January 2015

Why Obama's Cybersecurity Plan May Not Make Americans Safer

According to many security experts, “security” and the specific cybersecurity proposal President Barack Obama unveiled could be a pretext for expanded, unchecked surveillance that may not actually make the nation safer.

The ideas in the proposal face no strong political resistance especially since the information-collection organism would not be the government itself but rather private companies reporting user information to the government. What sort of information does the new proposal promise to share, or rather integrate? A White House official said that the information would “primarily” not be content. Shareable information does include anything that falls under the category of cyber threat indicator, which includes any data relating to “malicious reconnaissance, including communications that reasonably appear to be transmitted for the purpose of gathering technical information related to a cyber threat,” which could mean everything from attempting to access restricted files to -- possibly -- asking fairly routine questions about how a site runs or what a company does with user data. The legislation could actually make the Internet less secure by criminalizing research into vulnerabilities.

In post-Snowden era, NSA maintains surprisingly favorable image

A poll from Pew Research Center suggests that, so far at least, National Security Agency whistleblower Edward Snowden's release of information on NSA programs has had a limited effect on how the agency is viewed by the American public.

It found that 51 percent of Americans view the NSA favorably -- down from 54 percent in fall 2013 -- while 37 percent have unfavorable views of the agency. The NSA isn't exactly popular. The only federal agency less popular among Americans was the Internal Revenue Service, which was viewed favorably by only 45 percent of Americans. Perhaps surprisingly, younger Americans have a more favorable view of the NSA than older ones. Among adults under the age of 30, 61 percent view the NSA favorably. That drops to 55 percent among Americans 30-49 years old and to 40 percent for Americans over 65.

Schools can require students to hand over their social media passwords under Illinois law

An Illinois bill allowing schools to ask for social media passwords from students has led to at least one district notifying parents of the policy.

The bill requires that elementary and secondary schools students provide social media passwords if the school has reasonable cause to believe the student’s social media account has evidence he or she violated a disciplinary rule or policy. It was signed by former Governor Pat Quinn (R-IL) in 2013, but didn’t go into effect until Jan 1, 2015. Legislation prohibiting schools from accessing information about students’ social media was introduced in Hawaii, Indiana, New Hampshire, Ohio, and Rhode Island in 2014, and at least 28 states have introduced or have pending legislation regarding employer access to social media usernames and passwords as of November.

Social networks must help stamp out promotion of violence: France

France appealed for United Nations member states to work together on an international legal framework that would make social network providers share responsibility for the use of their platforms to spread messages promoting violence. "There are hate videos, calls for death, propaganda that has not been responded to, and we need to respond," Harlem Desir, French State Secretary for European Affairs said. "We must limit the dissemination of these messages," she added. "We must ... establish a legal framework so the Internet platforms, the large companies managing social networking, so that they're called upon to act responsibly."

EU unlikely to support ban on free unlimited Facebook, Spotify

European Union member states are unlikely to support an EU-wide ban on telecommunications companies offering online services such as Facebook and Spotify for free, according to a proposal by EU presidency Latvia.

So-called "zero-rating", where operators offer unlimited access to certain online services -- typically Facebook, music streaming or online television -- is seen as good for competition and innovation as well as more choice for consumers. But some consumer groups, Internet activists and member states consider this to be in breach of network neutrality since it makes some services more attractive than others and operators can choose to make their own services zero-rated, thereby distorting competition. A proposal on net neutrality by Latvia says that an explicit ban on positive price discrimination -- such as zero-rating -- was unlikely to gain the support of all members. Countries such as the Netherlands and Norway already have bans on price discrimination -- meaning operators cannot offer some services outside of a customer's data allowance -- but an EU-wide ban would extend that to all 28 member states. Leaving the choice to individual governments runs the risk of a patchwork of approaches across the EU, however, contrary to its aim to develop a single market in the telecoms sector.

