1. Monthly archive
  2. May 2015

May 2015

State Department plans to release Hillary Clinton's e-mails in January 2016

The State Department is proposing a deadline of January 2016 to complete its review and public release of 55,000 pages of e-mails former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton exchanged on a private server and turned over to her former agency last December. The proposal came in a document related to a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit Vice News filed in January seeking all of Clinton’s e-mails. “The Department’s plan … would result in its review being completed by the end of the year. To factor in the holidays, however, the Department would ask the Court to adopt a proposed completion date of January 15, 2016,” State’s acting director of Information Programs and Services John Hackett said in a declaration filed in US District Court in Washington.

“The Department understands the considerable public’s [sic] interest in these records and is endeavoring to complete the review and production of them as expeditiously as possible. The collection is, however, voluminous and, due to the breadth of topics, the nature of the communications, and the interests of several agencies, presents several challenges,” Hackett added.

Uh, you probably don’t want to tweet to @POTUS, actually

Twitter, at first glance, is a magical fantasy land -- a utopia where any old egg can freely converse with presidents, pop stars and kings. It is the great democratizer; the global water cooler; the one place where you can say anything to anyone and know it’ll be okay. Consider this your monthly reminder that this is actually NOT the case: On the modern Internet, impressions of anonymity and ephemerality are, well … usually fake. Case in point? After Barack Obama belatedly joined Twitter on May 18 -- in his official, presidential capacity -- dozens of Twitter denizens began tweeting him sex jokes, threats and other unprintable inanities. But the joke’s actually on them: Not only does the Secret Service already monitor Twitter for threats, but the White House is archiving each and every thing @POTUS tweeters say.

Ashley Feinberg flagged this relevant piece of the White House Online Privacy Policy: "On Twitter, the White House automatically archives “tweets” from official White House accounts, “direct messages” sent to or from official White House accounts, and “mentions” (tweets from other users to official White House account)..." In other words, when you tweet “leave Michelle for me @POTUS,” or something even more inappropriate/creepy, that lives in an official White House Archive for eternity (slash, for potential future scrutiny).

NSA data collection needs mending, not ending

[Commentary] Sen Rand Paul (R-KY) isn’t worried that, absent a Senate vote, key provisions of the Patriot Act are slated to sunset on May 31. The GOP Presidential hopeful told “Meet the Press” on May 17 that a federal appeals court found the data-gathering authorized under the Patriot Act’s Section 215 is unconstitutional -- “so it really ought to stop. I don’t want to replace it with another system. I really think we could get along with the Constitution just fine.” Sen Paul spoke to the same effect during a recent trip to San Francisco (CA). He even has threatened a filibuster, if needed, to make the Patriot Act’s data collection program go dark. That’s just crazy talk.

In his book, “The Great War of Our Times,” former CIA Deputy Director Michael Morell addresses the “skyrocketing rise in the threat of small-scale attacks” abetted by emerging al Qaeda-inspired groups that are gaining a foothold in foreign lands. (Think al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan in 2001.) One need look no further than the armed attackers stopped at the “draw Muhammad contest” in Garland (TX) to see the approach is working. This is absolutely the worst time to allow any mischief to undermine US intelligence. It’s a conceit among NSA critics that voters would be outraged if they only knew what the government was doing. But I think the American people know what intelligence officials are doing, and why.

[Debra Saunders is a San Francisco Chronicle columnist]

The US and a spiral of cyberfear

[Commentary] With little fanfare, the Pentagon went public in April on how the United States might respond to a cyberattack, such as the digital shutdown of its electricity grid. The military would go on the offensive and disrupt an attacker’s own key networks. Anyone whose personal computer has been hacked or credit-card numbers stolen might quickly agree with this strategy of deterrence. The aim is to threaten a major counterattack in hopes of preventing an attack in the first place. The idea is similar to mutual assured destruction -- or MAD -- the approach used by the US and Soviet Union during the cold war to justify building up their offensive nuclear weapons. The Pentagon’s new transparency on its offensive capability was done on purpose. “We think it’s important that potential adversaries out there know that this is part of our strategy,” Adm. Michael Rogers, head of the US Cyber Command as well as the National Security Agency, said May 12. He describes the strategy’s warning as “you don’t want [to] go down this road and if you do, you need to know there is a price to pay.”

