April 29, 2014 (The Perfect and the Good)

NETWORK NEUTRALITY

THE PERFECT AND THE GOOD ON NETWORK NEUTRALITY
[SOURCE: Huffington Post, AUTHOR: Kevin Werbach, Phil Weiser]
[Commentary] Network neutrality is in jeopardy -- just not in the way you might have heard. In implementing network neutrality, some differentiation of traffic must be allowed on the Internet, even encouraged. The real question is whether Federal Communications Commission Chairman Tom Wheeler's proposed rule is so much worse than what came before. Under what we understand the FCC proposal to be, access providers can't block, can't degrade, can't arbitrarily favor certain applications, and can't favor their own traffic. The major change in the new proposal concerns so-called paid prioritization agreements. In other words, the new rules appear to allow a broadband provider to offer content providers the option of faster or more reliable delivery for a supplemental fee. Under the old rules, the FCC didn't prohibit such deals, but said it was skeptical they would meet its discrimination test. In the new proposal, the FCC appears to mandate that paid prioritization offerings be "commercially reasonable." Calling paid prioritization "discrimination" is a matter of semantics. Indeed, the traditional "Title II common carrier" model (which some network neutrality advocates favor) has allowed different levels of service -- paid prioritization in other words -- as long as the prioritized service level was available to all comers. As for the FCC's apparent proposal, it does not encourage or require paid prioritization. At most, the proposal would allow some commercial offerings -- subject to negotiation between the two firms -- to allow for a higher level of service. How to defend and implement network neutrality is not as simple as banning all forms of paid prioritization. What really matters is ensuring that the broadband environment continues to provide space for tomorrow's innovators to develop new, disruptive offerings. When the FCC releases the proposed rules for comment, we should all focus on that criterion to evaluate whether they are sufficient and effective. [Werbach is Wharton Professor and founder of Supernova Group; Weiser is Dean and Thomson Professor at the University of Colorado Law School]
benton.org/node/182257 | Huffington Post
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

NET NEUTRALITY MISUNDERSTANDINGS
[SOURCE: Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, AUTHOR: Doug Brake]
Below we correct a number of key misunderstandings that continue to persist about proposed network neutrality rules despite Federal Communications Commission Chairman Tom Wheeler’s clarifications.
Internet “Throttling” -- There is no reason to think that broadband ISPs have any interest in actively slowing Internet traffic, and even less reason to think such a practice would be allowed under the proposed rules. “Pay-to-play” would not be allowed -- no one would have to pay a fee in order to get their content or service to consumers. What would be allowed is “pay-to-improve” -- under these proposed rules, Internet services would only be allowed to get better, not worse.
Prioritized Content -- Many reports indicate that ISPs will require payment for access to their “fast-lanes” and any type of traffic that gets stuck in the “slow-lane” will suffer. This is inaccurate. The vast majority of Internet traffic will not have a need to be prioritized and will continue to enjoy the current “best efforts” Internet.
Favoring some traffic means shunting other traffic to the slow lane. The past and present Internet treats all packets the same. Advocates of net neutrality stress, correctly, that differentiated Type of Service, a piece of information within each packet that could enable the network to know what type of application the packet is for, has not been a major element, in practice, of carriage agreements among network operators.
Consumer Harm. Again, if ISPs were found to be abusing these rules to hurt consumers, the rules would be very clearly designed to give the FCC authority to step in and stop any business practice that would actually hurt consumers or competition.
Squash Innovation -- The types of prioritization arrangements that would pass muster under a “commercially reasonable” test would be overwhelmingly welfare maximizing, potentially unlocking totally new services.
The complaint process will be arduous --The Commission would probably want to handle complaints internally. Furthermore, with sharp glare of the media spotlight and millions of consumers concerned about these issues, legitimate grievances will surface very quickly and demand swift resolution.
Better to go back to Title II -- Rather than accept innovation in the core network, opponents of the rule would like to ban it, returning broadband to Title II classification. Title II classification would necessitate an abandonment of inter-modal competition and force providers into an arcane rate setting process inevitably reducing investment in our networks and the potential for innovative new broadband technologies. Moreover, Title II would likely be worse at protecting consumers from anti-competitive practices than the proposed rule.
benton.org/node/182201 | Information Technology and Innovation Foundation
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

