The Obama Administration received court reauthorization for a controversial National Security Agency surveillance program, weeks before a legal deadline will force Congress to act.
The government filed a request with the secretive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to renew the NSA’s bulk collection of Americans’ phone records, as it must do every 90 days to keep the program active. The current approval will be the final one before the portion of the Patriot Act undergirding the contested program expires. By June 1, Congress either needs to reauthorize the existing law, replace it or allow the program to expire — which officials say would badly damage national security. “Congress has a limited window before the June 1 sunset to enact legislation that would implement the president’s proposed path forward for the telephony metadata program, while preserving key intelligence authorities,” White House press secretary Josh Earnest said. “The Administration continues to stand ready to work with the Congress on such legislation and would welcome the opportunity to do so.” “Given that legislation has not yet been enacted, and given the importance of maintaining the capabilities of the telephony metadata program, the government has sought a reauthorization of the existing program, as modified by the changes the president directed [last] January,” the Justice Department and Office of the Director of National Intelligence said.
Online activists played a significant role in the vote to regulate broadband Internet service as a utility. And even before the vote, outside the headquarters of the Federal Communications Commission, they started taking a bow.
Grassroots advocacy groups began gathering outside the building more than four hours before the 1 p.m. vote, greeting each other with preemptive congratulations while staking silhouettes of black cats into the ground as a playful nod to Internet cat memes. The cats wore orange stickers that read “Save the Internet.” “We have been out here pretty much every month — in rain, sleet and now snow,” said Craig Aaron, president and chief executive of Free Press.
When telecom and tech leaders convene in Barcelona for Mobile World Congress, one topic will rise above the rest: regulation. Around the world, governments have different approaches to rule-making around the issue of network neutrality -- the idea that all traffic be treated equally -- a critical issue for mobile-device makers, telecom network providers and content distributors.
FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler will give a live keynote address at the annual conference on March 3. It will be his first public appearance at an industry gathering after the landmark vote on network neutrality. At Mobile World Congress, Wheeler’s comments will be closely followed by global counterparts from other countries who are looking to develop their own set of rules. And the stronger Internet regulation in the US may spare other policy makers -- particularly those in Europe -- from US criticism. “Europe wants to use increased regulation as an excuse to regulate,” said Rajeev Chand, a managing director at boutique investment bank Rutberg & Co. “The top-line message is that Obama is regulating.”
[Commentary] It is almost impossible to imagine life without a cellphone. But imagining life without a cellphone bill is getting a lot easier. If millions of TV watchers are making do with a money-saving patchwork of online shows, over-the-air broadcasts and services like Netflix how long will it be before wireless subscribers decide they can get by making calls with Google Voice, sending texts via WhatsApp and asking for the Wi-Fi password every time they enter a bar? The question isn’t theoretical.
Dear Headlines Reader –
We’re redesigning our Information Services and website for our 35th Anniversary in 2016. We’d love to get your input on how we can better serve your needs. Please take a few minutes now to complete this survey before we start tabulating results.
Thank you for your time,
Kevin Taglang
Executive Editor
**Of course, we will not rent, sell, or give the information you provide to anyone else. **
The Obama Administration released a draft of legislation that would make it easier for consumers to see or remove the personal data that companies keep. The Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights Act of 2015 would address the large amounts of data that companies can collect from customers -- whether it's used internally, analyzed by advertisers, or sold to a third-party aggregator. It would require companies to provide "concise and easily understandable" explanations of how data will be used, as well as options for customers to see, correct, or remove information.
Specifically, this covers information like names, addresses, social security or passport numbers, fingerprints, or credit card numbers; it does not cover "de-anonymized" data that theoretically couldn't be traced back to a specific person, or information involved in identifying a cybersecurity problem, as long as companies make "reasonable efforts" to remove identifying information. Companies have to make clear what information is collected, who it will be shared with, when and if it will be destroyed, how it's kept secure, and how customers can see or remove it. Companies are also required to take "reasonable steps" to mitigate privacy risks and make them clear to users, and the FTC will need to establish rules for privacy reviews. If a company violates the terms of the act, it's subject to lawsuits from the FTC, users, and state attorneys general. The bill creates exemptions for small operators, including people who process data for 10,000 or fewer people a year or have no more than five employees, which the White House says can ease the burden for small businesses.