At the same time, however, the US has been on a diplomatic campaign to establish global norms among nations and companies about good cyber behavior. It seeks to promote self-restraint more than international regulations to prevent cyber conflicts. Unlike military weapons, the Internet and other digital domains are too complex and fluid for rigorous controls. A country might use a shadowy surrogate to launch an attack, for example, making it difficult to assign responsibility. Before the US triggers an arms race in cyberweapons, it ought to rethink this strategy and focus more on strictly defensive steps and on its effort to deepen peaceful norms in cyberspace. The digital world’s positive traits are a source of strength against those who would use it for an attack. Why start a spiral of fear, especially if the fear itself is inflated?

How Virtual Reality Could Revolutionize Ads in the Sports Industry

From front row views during fashion week runways to 360-degree city tours, virtual reality is revolutionizing the way consumers experience video content. And, thanks to die-hard fans who can't get enough of their favorite teams, the technology is especially poised to benefit the sports industry as it develops into a polished medium. But it's not just viewers getting in on the game. Brad Allen, executive chairman of NextVR, explained the technology can present new ad opportunities including sponsored camera angles you can't even get from your stadium seat. It also opens up ways for brands to get in front of the eyeballs they desire -- literally.

"We know where you're looking, what you're seeing and what you're focusing on," Allen explained. "It could influence where you put the advertising or project things." For example, NextVR created a viewing heat map for the pre-season Miami Heat, Cleveland Cavaliers basketball game in Rio De Janeiro in October. It noticed the highest concentrations of red -- where people were most focused -- were around where LeBron James was on the court. Theoretically, Allen said, advertisers could use this knowledge to buy that specific space and then insert a digital ad. With analysts predicting 12.2 million sets to be sold in 2016, the medium is quickly becoming mainstream. Advertisers, programmers and fans will all be watching, virtually and practically.

AT&T CEO confident Title II will be overturned by courts or Congress

AT&T CEO Randall Stephenson last November claimed he would pause the company's fiber investments because of the impending broadband reclassification and imposition of network neutrality rules. "We can't go out and invest that kind of money deploying fiber to 100 cities not knowing under what rules those investments will be governed," Stephenson said at the time. But now that the Federal Communications Commission has reclassified broadband providers as common carriers and used its Title II authority to impose net neutrality rules, Stephenson says AT&T is confident that it can keep investing. It's not because AT&T agrees with the rules, as the company has sued to overturn them.

Instead, Stephenson said he is confident that either the courts or Congress will overturn or heavily alter the FCC's decision. "The exact comment I made was we're going to put a pause on our new broadband deployment plans until we see how these rules came out," Stephenson said. "We have seen how the rules came out. As we read those rules, we do believe they're subject to modification by the courts and remand by the courts to the FCC." AT&T is continuing with its investments as planned, he said. "Based on our reading of the Title II order that came out, we're operating and we're investing under the scenario that these rules will probably be changed," he said. "We don’t think this rulemaking is sustainable from a legal standpoint, but the courts will decide that. But irrespective, the Congress seems inclined to make a change here so we really think these rules will be modified to a format that will be conducive to investment in the long haul."

TV Power Shifts From Network Business to Content Ownership

The transformation of the “TV business” into the “content business” has accelerated to a gallop, forcing the industry to face the harsh realities of trying to run a traditional network in an on-demand world. The signs of upheaval were impossible to miss as the major networks closed out upfront season with 2015-16 schedule presentations that emphasized how much they recognize that there’s no such thing as a status quo anymore. “The erratic schedules of the past just don’t work anymore,” Fox TV Group chair Dana Walden told the crowd in her first upfront presentation as head of programming. Her partner atop Fox, Gary Newman, vowed that Fox would redouble its efforts to “market (shows) relentlessly and create events that break through and captivate viewers across every platform.”

