1. Monthly archive
  2. July 2017

July 2017

California legislation to ‘protect’ privacy won’t solve privacy problems

[Commentary] Despite its name, the California Broadband Internet Privacy Act, awaiting votes in the state Senate, won’t do anything meaningful to protect consumer privacy on line. Instead, it will curb innovation and reduce competition, hurting consumers whose interests it purports to protect.

The measure, AB 375 by Assemblyman Ed Chau (D-Monterey Park), is intended to crack down on internet service providers that are allegedly selling sensitive personal web browsing information without consumers’ consent. Its backers argue that it will fill a supposed “privacy gap” left when Congress repealed Federal Communications Commission draft rules adopted during Barack Obama’s administration. Here’s why they’re wrong. First, the proposal attacks a nonexistent problem. Internet service providers have committed that they will seek permission from consumers before using sensitive personal information, such as health and financial data. Customers will have to affirmatively “opt in” before any such transaction could take place. So no one’s personal data is being sold. Second, even if a problem exists, there are legal tools to combat it. In short, there is no legislative privacy gap. Third, the state bill is based on a flawed proposal by the FCC. Don’t take my word for it. Ask America’s top privacy cop, the FTC.

[Jon Leibowitz, a partner at Davis Polk & Wardwell, was Federal Trade Commission chair from 2009-2013. He is co-chair of the 21st Century Privacy Coalition, a trade group of broadband providers.]

President Trump's FCC Chief Has Failed to Justify His Campaign Against Net Neutrality

On July 17, Free Press submitted comments to the Federal Communications Commission, demonstrating once again that the 2015 decision to base Net Neutrality rules on Title II got it exactly right. The 2015 Open Internet Order ushered in an era of broadband investment and internet innovation while giving users assurances that their service providers will not block, throttle or discriminate against their online communications.

Free Press Policy Director Matt Wood said, “Chairman Ajit Pai’s allegiance to the broadband industry is so great that he has continued to ignore the overwhelming evidence and political forces arrayed against him. The Net Neutrality rules and their Title II framework are working beautifully. Proof of that is everywhere, from the ISPs’ increases in investment and profits to the astounding levels of innovation from companies that use the internet to reach their customers. Phone and cable ISP profits are not the only thing at stake here, though they seem foremost in Pai’s mind. But the fact is that along with their finances, these broadband providers’ service speeds are also on the rise. Companies like AT&T, which industry lobbyists falsely paint as a victim of Title II’s fictional harms, have taken advantage of technological upgrades to deploy faster speeds while spending less than they used to. But don’t take our word for it: AT&T’s own CEO has bragged repeatedly about how it continues to get cheaper-to-deploy fiber and build out the company’s wireless networks."

Consumers Union Files Comments Urging FCC to Abandon Efforts to Repeal Net Neutrality

Consumers Union, the policy and mobilization arm of Consumer Reports, once again urged the Federal Communications Commission to abandon efforts to unravel popular network neutrality rules. In comments filed with the agency, the consumer group outlined why the 2015 Open Internet Order should remain intact to ensure consumers have unfettered access to the internet.

Jonathan Schwantes, senior policy counsel for Consumers Union, said, “We do not support the goals of the FCC’s proposal to undermine the legal authority or repeal the net neutrality rules necessary to ensure an open internet. Moreover, the proposal’s arguments in favor of their repeal are simply unpersuasive, especially when considering ISPs have been caught doing the very things these rules now prohibit, including throttling and exploring paid prioritization. Treating ISPs as common carriers under Title II provides the proper legal foundation on which to for the Commission to base the net neutrality rules—rules essential to protecting consumers’ ability to access an open internet without anti-competitive interference from their ISP. These rules are working and serve consumers well, which is why the Commission needs to abandon its efforts to rollback both the net neutrality rules contained in the Open Internet Order.”

Why were Facebook, Google, and Amazon so quiet about net neutrality?

[Commentary] In the weeks leading up to July 12's day of protest over network neutrality in the US, big tech names signed on to join the fight to keep it. Among them were some of the biggest names on the internet, including Amazon, Google, and Facebook, all of which have a vested business interest in all Americans being able to access their sites quickly and frequently. But those sites did not go dark July 12. They didn’t slow down in an effort to mimic what life might be like for some were net neutrality to end.

Instead, they mostly pointed users to other, pro-net neutrality pages. Ultimately, the fight over net neutrality is about who controls the internet: users or major corporations. In that regard, there is only a degree of difference between the 20th century giants of the telecommunications sector and the those of 21st century Silicon Valley. It’s not too difficult a leap to make from wondering why your online access shouldn’t be free from walls erected by your cable company, to wondering equally why your online access shouldn’t also be free from limitations created by a social media platform, search engine, or e-commerce behemoth.

The White House is trying to kill the daily press briefing

[Commentary] On June 29, White House deputy press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders held an on-camera press briefing. The White House hasn't done one since. That's more than 2 weeks on the calendar -- and 12 work days. That's bad. 12 days. Zero on-camera briefings. This is not an accident. What the White House is doing is working to kill off the daily press briefing -- a ritual that has long functioned as the best (and often only) way for reporters to get the White House on record and on video about various issues affecting the country and the world. And even in the increasingly common off-camera briefings -- which were a very occasional occurrence in past White Houses -- Sanders and White House press secretary Sean Spicer appear to be working hard to be, at best, unhelpful and, at worst, openly misleading.

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