April 2012

Cameron Denies News Corp. Collaboration

UK Prime Minister David Cameron said there was no agreement between him and Rupert Murdoch, or his son James Murdoch, to support News Corp.'s business interests in return for the media company's support of Cameron's Conservative Party.

"The idea there was some grand bargain between me and Rupert Murdoch -- that is not true," he said in an interview with BBC television, in which he also defended the government's austerity measures after economic data last week showed the U.K. slipped back into a recession in the previous two quarters. The government's links with media groups, in particular News Corp., have come under renewed scrutiny this week after the special adviser to the culture minister resigned over his close contacts with the Murdoch-run company during its efforts to take full control of pay-television operator British Sky Broadcasting Group last year. Opposition lawmakers have called for Jeremy Hunt, the minister for culture, media and sport, to also resign over the allegations he was too close to News Corp. while he handled the regulatory process over the BSkyB bid.

In China, Foreign Films Meet a Powerful Gatekeeper

Any foreign movie knocking on China’s door must pass through powerful gatekeepers — the China Film Group and its chief executive, Han Sanping.

The China Film Group functions as the Chinese government’s guardian of a film market that recently shot past Japan’s to become the world’s second-largest in box-office receipts behind the United States. On a broad array of business dealings — censorship, distribution and co-productions, among others — it is the conduit for foreign moviemakers hoping to make or distribute films in China. But Han and his group are also supervising a trade route that is suddenly under close watch by regulators in Washington, after reports last week that officials in the United States are examining whether American film companies have violated domestic law by making illegal payments to officials in China.

National Telecommunications and Information Administration
Department of Commerce
May 30, 2012
10 a.m. to 12 p.m., Eastern Daylight Time
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2012-04-27/pdf/2012-10197.pdf

The Committee will consider the appropriate processes and structure for facilitating the development of recommendations based on a dialogue between industry and relevant federal agencies to make the 1755–1850 MHz band available for wireless broadband, while maintaining essential federal capabilities and maximizing commercial utilization.

NTIA will post a detailed agenda on its Web site, http://www.ntia.doc.gov, prior to the meeting. The public may provide written comment on the meeting before or after the meeting.

Read more about Spectrum Management Advisory Committee Meeting

Recapping Cybersecurity Week

[Commentary] Late last week, the House Republican leadership declared this Cyber Week – and who are we at Headlines to disagree? Here’s what we know what was decided as we go to press – along with some thoughts about what it all means. We start, perhaps uncharacteristically, at the end of the process. On April 26, in an evening vote, the House approved the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA or HR 3523) 248-168. On April 26, the House also passed the Federal Information Security Amendments Act (HR 4257). The bill is aimed at updating the federal government's responsibility to manage its information systems so as to best thwart cyber threats. The bill was approved by unanimous consent after being brought up under a suspension of House rules. Suspension bills are usually non-controversial, and must pass by a two-thirds majority vote. The controversy was really about CISPA.

The Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act: CISPA explained

The goal of the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA) is to allow greater information sharing between the government and private companies like, for instance, Google and Facebook ("self-protected entities"). CISPA allows companies to share private data from or about their customers with the government, including US intelligence agencies — and in doing so, the bill overrides all other federal and state privacy laws. It allows companies to share almost any type of content, provided it pertains to a "cyber threat." So what exactly falls under the umbrella of a "cyber threat?" According to the bill, "cyber threat information" includes data that threatens systems from protection against:

efforts to harm public and private systems and networks
theft or wrongful possession of public or private data, intellectual property, or personally identifiable information
Thanks to an amendment from Rep. Ben Quayle (R-AZ) that was accepted just prior to the bill's passage, cyber threats are no longer the only purpose for which the government may use your private information under CISPA. As it stands, the bill would allow sharing for the investigation of cyber crimes, for the protection of individuals from "death or serious bodily harm" and related law enforcement needs, for the protection of children, and "to protect the national security of the United States."

Two more cybersecurity bills approved in House

The House approved two, non-controversial cybersecurity bills under a suspension of House rules.

The first was the Cybersecurity Enhancement Act (HR 2096). The bill would coordinate federal research and development on cybersecurity, and establish a program for training federal cybersecurity experts. The bill also authorizes the National Institute of Standards and Technology to set security standards for federal computer systems. The second was the Advancing America's Networking and Information Technology Research and Development Act (HR 3834). This bill would update and modernize the High-Performance Computing Act of 1991, which established what is now a $4 billion federal research program on computing and networking systems.

Why is Silicon Valley silent on CISPA?

In January, America’s major tech companies joined everyday internet users to break the back of a reviled law called SOPA. Months later, Washington is brewing a new law that alarms many SOPA opponents — but this time the same companies have been quiet as church mice.