The sense of urgency emphasized onstage comes at a time when the traditional economic model for broadcast and cable outlets could be charitably described as under siege. The advertising market is in a state of upheaval that shows no signs of settling down. “Day­parts are dead” as an organizing principle for ad buys, Turner Broadcasting ad sales chief Donna Speciale declared at the cable network’s presentation, acknowledging one of myriad ways that business norms are changing for ad buyers and sellers. Moreover, live television viewing is dwindling to levels that alarm most showbiz CEOs. Younger viewers are spending more time with smartphones and tablets, and less time glued to linear TV channels. The virtual disappearance of reruns in primetime has hiked programming costs for networks while wiping out a once-bankable source of income for writers, actors and directors. And the competition for original series has spread so far and wide that the talent pool of creatives is stretched perilously thin. Just ask any network that has opted to reboot an old movie or TV series after a frustrated search for promising new material.

May 19, 2015 (Lifeline Where Did It Come From?/Where Is It Going?)

BENTON'S COMMUNICATIONS-RELATED HEADLINES for TUESDAY, MAY 19, 2015

Check Out Upcoming Events On Our Calendar: https://www.benton.org/calendar

LIFELINE
   Lifeline -- Where Did It Come From? - Digital Beat Blog
   Lifeline – Where Is It Going? A Community Perspective - Digital Beat Blog

PRIVACY/SECURITY
   The Senate Is About to Decide the Future of NSA Spying
   Time crunch pushes Senate to edge of surveillance cliff [links to web]
   Privacy promises and bankruptcy: The latest letter - FTC press release [links to web]
   Facebook's Internet.org accused of creating insecure Web [links to web]
   Telecom, Cable Home Security: Report Sees “Serious Dislocation” Coming [links to web]
   Tech giants don’t want President Obama to give police access to encrypted phone data [links to web]

INTERNET/BROADBAND
   North Carolina sues FCC for right to block municipal broadband
   AT&T’s ‘GigaPower’ Plays Nashville [links to web]
   AT&T's Stephenson: Google Fiber 'changed the game' for broadband buildout, but Title II rules could stall efforts [links to web]
   If you could print out the whole Internet, how many pages would it be? [links to web]
   Graphing broadband adoption around the world - AEI op-ed [links to web]

NETWORK NEUTRALITY
   Ad-blocking technology poised to make mobile Net less neutral - Jon Healey editorial
   Bait-and-Switch -- Or Why the FCC's 'Virtuous Circle' Theory is Nonsense - Phoenix Center op-ed

TELEVISION
   NAB: Forced Spectrum March Would Be Illegal
   Cable companies could escape local rate regulation under FCC proposal [links to web]
   NAB's Smith: We Want Successful Auction 'In Rearview Mirror' [links to web]

CONTENT
   YouTube's toddler app full of disturbing videos, say child advocates who want FTC to investigate
   Over-the-Top Providers May Be Missing Key Revenues [links to web]
   Snapchat and Periscope: A Grown-Up’s Guide - analysis [links to web]
   Why the New York Times and other papers had to partner with Facebook - op-ed [links to web]

TELECOMMUNICATIONS
   Verizon's New Jersey legacy phone services poised for deregulation [links to web]

WIRELESS/SPECTRUM
   NAB: Forced Spectrum March Would Be Illegal

   Another Thing to Never Settle for: Rigged Spectrum Auctions - press release [links to web]
   Google touts Spectrum Access System for 3.5 GHz spectrum management [links to web]
   Will a Scramble for Airwaves Dent Talking Cars? [links to web]

EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS
   FirstNet deems 'Industry Day' a success as financial challenges loom - press release [links to web]

OWNERSHIP
   Charter and Bright House Pursuing Merger Even After Comcast’s Failed Deal [links to web]
   AT&T CEO: No DirecTV merger call this week
   DirecTV, AT&T Extend Merger Termination Date [links to web]

