1. Monthly archive
  2. December 2015

December 2015

Benton Foundation Submits Broadband Reports Into Lifeline Record

The Benton Foundation filed a letter on December 21, 2015, asking the Federal Communications Commission to introduce into the Lifeline reform record reports on broadband adoption. The reports are:

  • Rhinesmith, Colin. “Digital Inclusion and Meaningful Broadband Adoption.” Evanston, IL: Benton Foundation, December 2015.
  • Haight, Michael and Anabel Quan-Haase. “Digital Inclusion Project: Findings and Implications, A Canadian Perspective.” Evanston, IL: Benton Foundation, December 2015.
  • Whiteacre, B., & Rhinesmith, C Broadband un-adopters. Telecommunications Policy (2015),
  • Horrigan, John. B., Duggan, M. “Home Broadband 2015” Pew Research Center, December 2015.

China passes anti-terrorism bill that worried tech

Lawmakers in China passed an anti-terrorism law on Dec 27 that drew concern from tech companies and President Barack Obama as it was being considered. The law requires technology companies to provide Chinese authorities with technical assistance and help with decryption. Critics had said that the draft version of the law used a recklessly broad definition of terrorism, gave the government new censorship powers and authorized state access to sensitive commercial data. The government argued that the measures were needed to prevent terrorist attacks. Opponents countered that the new powers could be abused to monitor peaceful citizens and steal technological secrets. In the end, the approved law published by state media dropped demands in the draft version that would have required Internet companies and other technology suppliers to hand over encryption codes and other sensitive data for official vetting before they went into use.

American tech companies objected that the law would force them to divulge secrets central to their businesses if they wanted to operate in China. President Obama himself has raised concerns about the growing number of regulations in China aimed at tech companies. He said of the draft anti-terrorism bill in March that his administration has “made it very clear to [the Chinese government] that this is something they are going to have to change if they are to do business with the United States."

Lack of broadband can be a key obstacle, especially for job seekers

People without broadband at home can face substantial challenges navigating key life events, with difficulties looking for work or applying for a job among the most prominent. Despite a number of state and federal initiatives promoting increased broadband adoption, a significant share of US adults (33 percent) say that they still do not subscribe to high-speed Internet service. Pew Research Center surveys have found that Americans view trouble in finding work or advancing one’s career as the most significant impediment facing those without broadband. Some 52 percent of Americans believe that those without broadband service at home are at a “major disadvantage” when it comes to finding out about job opportunities or gaining new career skills.

Non-broadband adopters can also face substantial challenges engaging in a number of digital job-seeking activities. For instance, 37 percent of non-broadband adopters indicate that it would not be easy for them to create a professional resume if they needed to do so; 30 percent would find it difficult to contact an employer via e-mail, or fill out an online job application; and 27 percent would have a hard time finding online lists of available jobs in their area.

Stopping Terrorists From ‘Going Dark’

[Commentary] While the terrorist attacks in Paris, San Bernardino (CA), and Garland (TX), have brought discussions about encryption to the front pages, criminals in the US have been using this technology for years to cover their tracks. The time has come for Congress and technology companies to discuss how encryption -- encoding messages to protect their content -- is enabling murderers, pedophiles, drug dealers and, increasingly, terrorists. Technology has outpaced the law. The core statute, the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act, was enacted in 1994, more than a decade before the iPhone existed. The law requires telecommunications carriers -- for instance, phone companies -- to build into their equipment the capability for law enforcement to intercept communications in real time. The problem is that it doesn’t apply to other providers of electronic communications, including those supporting encrypted applications.

I and other lawmakers in Washington would like to work with America’s leading tech companies to solve this problem, but we fear they may balk. When Apple objected to a recent court order in a New York criminal case requiring it to unlock an iPhone running iOS 7 -- an operating system that Apple can unlock -- the company refused, arguing: “This is a matter for Congress to decide.” On that point, Apple and I agree. It’s time to update the law.