THE FCC'S 'REASONABLE' INTERNET PLAN
[SOURCE: Wall Street Journal, AUTHOR: Editorial staff]
[Commentary] Imagine if businesses had to go to after every sale so a federal agency could pass judgment on whether the deal is "commercially reasonable." Readers in heavily regulated industries may say they already do. But it's not the way to prosperity and it's not the model that has allowed the Internet to become an engine of the US economy. Yet new Chairman Tom Wheeler previewed the Federal Communication Commission's latest attempt to enforce "net neutrality" rules on Internet service providers. These are the companies like AT&T and Comcast that run wires into homes and businesses to deliver Internet connections. A long-standing dream among liberal activists is to prevent these firms from charging higher prices to heavy consumers of Internet bandwidth. The most zealous promoters of this idea don't even believe that capacity hogs like Netflix or Google's YouTube should pay extra for all the video they send over digital communications networks (though the companies themselves have more nuanced positions). The net-neuts also want new rules preventing networks from blocking or discriminating against websites -- say, by slowing down connections to websites that aren't affiliated with the network. Although Congress has never appointed the FCC to run the Internet, Chairman Wheeler will now try a third time to sneak this idea past the judiciary and fulfill a 2008 campaign promise from President Obama. Chairman Wheeler will likely present his proposal, which he briefly described in a blog post, as a compromise between free markets and the heavy-handed regulation that the FCC has always applied to the traditional telephone system. And our liberal friends are already howling that to allow any variable pricing will relegate average customers to an endless Internet traffic jam while well-heeled companies take the fast lane on a private cyber toll road.
benton.org/node/182207 | Wall Street Journal
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

HELL NO, WE WON'T GO: NO FAKE NET NEUTRALITY FOR RACIAL JUSTICE ADVOCATES
[SOURCE: Huffington Post, AUTHOR: Malkia Cyril]
[Commentary] According to the Wall Street Journal, instead of preventing discrimination with real Network Neutrality rules, Federal Communications Commission Chairman Tom Wheeler will propose a new set of rules in response to the January court decision which struck down open Internet protections. These new rules would allow Internet Service Providers like Comcast or Verizon to charge content providers an extra fee for preferential treatment to fast track their content to end users like me and you. According to the proposed rules, big Internet companies would be able to decide whether or not to charge content providers a toll based on a subjective standard called "commercial reasonableness". Disguised as Network Neutrality, these proposed rules stand to create an Internet where the biggest producers of content like Netflix and MSNBC will pay more to push their product to wider audiences. Smaller content producers who can't afford to pay may be pushed onto a digital dirt road, unable to raise a powerful public voice online. Unofficially, the Internet is already bursting at its digital seams with opposition to the proposed rules, calling them "fake net neutrality". Much of the debate seems predicated on which consumers will be most affected if content providers pass the buck on paying increased costs. So, let's talk about exactly which consumers stand to lose the most if content providers pass the buck on increased bills. About 100 million people in the United States live with little to no Internet access. Of those, the vast majority are Black, Latino, or households with annual incomes under $50K. For communities of color and low income families that struggle to access the Internet in their homes, many turn to their cell phones as their primary means of Internet connection with the assistance of heavily scrutinized broadband subsidies. Raising barriers to digital access for communities faced with these extraordinary challenges to Internet access in a digital age can mean the difference between employment and poverty, health care and sickness, democratic engagement or exclusion. For these Internet users, the cost of connection is already too high. Yet the Federal Communications Commission insists that its priority as a regulatory agency is to ensure the rights of the largest telecommunications companies to profit where profit can be made. The FCC isn't proposing Network Neutrality, it's legalizing discrimination. As a nation struggling to close historic racial and economic gaps, I'd say we've had enough of that. [Cyril Executive Director at the Center for Media Justice]
benton.org/node/182255 | Huffington Post
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