The World Is Watching Our Net Neutrality Debate, So Let’s Get It Right

[Commentary] When it comes to the debate on network neutrality, the world watches what we do at home.

That’s one reason that President Barack Obama's commitment to network neutrality is so important: In the struggle to protect a global, open, and free Internet, we must also protect it at home. The President’s recent call to enshrine network neutrality principles in domestic regulation echoes our diplomatic efforts to prevent any centralized power -- corporate or governmental -- from picking winners and losers on the Internet, as well as our efforts to promote freedom of expression and the free flow of information online.

The fight for network neutrality, like the fight for an open and free Internet, is a clarion call for the world’s Internet users and content creators to defend what has made the Internet one of the world’s greatest enablers of global social and economic progress. In both of these efforts, the United States will lead -- at home, by ensuring that service providers cannot pick winners and losers, and abroad, by ensuring that as more and more people get access to the Internet, they are able to take advantage of all of its benefits to innovate, collaborate, and communicate with the rest of the world.

[Ambassador Daniel Sepulveda is the Deputy Assistant Secretary of State]

Verizon CFO Fran Shammo reiterates the dangers of Title II for jobs and investment

Verizon Chief Financial Officer Fran Shammo, speaking about the impact that Title II regulation would have if applied to broadband service, said, "First of all, this is not an issue about Internet rules. It's about an issue of Federal Communications Commission reclassifying broadband as a Title II service, and this will absolutely affect us and the industry on long-term investment in our networks. I guess I would emphasize also that the approach, in whole or in part, on Title II is an extreme and risky path that will jeopardize our investment and the development of innovation in broadband Internet and related services. It will also tie up the industry in a very uncertain time and cause all types of litigation. So when I said before and misquoted on the fact that it would not hurt our investment, I was talking about 2015. But if this piece of Title II was to pass, I can absolutely assure you it would certainly change the way we then view our investment in our networks."

Verizon says allegations calling company two-faced are “frivolous… histrionics”

Verizon is urging the Federal Communications Commission to reject a call for an investigation into statements it has made on utility rules, network neutrality, and its fiber network.

Verizon was accused of "deceiv[ing] the FCC" by telecom analyst Bruce Kushnick of New Networks Institute and audit director Tom Allibone of telecom customer advocacy group Teletruth. Verizon has used its status as a telephone utility to gain favorable government treatment of its fiber network even while telling the FCC that applying similar rules to Internet service would deter private investment. Verizon concluded its response to the FCC by saying, "Verizon’s position is and has been consistent throughout the inception of its fiber deployment and NNI’s frivolous Petition should be denied outright."

American Cable Association: Higher Pole Rates Is One Potential Title II Hit

In a letter to the Federal Communications Commission, American Cable Association President Matt Polka said that if the FCC does reclassify broadband access under Title II regulations, which ACA opposes, that should not translate into higher pole-attachment rates, especially for the smaller and medium-sized operators that ACA represents. If not, Internet service providers will start having to pay the higher telecom rate, which Polka points out would raise the cost of broadband to consumers and discourage investment, two things the FCC does not want to do as it promotes universal adoption of broadband.

Changes to RUS Broadband Loan Program Include Rural Gigabit Pilot

When President Barack Obama spoke about reforms to the Department of Agriculture Rural Utilities Service broadband loan program, he was referencing changes adopted in the 2014 Farm Bill.

Although the changes have received little publicity, they include a new definition of eligible service areas, a new minimum acceptable level of broadband service for projects receiving loan funding and plans for a rural gigabit pilot program. While eligible service areas previously included those with at least 25 percent of homes underserved, the new requirement is for 15 percent of homes to be unserved. Also, an important budget development is the authorization of $10 million annually through 2018 for a Rural Gigabit Network Pilot Program. Funding will be awarded to network operators for areas that do not currently have ultra-high-speed broadband, and recipients will have up to three years for their deployments.

Benton

Search