The House of Representatives passed the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act and the response from Silicon Valley has been nothing but crickets. Silence from Google. Ditto from Facebook. Ditto from Apple (although tight-lipped Apple would probably respond with a “no comment” to news of a meteor hitting Cupertino). So what gives? Why are these companies ducking the fight? Well, for starters, the two laws are very different: among other things, SOPA would have turned them into copyright cops, while CISPA simply gives them the option to pass on data if they choose. Secondly, cyber-attacks are serious stuff for such companies. The point, for now, is that CISPA doesn’t harm the self-interest of Silicon Valley companies so they have little incentive to kick up dust. (Facebook offered initial support for the goals of the bill but has since gone silent). Finally, CISPA is not going anywhere fast.

Should we be as worried about CISPA as we were about SOPA?

[Commentary] Just a few months ago, internet companies and the technology community came together to protest two anti-piracy bills (SOPA and PIPA) because they would have breached free-speech protections and other social safeguards in the name of stopping copyright infringement. Now, a new bill called CISPA that just passed in the House of Representatives is getting a lot of negative attention, with some saying it is just as evil as SOPA, and others — including Facebook and Microsoft — supporting the legislation and arguing that it is much more nuanced than either of its predecessors. So which is it?

A group of over 50 university professors, entrepreneurs and information scientists have published an open letter to Congress calling on lawmakers to oppose CISPA because they say the bill (and its Senate counterpart) would allow companies to hand over the private date of their users to entities like the Department of Homeland Security, and the only requirement is that the information involved must somehow be associated with the vague concept of “cyber-security.” So is CISPA as bad as SOPA? Probably not, in the sense that SOPA required ISPs and other companies to engage in all kinds of activity that infringed on free speech and subjected even innocent users to potential seizure of their websites, etc. But the risk when designing a bill that hinges on a concept as vague as “cyber-security” is that it allows companies and government agencies fairly wide latitude to accumulate whatever information they wish — and allows them to do so without even a warrant or a judge’s order. Companies like Facebook may promise that they would never do this unless it is really important, but how can we know that for sure?

CISPA Passes House, But I See Reasons For Optimism — Lessons From 2006 And How to COPE With A House Defeat.

[Commentary] In the face of a remarkably successful public outcry, the House Republican leadership moved up the vote on the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA) by a full day and amended it to make it even more awful. While obviously not a good thing, I see a lot of positive signs for the future fight.

Why? Because CISPA backers faced serious signs of opposition — enough so that they moved up the vote to avoid further R defections. By the end of April 26, the number of Rs committed to opposition had grown from 2 (Barton and Paul) to 28. That sounds small, but the trend was rapidly accelerating in the wake of the Tea Party uprising on this. Meanwhile, the White House veto threat combined with the civil liberties outcry from the left help shore up Democratic resistance. While it did not prove sufficient to prevail in this round, it will prove extremely important as we roll on to the Senate.

CISPA: Who’s for it, who’s against it

With the House’s passage of the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act, the bill’s proponents and opponents on both sides of the aisle are gearing up for a fight over the legislation as it heads to the Senate. Here’s a quick look at who’s for CISPA, who’s against it and why.

Facebook, Microsoft, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce: Technology companies have lent their support to the bill because they say it provides a simple and effective way to share important cyber threat information with the government. The technology industry is fully behind the bill, with associations such as Tech America, the Software & Information Industry Association, the Business Software Alliance and the Telecommunications Industry Association all applauding the House’s passage. The common thread through all of the statements issued by industry groups point to the fact that the bill allows companies to share vital information with the government without giving additional power to any part of it.
Bipartisan support, bipartisan dissent: The law was proposed by Reps. Dutch Ruppersberger (D-MD) and Mike Rogers (R.-MI), and has had bipartisan support. While most of the bill’s most vocal supporters are Republicans, 28 Democrats joined with the majority to pass the bill. There is also, however, bipartisan dissent on the bill.
Privacy advocates: The Center for Democracy and Technology said it was “disappointed that CISPA passed the House in such flawed form and under such a flawed process.” The Electronic Frontier Foundation will continue to fight the bill in the Senate. In a statement, Michelle Richardson, American Civil Liberties Union legislative counsel, said that “CISPA goes too far for little reason. Cybersecurity does not have to mean abdication of Americans’ online privacy. As we’ve seen repeatedly, once the government gets expansive national security authorities, there’s no going back. We encourage the Senate to let this horrible bill fade into obscurity.”
The White House: The White House said that it would veto the bill because it would put American’s privacy at risk.

Benton

Search