COURT CASE
   Controversial 'Innocence of Muslims' Ruling Reversed By Appeals Court
   Samsung gets partial victory over Apple in iPhone patents case appeal

GOVERNMENT & COMMUNICATIONS
   Introducing @POTUS: President Obama's Twitter Account - White House press release [links to web]
   Economic Innovation Group bolsters lobbying power [links to web]
   Apple CEO warns against ‘cynicism’ in Washington - Apple CEO speech [links to web]

ELECTIONS & MEDIA
   Hillary Clinton was paid millions by tech industry for speeches [links to web]
   Snapchat is going to be huge in 2016 -- and regulators have no idea how to handle it
   Snapchat and Periscope: A Grown-Up’s Guide - analysis [links to web]

STORIES FROM ABROAD
   UK government quietly rewrites hacking laws to give GCHQ immunity
   Graphing broadband adoption around the world - AEI op-ed [links to web]

back to top

LIFELINE

LIFELINE -- WHERE DID IT COME FROM?
[SOURCE: Benton Foundation, AUTHOR: Andrew Jay Schwartzman]
[Commentary] Lifeline telecommunications services have long generated controversy, but over the last few years, critics have been especially vociferous, railing against what they have termed “Obamaphones,” wireless phones with modest free service allotments provided to low income users. (As discussed below, and as this snopes.com explainer says, the term is a misnomer in that the Lifeline program dates to the 1980's and it was expanded to wireless during the George W. Bush Administration.) In the coming weeks, the Federal Communications Commission will likely launch a proceeding considering a number of changes to its Lifeline Assistance program (Lifeline), including an expansion of its coverage to broadband services. Therefore, this is a good time to review the history and legal underpinnings of Lifeline, and how the “Obamaphone” came into being.
benton.org/headlines/lifeline-where-did-it-come | Benton Foundation
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top


LIFELINE – WHERE IS IT GOING?
[SOURCE: Benton Foundation, AUTHOR: Angela Siefer]
[Commentary] The National Digital Inclusion Alliance is comprised of local community organizations, public libraries and other institutions that are working hard to increase broadband access and digital skills among our neighbors. To improve the daily lives of all community members, we call for public policies for digital inclusion that reflect what we've learned from experience. We offer this expertise to the Federal Communications Commission to aid the reform and modernization of Lifeline. The Internet is a tool that many of us use every day – to work, to locate information, to correspond, to shop, and to play. In the bigger picture, the Internet is a tool that can help us to achieve things like strengthening our communities, creating more responsive and efficient government, and keeping our economy moving. Civic participation, education, health care delivery, economic growth, worker training, and public safety are all among the key national purposes that Congress, in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, said broadband should support.
[Angela Siefer is the Director of the newly formed National Digital Inclusion Alliance, a unified voice for local technology training, home broadband access and public broadband access programs.]
https://www.benton.org/blog/lifeline-where-it-going-community-perspective
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

PRIVACY/SECURITY

THE SENATE IS ABOUT TO DECIDE THE FUTURE OF NSA SPYING
[SOURCE: National Journal, AUTHOR: Dustin Volz]
Will Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) be moved? That's the question the Senate is asking itself as it enters its last legislative week before key provisions that authorize some of the government's sweeping domestic surveillance powers are due to lapse at the end of May. And if May 17 is any indication, the answer is clear: No, not a chance. "This has been a very important part of our effort to defend the homeland since 9/11," Majority Leader McConnell said on ABC's This Week. "We know that the terrorists overseas are trying to recruit people in our country, to commit atrocities in our country. You saw a great example of just what I'm talking about in the Boston Marathon massacre. I don't want us to go dark, in effect." Majority Leader McConnell hasn't flinched from his position that a full reauthorization of the Patriot Act's three expiring spy provisions -- including Section 215, the legal edifice the National Security Agency uses to justify its bulk collection of US call data -- is necessary to keep Americans safe and thwart terrorist plots. Majority Leader McConnell's intransigence has been unbowed despite an apparent groundswell of support over the past month in favor of NSA reform.
benton.org/headlines/senate-about-decide-future-nsa-spying | National Journal
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

