN VS ‘LIBERAL MEDIA’
[SOURCE: Broadcasting&Cable, AUTHOR: John Eggerton]
Brent Bozell, president of the Media Research Center, is ramping up its campaign against the "left-wing, so-called news media" to the tune of a planned $5 million dollar "Tell The Truth 2012" campaign that Bozell says will include paid TV, radio and Internet advertising. The group launched a similar effort in 2010, but he told reporters the spending on this campaign will be more than double. Bozell is tired of the "elite media" protecting the president by attacking Republicans. Bozell said he was not likely to be buying any TV ads on CNN, or MSNBC, or the broadcast networks -- feeding the hand that he says bites Republicans, as it were -- but said that was because he was confident they would never run ads criticizing the news media.
benton.org/node/111757 | Broadcasting&Cable | video
Recommend this Headline
back to top

HOW FOX IS DESTROYING THE REPUBLICAN PARTY
[SOURCE: Media Matters for America, AUTHOR: Eric Boehlert]
[Commentary] Wannabe kingmaker Roger Ailes is facing an open revolt. More and more despondent conservatives are expressing alarm over the unfolding Republican primary season and what they see as the party's dwindling chances of defeating President Obama in November. Spooked at the general elections prospects facing frontrunners Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich (especially Gingrich), members of the so-called Republican Establishment seem to want to reboot the election season and try their nominating luck again. Sorry, it's too late. If the current state of concern transforms into a larger, enveloping blame game, Fox News chairman Ailes ought be a looming target. True, conservatives in recent years have shown virtually no interest in critiquing, let alone trying to reign in, Ailes' empire. Still, it's becoming increasingly clear that Fox's programming and the radical, fear-based agenda it's setting for Republicans is now doing lasting damage to the Grand Old Party.
benton.org/node/111745 | Media Matters for America
Recommend this Headline
back to top

TELEVISION

TV OPPOSES TRANSPARENCY
[SOURCE: Columbia Journalism Review, AUTHOR: Steven Waldman]
[Commentary] Local television stations have now rallied against the key elements of the Federal Communications Commission’s media transparency proposal, which would require broadcasters to move their “public inspection files” out of their filing cabinets and onto the Internet. The surprising hostility from TV stations—news organizations—to this transparency plan raises a broader question: Do broadcasters believe that they even have “public interest obligations” anymore? Judging from some of the unintentionally hilarious comments they submitted to the FCC docket, they enthusiastically embrace the concept as long as it remains completely devoid of meaning. One gets the strong sense that broadcasters are happy to have a “public inspection file” as long as the public is not actually inspecting it. It’s almost as if these companies believe their first obligation is to offer creative character-building obstacles to getting information, not to better inform the public.
benton.org/node/111767 | Columbia Journalism Review
Recommend this Headline
back to top

TELEVISION IN PAKISTAN
[SOURCE: New York Times, AUTHOR: Declan Walsh]
One morning last week, television viewers in Pakistan were treated to a darkly comic sight: a posse of middle-class women roaming through a public park in Karachi, on the hunt for dating couples engaged in “immoral” behavior. This hourlong spectacle, broadcast live on Samaa TV on Jan. 17, set off a furious reaction in parts of Pakistan. Outrage sprang from the Internet and percolated into the national newspapers, where writers slammed Ms. Khan’s tactics as a “witch hunt.” “Vigil-aunties,” read one headline, referring to the South Asian term “aunty” for older, bossy and often judgmental women. Now, the protests are headed to court. Four local nongovernment organizations will file a civil suit against Samaa TV in Pakistan’s Supreme Court, hoping to galvanize the country’s top judges into action.
benton.org/node/111796 | New York Times
Recommend this Headline
back to top

JOURNALISM

LEVESON INQUIRY
[SOURCE: Financial Times, AUTHOR: Tim Bradshaw, Ben Fenton]
Google and Facebook urged the UK’s Leveson inquiry into the future of press regulation to preserve the distinction between professional publishers, such as newspapers, and internet platforms. The two internet companies also warned against heavy-handed regulation that could diminish free speech online, despite the speed with which defamatory material can spread unchecked online. Lord Justice Leveson, the appeal court judge leading the inquiry, was told by Lord Allan, the former Sheffield MP who heads Facebook’s public policy unit in Europe, that the social network had more in common with “gossip in pubs” than newspapers and would be equally hard to regulate.
benton.org/node/111798 | Financial Times
Recommend this Headline
back to top