China and Russia’s Orwellian attacks on Internet freedom

[Commentary] The week of Dec 14 brought a positively Orwellian moment to the debate about Internet freedom. China President Xi Jinping spoke at a state-organized Internet conference in Wuzhen, in Zhejiang province, where he was once party secretary. President Xi declared, “As in the real world, freedom and order are both necessary in cyberspace.” He added, “Freedom is what order is meant for, and order is the guarantee of freedom.” These slogans are more than just propaganda from the leader of a country with the world’s largest Internet censorship operation. Behind them lurks a dangerous ambition. Russia has been heading in the same direction for several years as President Vladimir Putin attempts to extinguish any serious opposition. The security services in Russia have direct access to the Internet through a physical monitoring system.

China and Russia have both attempted in recent years to nudge global Internet governance toward their misguided “sovereignty” model, so far without a lot of success. But as President Xi’s speech suggests, they haven’t given up. And they won’t. The digital revolution has delivered a truly global information superhighway. This powerful and remarkable invention must not be squandered or put in the hands of those who would use it to stifle free speech, freedom of association and human rights.

A modest response to a real cyberthreat

[Commentary] “Omnibus Funding Bill is a Privacy and Cybersecurity Failure,” the Open Technology Institute declared on Dec. 16 . “Last-Minute Budget Bill Allows New Privacy-Invading Surveillance in the Name of Cybersecurity,” the Intercept blared. Why did Congress, in its massive year-end budget deal, slip in a measure that Gizmodo once called “the worst privacy disaster our country has ever faced”? Because it’s not. The Cybersecurity Act of 2015 is in fact a modest cybersecurity information-sharing law that tech alarmists in need of an outrage have painted as a grave threat to liberty. What these critics often fail to explain clearly is that the law is meant to clear hurdles for companies to share information on cyberthreats with the government -- voluntarily.

Among other things, the critics complain that the measure doesn’t require the government to obtain warrants for the information. That’s nonsensical, because the law does not call for coercive government data collection. The act should be measured “against the daily invasion of our privacy by these hackers,” Rep Adam Schiff (D-CA) said. “Those who believe that [the] perfect should be the enemy of the good have to justify how they’re willing to accept rampant hacking into our privacy and do nothing about it.” We couldn’t agree more.

How does the Cybersecurity Act of 2015 change the Internet surveillance laws?

[Commentary] The Omnibus Appropriations Act that President Barack Obama recently signed into law has a provision called the Cybersecurity Act of 2015. The Cyber Act, as I’ll call it, includes sections about Internet monitoring that modify the Internet surveillance laws. This post details those changes, focusing on how the act broadens powers of network operators to conduct surveillance for cybersecurity purposes.

The upshot: The Cyber Act expands those powers in significant ways, although how far isn’t entirely clear. In short, it seems to me that the new Cyber Act substantially broadens the powers of network operators to monitor and disclose beyond the existing provider exception and trespasser exception. The new language focuses mostly on the purpose of the monitoring and disclosure, with relatively little in place about the scope of monitoring or disclosure (although there is a requirement of scrubbing personal data if known). And it seems to allow monitoring for cybersecurity purposes generally, including outsourcing of that role to others, instead of limiting the exception to monitoring to protect the provider’s own network. With that said, there is a lot that is unclear, especially with regard to what counts as a “cybersecurity purpose.”

[Orin Kerr is the Fred C. Stevenson Research Professor at The George Washington University Law School]

New Facebook service ignites battle over net neutrality in India

The struggle over Free Basics has evolved into a surprisingly bitter contest between Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s goal to spread Internet access across the globe – while recruiting millions more Facebook users – and a diverse collection of Indian activists and entrepreneurs who accuse the company of creating a second-tier Internet service for people who can’t afford to pay for data. It also shows how India has become a battleground for tech giants, including Google and Microsoft, who are grappling for advantage in a country that will soon surpass the US and claim the world’s second highest number of Internet users – with two-thirds of the population yet to be reached.

Free Basics is a pre-selected suite of Internet services for healthcare, education, weather, jobs and communication – including, of course, Facebook – that the company has rolled out in more than 30 emerging markets, including India, in partnership with local telecom companies. Users get those services – which vary by country – for free but must pay for access to other sites and apps outside of Free Basics. That has led to allegations that it hinders consumer choice and violates the net neutrality principle, which requires that Internet providers don’t prioritize traffic to certain websites.

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