INTERNET/BROADBAND

NORTH CAROLINA SUES FCC FOR RIGHT TO BLOCK MUNICIPAL BROADBAND
[SOURCE: ars technica, AUTHOR: Jon Brodkin]
North Carolina has sued the Federal Communications Commission so it can continue enforcing a state law that prevents municipal broadband networks from expanding. Three months ago, the FCC preempted such laws in both North Carolina and Tennessee. Tennessee filed a lawsuit to save its municipal broadband restrictions in March, and North Carolina has now done the same in a petition filed to the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. "Despite recognition that the State of North Carolina creates and retains control over municipal governments, the FCC unlawfully inserted itself between the State and the State’s political subdivisions," North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper wrote to the court. Attorney General Cooper claimed the FCC's action violates the US Constitution; exceeds the commission's authority; "is arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of discretion within the meaning of the Administrative Procedure Act; and is otherwise contrary to law."
benton.org/headlines/north-carolina-sues-fcc-right-block-municipal-broadband | Ars Technica
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

NET NEUTRALITY

SHINE AND NETWORK NEUTRALITY
[SOURCE: Los Angeles Times, AUTHOR: Jon Healey]
[Commentary] Having trouble seeing the link between the Verizon-AOL deal and the need for net neutrality regulations? Some new reporting by the Financial Times should help clear things up for you. The FT's Robert Cookson revealed that at least one major European mobile network is planning to use technology from Shine, an Israeli startup, to block ads from showing up on mobile-phone browsers. The technology can stop ads on web pages and most apps transmitted through the cellular network. The idea is remarkably anti-competitive, not to mention disruptive to a key business model for free content online. One can only imagine the conversations between a mobile-phone operator using Shine's ad-blocking technology and a major brand or online advertising network: "That's a real nice display ad you've got there. I'd hate to see anything bad happen to it on my network." Verizon and every other major ISP is challenging the neutrality rules in court, arguing among other things that the Federal Communications Commission exceeded its statutory authority. The courts will eventually decide if it did. In the meantime, the evidence mounts that ISPs may no longer be content to deliver content to their subscribers without making their mark on it.
benton.org/headlines/ad-blocking-technology-poised-make-mobile-net-less-neutral | Los Angeles Times
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top


BAIT-AND-SWITCH -- OR WHY THE FCC'S 'VIRTUOUS CIRCLE' THEORY IS NONSENSE
[SOURCE: Bloomberg, AUTHOR: Dr George Ford]
[Commentary] For the past ten years, the Federal Communications Commission has struggled to write legally-defensible net neutrality rules. This March, under heavy political pressure from the White House, the FCC voted out another set of rules, this time invoking the proverbial ‘‘nuclear option’’ of reclassifying both wire-line and wireless broadband Internet access as a Title II common carrier telecommunications service. As to be expected, the appeals process (for the third time) is now underway in earnest. While the various legal infirmities of the FCC’s arguments are well-documented, absent from the discussion has been any analysis of the Commission’s central economic justification for its radical intervention into the market -- namely, the Commission’s theory of a ‘‘virtuous circle’’ or ‘‘virtuous cycle’’ of investment. As I show below, while many take the Commission’s ‘‘virtuous circle’’ theory as accepted Gospel, the truth is that the Commission, in fact, adopted what I would describe as an ‘‘un-vituous circle’’ theory of investment under which profit-maximizing firms will do things willingly and knowingly to reduce the demand for their products, which will somehow lead to increased profits, which in turn will lead to reduced broadband investment. As the Commission’s logical flow cannot be squared with the plain language of the Commission’s depiction of the "virtuous circle’’ (or likely any plausible economic model either), the Commission’s core economic rationale for imposing Title II regulation on the Internet rests on shaky ground.
[Dr. George S. Ford is a co-founder of the Phoenix Center and currently serves as its Chief Economist]
benton.org/headlines/bait-and-switch-or-why-fccs-virtuous-circle-theory-nonsense | Bloomberg
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

