Lauren Frayer

[Commentary] Google wants to educate non-US born entrepreneurs on the best practices of product development and speed up their learning curves. Think of it as strategic philanthropy: In exchange for helping these companies grow, Google gets to scrutinize their books, observe how its own products are being used (or not) in less familiar markets, and spread its gospel to the far reaches of the globe. Eventually, these companies will play an enormous role in getting millions more people to conduct their lives online, and Google will be there as well, ready to scoop up new users.
[Sandra Upson is executive editor of Backchannel.]

[Commentary] Moments after President Donald Trump’s January announcement that Neil Gorsuch was his pick to fill the late Justice Antonin Scalia’s Supreme Court seat, a small nonprofit that most Americans have never heard of launched ConfirmGorsuch.com. Complete with a tender video telling how Gorsuch “ran a paper route, shoveled snow, worked the night shift” before becoming a judge, the site provides biographical material and recorded lectures from Gorsuch The group behind the site, the Judicial Crisis Network (JCN) let it be known that it was playing for keeps, pledging to put $10 million into ad campaigns and social media promotion and hiring multiple lobbyists, all meant to pressure senators into approving Gorsuch for the slot.

But don’t expect to soon learn what wealthy individual, corporation, or even, potentially, foreign entity is providing the cash for this pro-Gorsuch push. JCN, as a 501(c)(4) social welfare organization, can keep its wealthy funders anonymous. Mostly, anyway: The only traceable donors are other 501(c) organizations acting as conduits for the anonymous cash directed at JCN and other groups. New tax returns obtained by the Center for Responsive Politics show that one such donor group, the Wellspring Committee, keeps the Judicial Crisis Network afloat, as it has for years. The filings also show that Wellspring’s own cashflow comes largely from an $8.5 million contribution from a single anonymous donor. In addition to pumping millions of dollars into JCN, the Wellspring Committee began to fund a handful of other nascent organizations — like the 45Committee — that have strong ties to the Trump administration and are boosting the White House’s agenda.

[This post was made by OpenSecrets.org]

The Register of Copyrights Selection and Accountability Act of 2017 was introduced late March 23. The bipartisan bill, co-sponsored by House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) and Ranking Member John Conyers (D-MI), would make the position a presidential appointment, requiring confirmation by the Senate, and with a term limit of 10 years.

Currently it is an appointment of, and reports to, the Librarian of Congress and has no term limit. The Register of Copyrights oversees the Copyright Office, whose opinion that online video streamers aren't pay-TV providers when it comes to compulsory license eligibility was just deferred to by the Ninth Circuit in ruling against streamer FilmOn X. The duties of the registrar include "legal interpretation of the copyright law...promulgating copyright regulations; advising Congress and other government officials on domestic and international copyright policy and other intellectual property issues."

The Department of Justice has reached a settlement with DirecTV parent AT&T in which it agreed not to share "confidential, forward-looking information with competitors." The antitrust division filed suit Nov. 2 and alleged that DirecTV was the lead entity in "information exchanges" with competitors — Cox, Charter and AT&T — during negotiations for Time Warner Cable-owned SportsNet LA and its Dodgers games.

The agreement stipulates that "when DirecTV and AT&T negotiate with providers of video programming, including negotiations to telecast the Dodgers Channel, they will not illegally share competitively sensitive information with their rivals." There will also be mandatory monitoring — by the companies, not the government — of communications between programming execs and rival companies, as well as compliance programs and "antitrust training."

[Commentary] Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai delivered his first major policy speech as Chairman on March 15th, in remarks titled, “Bringing the Benefits of the Digital Age to All Americans.” At Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, Pai discussed his guiding principles for his regulatory approach as FCC Chairman, and concluded with practical policies he will be championing to expand broadband access nationwide. Chairman Pai outlined four guiding regulatory principles:
The Importance of Digital Empowerment and the “Democratization of Entrepreneurship”
Ubiquitous Access to Digital Opportunity
A Competitive Free Market Unleashes Private-Sector Ingenuity
The Free Market Doesn’t Mean that Government Has No Role

The Department of Justice reached a settlement that will prohibit DIRECTV and its parent corporation, AT&T, from illegally sharing confidential, forward-looking information with competitors.