The Department of Education released model terms of service guidance and a training video aimed at helping schools and districts protect student privacy while using online educational services and applications. The guidance offers examples of terms of service provisions to help school officials identify which online educational services and applications have strong privacy and data security policies and practices.
Among the recommendations:
The Federal Communications Commission is no stranger to controversial issues -- remember the ruckus over the Janet Jackson Super Bowl halftime show? But network neutrality has taken things to a new level, and that has people wondering if the agency is politicized beyond repair.
That hostility was on full display Feb 26 as the commission voted 3-2 to approve sweeping net-neutrality regulations to ensure all Internet traffic is treated equally. The three Democratic commissioners celebrated an action that they said would protect Internet freedom, and the two Republicans accused their colleagues of seizing control of the Internet. "I do think it is more polarized than I've ever seen," said Robert McDowell, a Republican who served as an FCC commissioner from 2006 to 2013. "Having said that, if we're judging it purely from today, that probably skews the emotion of the moment." According to Harold Feld, the senior vice president of Public Knowledge and a net-neutrality advocate, the real culprit behind the nastier tone of FCC debates is not President Obama, but FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai. "Pai has been a man of hyperbolic hysterics as a way of driving the agenda since he got there," Feld said. "When you have a bully, it's not like you have a problem with the school yard -- you have a bully," he added.
The National Association of Broadcasters has told the Federal Communications Commission that it should not try to reclaim more spectrum in smaller markets than large for the incentive auction because that could "wipe out" the translator services that help full-power station signals, particularly in Western states, reach remote areas.
In a meeting with FCC Commissioner Mignon Clyburn and staffers, and with staffers of Commissioner Michael O'Rielly, NAB said that "under no circumstances should the FCC adopt a [variable band] plan where it would repurpose more spectrum in rural America -- where there is an excess supply of spectrum for mobile broadband -- than in major urban areas, such as New York and Los Angeles." Translators, like most full powers, are not protected in the FCC's repack of stations after the auction. NAB says that many markets out West are too large to reach without translators. NAB pointed out that wireless operators also have trouble with a variable band plan."[G]iven the very real harm that the proposed variable band plan will create by displacing translators," NAB argued that the commission should take its cue from the AWS-3 auction, which it called a "triumph of simplicity, offering a nationwide plan with clean, unimpaired licenses." The FCC has said it may need to repack some TV stations into the wireless portion of the band.
[Commentary] The Federal Communications Commission got it right on "net neutrality." And so did countless progressive, people-powered groups, such as Color of Change, an online community (which I helped to found) dedicated to bringing about positive change for African-Americans. Ditto for tiny, grassroots dynamos like Oakland's Center for Media Justice, led by Malkia Cyril. You know who got it dead, dead wrong? As much as it pains me to say it: Far too many of our old-school civil rights organizations.
Internet service providers like Verizon and Comcast stood to make a killing from blocking this change. But what is shocking is that some trusted civil rights organizations -- including the National Urban League, NAACP, and Rainbow Push -- actively helped the ISPs make their case. Worst of all, it was a completely avoidable error. They should have known that the argument that large ISPs would expand access to under-served communities if they enjoyed higher profit margins was out of line with history and common sense. It was essentially "trickle-down dial-up," and you would not expect civil rights leadership to fall for it. The one hope is that it is not too late. Republicans and ISPs have given no indication that they will stop fighting or cease seeking to relitigate this battle. They will undoubtedly be eager to use civil rights groups as cover. In other words, some of the legacy civil rights groups got it wrong. But it is not too late for them to get on the right side of history.
© 1994-2024 Benton Institute for Broadband & Society. All Rights Reserved.