TELEVISION

NAB: FORCED SPECTRUM MARCH WOULD BE ILLEGAL
[SOURCE: Broadcasting&Cable, AUTHOR: John Eggerton]
The National Association of Broadcasters continued to press the Federal Communications Commission not to set a hard 39-month deadline for all stations to move to new channels after the post-incentive auction repack, saying it would be illegal to force them off due to circumstances beyond their control. That came as the FCC circulated an order denying various proposals to reconsider that framework, including one by the Big Four broadcast network affiliate associations (they took the lead on the issue at the FCC while NAB sued parts of the auction in federal court) challenging the deadline and saying it "cannot be squared with the Spectrum Act’s mandate to make all reasonable efforts to protect stations’ coverage areas and populations served." In a meeting with top FCC officials, NAB executive VP and general counsel Rick Kaplan and other NAB executives also pressed their other main point, which is that treating the statutory $1.75 billion in moving expenses as a hard cap rather than a budget will have "a significant effect on broadcasters’ ability to relocate to their new channel assignments." According to an FCC filing outlining the meeting, NAB is arguing that the FCC should plan to clear no more spectrum than it can clear while fully compensating broadcasters for the move.
benton.org/headlines/nab-forced-spectrum-march-would-be-illegal | Broadcasting&Cable | TVNewsCheck
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

CONTENT

YOUTUBE KIDS CONTENT
[SOURCE: San Jose Mercury News, AUTHOR: Matt O’Brien]
Consumer groups compiled a disturbing dossier of the YouTube Kids app's content and will ask the Federal Trade Commission to investigate Google's app for unfair and deceptive business practices, the second such complaint filed since the kid-centric video service launched in February. "The deeper you get into this, the scarier it is in placing children at risk," said Dale Kunkel, a communications professor at the University of Arizona. "I'm astonished at the volume of inappropriate material, much of which will be harmful for kids if they see it." Google said that it works to make the app's videos "as family-friendly as possible" and takes feedback very seriously, removing inappropriate videos flagged by users. In an interview shortly after introducing YouTube Kids, its product manager, Shimrit Ben-Yair, said that the mobile app uses a "two-step process" to select kid-friendly content from the 300 hours of video uploaded to YouTube each minute. The first step is to "algorithmically narrow it down to family-friendly content," she said. The second involves Google employees doing a "manual sampling for quality control, to see if it's family-friendly." But that filter is not working, according to advocates and some parents who wrote reviews on the Google Play and iTunes stores documenting how their children discovered violent, sexually explicit or other jaw-dropping content.
benton.org/headlines/youtubes-toddler-app-full-disturbing-videos-say-child-advocates-who-want-ftc-investigate | San Jose Mercury News | WashPost
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

OWNERSHIP

AT&T CEO: NO DIRECTV MERGER CALL THIS WEEK
[SOURCE: The Hill, AUTHOR: David McCabe]
The CEO of AT&T, Randall Stephenson, said that he doesn’t expect the Federal Communications Commission to announce a decision on the company’s merger with DirecTV the week of May 18. "What’s happened right now as you know is there was a stay request for the Title II rules that was filed last week by the industry and the judge put a pretty tight time horizon on the FCC to respond to that so that’s probably going to take a lot of their attention over the next week or two,” said Stephenson, noting that the deadline for the FCC to respond to the stay request for the network neutrality rules was on May 15. "So there’s not going to be a lot done over the next week on anything other than Title II,” he said.
benton.org/headlines/att-ceo-no-directv-merger-call-week | Hill, The
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