The department’s Antitrust Division filed suit on Nov. 2, 2016, alleging that DIRECTV was the ringleader of a series of unlawful information exchanges between DIRECTV and three of its competitors – Cox Communications, Charter Communications and AT&T (before it acquired DIRECTV) – during the companies’ negotiations to carry the SportsNet LA “Dodgers Channel.” SportsNet LA holds the exclusive rights to telecast almost all live Dodgers games in the Los Angeles area. The settlement, which will obtain all of the relief sought by the department in its lawsuit, will ensure that when DIRECTV and AT&T negotiate with providers of video programming, including negotiations to telecast the Dodgers Channel, they will not illegally share competitively-sensitive information with their rivals. The settlement also requires the companies to monitor certain communications their programming executives have with their rivals, and to implement antitrust training and compliance programs.

[Commentary] Rapid advances in biometric technology mean the public is surveilled – and their movements recorded – more than ever before. If this technology spreads without limits, it could soon impinge on basic rights.

There is more discussion to be had on the scope, scale, and implications of "biometrics," yet for the moment we will close with the logical truth that no people, no society need rules against behaviors that are impossible, but the ballistic trajectory of biometric capabilities is such that constructing prohibitory rules before something is possible has become wholly essential. Probabilistically, enumerating forbidden things must fail to anticipate some dangers hence the policy tradeoff is whether to nevertheless attempt that enumeration or to switch over to enumerating permitted things. A free society being one where "that which is not forbidden is permitted" and an unfree society being one where "that which is not permitted is forbidden," whether we can retain a free society by enumerating forbidden aspects (of biometrics) is now at question.

[Dan Geer is the chief information security officer for In-Q-Tel, a not-for-profit investment firm that works to invest in technology that supports the missions of the Central Intelligence Agency and the broader US intelligence community.]

Republican lawmakers moved to dismantle landmark internet privacy protections for individuals, the first decisive strike against telecommunications and technology regulations created during the Obama administration and a harbinger for more deregulation to come.

In a 50-to-48 vote largely along party lines, the Senate Republican majority voted to overturn the privacy rules, which had been created in October by the Federal Communications Commission. The move means a company like Verizon or Comcast can continue tracking and sharing people’s browsing and app activity without asking their permission. An individual’s data collected by these companies also does not need to be secured with “reasonable measures” against hackers. The privacy rules, which had sought to address these issues, were scheduled to go into effect at the end of 2017. The vote begins a repeal of those regulations. Next week, the House is expected to mirror the Senate’s action through the same Congressional Review Act procedure that allows Congress to overturn new agency rules. The House is expected to pass the resolution, which would then move to President Donald Trump to sign.

Federal Communications Commissioner Chairman Ajit Pai said that President Trump’s charge that media outlets including The New York Times, CNN and NBC are “fake news” is a “political debate,” that he would not “wade into.”

When asked by separate reporters during the FCC’s monthly open meeting if those organizations were “fake news,” as President Trump has repeatedly dismissed them, Chairman Pai said both times that he would not comment. “Well look, that’s a political debate that people in the political arena have been debating back and forth,” Chairman Pai said. “My job is to not to be a political actor. It is simply to be somebody at the FCC who, as I said, is administering the laws of the United States. I’m simply not going to wade into that kind of political debate.”

Later he said, “Several years ago, I pointed out that I thought the news media performed a core job, exercising the First Amendment function of gathering news and the importance of distributing it to communities across this country, and keeping people informed,” Pai said. “I stand by those comments.”

More than a dozen protesters from Free Press, Demand Progress, Open Media, Popular Resistance and the Women’s Institute for Freedom of the Press took a stand for Net Neutrality at the Federal Communications Commission.

Activists wearing “Protect Net Neutrality” T-shirts filed into the room where the commissioners were holding their monthly open meeting. Once FCC Chairman Ajit Pai kicked off the meeting, the protesters stood and faced him. Security swooped in right away and escorted the activists out. FCC security forced a couple of protesters (and musicians in the punk bands Downtown Boys and Bad Moves) to take off their “Protect Net Neutrality” shirts before letting them in the meeting room — where the First Amendment no longer appears to apply.