LOBBYING

A LOOK AT LOBBYING
[SOURCE: Benton Foundation, AUTHOR: Kevin Taglang]
[Commentary] Last week, we devoted lots of digital ink highlighting the unprecedented online activism that derailed both the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) in the House and the Protect Intellectual Property Act (PIPA) in the Senate. This week we look at the flip side of citizen engagement: lobbying. A total of 145 companies and organizations lobbied the House of Representatives for and against SOPA, while 157 groups lobbied for and against its sister bill in the Senate, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
http://benton.org/node/111709
back to top

VICTORY BUOYS LOBBY
[SOURCE: New York Times, AUTHOR: Somini Sengupta]
The unlikely coalition of companies and consumer groups that last week helped quash antipiracy legislation on Capitol Hill is now weighing the future of what might be called lobbying 2.0. Can the Internet industry, along with legions of newly politicized Web users, be a new force in Washington? And if so, what else can they all agree upon? If labor unions once amplified the legislative agenda of certain American industries, the antipiracy fight showed the potential power of a different force: young Americans who live and breathe the Internet. But if the Internet industry was buoyed by support from its users on this particular issue, they may find themselves on opposing sides in other cases. Consider the prospect of Washington seeking to restrict the use of facial recognition technology, which Facebook uses to speed the process of adding the names of friends to photos. It is hard to imagine Facebook users lobbying on Facebook’s behalf. “The lesson here is not that the tech industry has millions of people blindly doing what it suggests,” said Eli Pariser, former executive director of MoveOn and now a member of its board. “I don’t think Google will be able to count on all the people who took action on SOPA not to challenge Google when it does something that feels counter to the ethos of the Internet.”
benton.org/node/111816 | New York Times
Recommend this Headline
back to top

SOPA/PIPA LOBBYING
[SOURCE: CNNMoney, AUTHOR: David Goldman]
Two controversial anti-piracy bills, now effectively dead in the water, attracted enormous lobbying attention on both sides. A total of 145 companies and organizations lobbied the House of Representatives for and against the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), while 157 groups lobbied for and against its sister bill in the Senate, the Protect Intellectual Property Act (PIPA), according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
The largest proponents came primarily from the commerce and media industries. Comcast was by far the biggest lobbyist, spending upwards of $5 million on the issue. Visa and MasterCard spent several hundred thousand dollars, as did National Amusements, AT&T News Corp. and Time Warner, CNNMoney's parent company. The cable, motion picture and recording industry lobbies also spent heavily in support of the bills.
In opposition to the bills, Google was the largest lobbyist, spending about $4 million. Also opposing the bills were eBay, Yahoo, Amazon and the Web's domain registry, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers.
benton.org/node/111726 | CNNMoney
Recommend this Headline
back to top

POLICYMAKERS

GRASSLEY WANTS MEETING WITH DE SA
[SOURCE: The Hill, AUTHOR: Brendan Sasso]
Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) has demanded to meet with a senior aide at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to discuss troubled wireless company LightSquared. In a letter to FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, Sen Grassley demanded to meet with Paul de Sa, chief of the Office of Strategic Planning and Policy Analysis, before he resigns his post next month. Paul de Sa met with LightSquared officials, including billionaire investor Phil Falcone, earlier this month. In a letter to Sen Grassley in October, Chairman Genachowski had said, "I will continue to make staff available to discuss this matter further with you and your staff at your convenience." "Given your pledge on October 28, I was disappointed to learn yesterday that Mr. de Sa was 'not available' to be interviewed by my staff," Sen Grassley wrote. He asked Genachowski to make de Sa available before Jan. 31.
benton.org/node/111774 | Hill, The | B&C
Recommend this Headline
back to top

Benton

Search

Benton

Daily Digest

Analysis

January 2012

US cautions EU against costly online data privacy rules

Millions in SOPA lobbying bucks gone to waste

As Goodreads Ends Sourcing From Amazon, Users Fear Lost Books

Headlines will return Tuesday, January 31, 2012

January 27, 2012 (Lawmakers question Google over privacy changes)

Twitter Announces Micro-Censorship Policy

A Look at Lobbying in the Wake of SOPA/PIPA

Big Victory on Internet Buoys Lobby