COURT CASE

CONTROVERSIAL 'INNOCENCE OF MUSLIMS' RULING REVERSED BY APPEALS COURT
[SOURCE: Hollywood Reporter, AUTHOR: Eriq Gardner]
On May 18th, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals took another shot at Cindy Lee Garcia's dispute with Google over whether YouTube must remove "Innocence of Muslims" and chose to reverse its prior holding by deciding against a preliminary injunction. The actress claims that when she agreed to appear in the movie, she didn't know that she was signing up for an anti-Islamic film. She says she signed no waivers and held on to the copyright of her performance. After a trailer of the film was released and sparked worldwide protests, Garcia received death threats, and so she sent a takedown notice to YouTube. In February 2014, 9th Circuit chief Judge Alex Kozinski stunned many in the industry by determining that Garcia could assert a copyright interest in her performance in the film and that a federal judge was wrong to find against her injunction motion. The decision caused an outcry, especially among tech companies who worried that the decision could empower bit performers and other contributors to copyrighted work to assert their own authorship rights and enjoin anything they didn't like. Today, after the case was reviewed by a fuller panel of judges en banc, the appeals court agrees that Kozinski's decision can't stand. As a result, "Innocence of Muslims" may soon reappear on YouTube.
benton.org/headlines/controversial-innocence-muslims-ruling-reversed-appeals-court | Hollywood Reporter
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top


SAMSUNG GETS PARTIAL VICTORY OVER APPLE IN IPHONE PATENTS CASE APPEAL
[SOURCE: Los Angeles Times, AUTHOR: Paresh Dave]
The nearly $1 billion awarded to Apple by a jury in a trademark and patent case against Samsung Electronics just got sliced by about 40 percent. An appeals court rejected a big chunk of the $929 million Apple was expecting to receive. By Samsung's estimates, it should now owe only $547 million, though the final judgment will be decided by a lower court. Samsung did violate several patents but did not dilute iPhone design elements that could not be protected under trademark law, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said. Apple had argued that the iPhone’s rectangular design was part of a trade dress, a legal term for design features that communicate who made the product. But features that are functional can’t be protected, and Apple failed to show that the look of the iPhone screen or its shape were not functional, the appeals court found. The jury had also found that Samsung violated several Apple user-interface patents, including pinch-and-zoom gestures. The appellate ruling is a partial victory for Samsung, which had also sought to reduce claims to only profits attributable to the features covered in the infringed patents as opposed to total profits. Apple and Samsung remain the world’s top two smartphone makers but both have been slightly undercut by smaller rivals in the two years since the case was first heard. Apple said in a statement that it was pleased the ruling was only a partial setback. "This case has always been about more than money," Apple stated. "It’s about innovation and the hard work that goes into inventing products that people love, which is hard to put a price on.”
benton.org/headlines/samsung-gets-partial-victory-over-apple-iphone-patents-case-appeal | Los Angeles Times
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

ELECTIONS & MEDIA

SNAPCHAT IS GOING TO BE HUGE IN 2016 -- AND REGULATORS HAVE NO IDEA HOW TO HANDLE IT
[SOURCE: Fusion, AUTHOR: Brett LoGiurato]
As he gears up for a Presidential run, former Gov Martin O’Malley (D-MD) held a conference call with donors and supporters, informing them that he would make some kind of announcement on May 30. He also had a message -- and an exclusive photo -- for his followers on Snapchat. “Stay tuned for May 30th…” he said, referring to the date when he’ll announce whether or not he’ll challenge former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination. O’Malley, who is widely expected to run, is one of a handful of politicians experimenting with Snapchat, a messaging app that has exploded in popularity over the past year. O’Malley’s team has found it useful -- along with the streaming app Periscope -- to engage a broad audience. They’ll post candid photos and videos of O’Malley’s impromptu guitar-playing on the stump, for example. For its part, the Federal Election Commission sounds quite unsure how and if it would attempt to regulate not just Snapchat, but any app. Julia Queen, a spokeswoman for the FEC, said that the commission has “Internet regulations but they don’t specifically cover apps.” The commission has also issued advisory opinions -- which Queen said is “its official response to a question about how federal campaign finance law applies to a specific factual situation” -- on issues arising from text messages and campaigns. The potential challenge here for the FEC, Ryan said, would come in enforcement. If someone wants to break the rules via Snapchat, how would anyone know? “That Snapchats do disappear could present an interesting enforcement challenge for the FEC,” Ryan said. “You can subpoena e-mail. Tweets are public. You can examine archived records. That seemingly would not be the case with Snapchat.”
benton.org/headlines/snapchat-going-be-huge-2016-and-regulators-have-no-idea-how-handle-it | Fusion
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

STORIES FROM ABROAD

UK GOVERNMENT QUIETLY REWRITES HACKING LAWS TO GIVE GCHQ IMMUNITY
[SOURCE: ars technica, AUTHOR: Sebastian Anthony]
The United Kingdom government has quietly passed new legislation that exempts the Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ), police, and other intelligence officers from prosecution for hacking into computers and mobile phones. While major or controversial legislative changes usually go through normal parliamentary process (i.e. democratic debate) before being passed into law, in this case an amendment to the Computer Misuse Act was snuck in under the radar as secondary legislation. According to Privacy International, "It appears no regulators, commissioners responsible for overseeing the intelligence agencies, the Information Commissioner's Office, industry, NGOs or the public were notified or consulted about the proposed legislative changes... There was no public debate." Privacy International also suggests that the change to the law was in direct response to a complaint that it filed in 2014. In May 2014, Privacy International and seven communications providers filed a complaint with the UK Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT), asserting that GCHQ's hacking activities were unlawful under the Computer Misuse Act. On June 6, just a few weeks after the complaint was filed, the UK government introduced the new legislation via the Serious Crime Bill that would allow GCHQ, intelligence officers, and the police to hack without criminal liability. The bill passed into law on March 3 in 2015, and it went into effect on May 3. Privacy International says there was no public debate before the law was enacted, with only a rather one-sided set of stakeholders being consulted (Ministry of Justice, Crown Prosecution Service, Scotland Office, Northern Ireland Office, GCHQ, police, and National Crime Agency).
benton.org/headlines/uk-government-quietly-rewrites-hacking-laws-give-gchq-immunity | Ars Technica
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

Lifeline – Where Is It Going? A Community Perspective

[Commentary] The National Digital Inclusion Alliance is comprised of local community organizations, public libraries and other institutions that are working hard to increase broadband access and digital skills among our neighbors. To improve the daily lives of all community members, we call for public policies for digital inclusion that reflect what we've learned from experience. We offer this expertise to the Federal Communications Commission to aid the reform and modernization of Lifeline. The Internet is a tool that many of us use every day – to work, to locate information, to correspond, to shop, and to play. In the bigger picture, the Internet is a tool that can help us to achieve things like strengthening our communities, creating more responsive and efficient government, and keeping our economy moving. Civic participation, education, health care delivery, economic growth, worker training, and public safety are all among the key national purposes that Congress, in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, said broadband should support.
[Angela Siefer is the Director of the newly formed National Digital Inclusion Alliance, a unified voice for local technology training, home broadband access and public broadband access programs.]

Charter and Bright House Pursuing Merger Even After Comcast’s Failed Deal

Charter Communications is going ahead with its $10.4 billion deal for Bright House Networks, signaling the start of a new push to consolidate the country’s cable operators.

The transaction was previously agreed to in conjunction with Comcast’s proposed takeover of Time Warner Cable, but was contingent on that deal’s completion. After that deal fell apart, Charter and Bright House had an exclusive 30-day negotiating period, which was set to expire this week. The two companies are committed to completing the transaction on the same economic and governance terms as the original agreement, which was announced in March. The companies said they had extended a “good faith negotiating period” for an additional 30 days, which keeps Charter’s options open for longer. The deal is not yet signed, and either party could walk away.

© 1994-2024 Benton Institute for Broadband & Society. All Rights Reserved.