OWNERSHIP

COMCAST/TWC CRITICS UNAPPEASED BY CHARTER SWAP
[SOURCE: Broadcasting&Cable, AUTHOR: John Eggerton]
“We’ve known from the day that the Comcast-Time Warner Cable deal was announced that Comcast intended to divest some subscribers, so this doesn’t change anything,” said Sen Al Franken (D-MN). “The fact remains that Comcast will have unprecedented power in the television and broadband markets, and I’m very concerned that Comcast will use that power to squeeze competitors and consumers.”
"This convoluted transaction may change the final score, but it can't change the fact that this deal is a big loss for innovation and competition," said Matt Wood, policy director for Free Press. "Cable barons have always done a great job dividing up the country and refusing to compete with each other. Turning three giant companies into two behemoths gives no comfort to content providers or consumers. It should be equally unimpressive to lawmakers and antitrust authorities too. Cable barons have always done a great job dividing up the country and refusing to compete with each other. Turning three giant companies into two behemoths gives no comfort to content providers or consumers. It should be equally unimpressive to lawmakers and antitrust authorities too."
Public Knowledge is not looking that far ahead, said a spokesman, since the deal would have to be approved for the swaps to be made, and it is not looking for that to happen. Besides, he pointed out, Public Knowledge took the swaps into account in its initial assessment of the merger—Comcast had signaled it would spin off enough systems to keep the new company below the FCC's traditional 30% cap on subs. But critics have said the creation of an ISP with some 40% of subs—Comcast has figured it at closer to 20% when all competitors are factored in -- changes the equation. Does it make [the deal] any more palatable? No," he said. "It's still a deal that we are staunchly opposed to."
"No set of conditions are going to make the deal palatable to the public interest and I don't see how this changes the basic dynamics of the deal, which are terrible for consumers and competition," said Todd O'Boyle, a spokesman for Common Cause.
benton.org/node/182222 | Broadcasting&Cable
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

UNIVISION CEO SAYS COMCAST-TIME WARNER CABLE DEAL IS BAD FOR HISPANICS
[SOURCE: TVNewsCheck, AUTHOR: ]
Univision CEO Randy Falco said that federal regulators should at the very least impose "much tougher restrictions" on Comcast as conditions on approving Comcast's merger with Time Warner Cable. "Based on what I have seen and heard, I am still concerned that the proposed merger could be bad for competition and most importantly, bad for Hispanic audiences," Falco said during the company's first quarter earnings call. "The fact is that there is not one other media or telecommunications company that has the level of vertical integration of Comcast -- I'm talking about video, broadband and content -- not Google, not AT&T, not Facebook, not the satellite providers. And when it comes to video and broadband, they are by far and away the largest provider in the country." According to Falco, the combination of Comcast and Time Warner Cable will become the dominant provider or TV and broadband not only in 30% of all TV homes, but also in 91% of Hispanic TV homes. "That gives this new company staggering influence over Hispanic consumers." The risk of the merger really is not hypothetical, especially for Univision, which competes directly with Comcasts's NBC, Telemundo and NBC Sports, Falco said.
benton.org/node/182279 | TVNewsCheck | Reuters | AdWeek
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

RESHAPE OUR MEDIA LANDSCAPE AND SAY NO TO COMCAST-TIME WARNER DEAL
[SOURCE: Seattle Times, AUTHOR: Michael Copps]
[Commentary] Five months into his term, Federal Communications Commission Chairman Tom Wheeler has arrived at a critical juncture. The proposed Comcast-Time Warner merger, a court’s rejection of the FCC’s network neutrality rules and the looming deadline for the commission’s media-ownership review provide an opportunity for Wheeler and the commission to begin reshaping our media landscape. That landscape, now dominated by a few large players, needs to reflect the dynamism and vibrancy of our nation’s diverse multitudes. Here are some ideas on how the FCC should proceed:
Say no to the outrageous Comcast-Time Warner Cable deal. We need more competition, not less, in the cable and broadband industries. This merger isn’t the way to deliver it.
Answer the US Court of Appeals decision that struck down its open Internet, aka net neutrality, rules with a set of new rules that guarantee it -- this time in a way that will pass muster in the courts.
Resist pressures to leave loopholes open and further relax media-ownership rules. If it permits a few billionaire moguls to monopolize the airwaves, the commission will do the nation a tremendous disservice.
Take a hard, new look at what is keeping African-American, Hispanic and other minority entrepreneurs and women out of broadcasting and what help is needed for media to better reflect the diversity of the country. [Copps was a Federal Communications Commissioner from 2001 to 2011 and currently heads the Media & Democracy Reform Initiative at Common Cause, a nonpartisan nonprofit in Washington, DC]
benton.org/node/182212 | Seattle Times
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

3 MYTHS ABOUT 'BAD FOR AMERICA' CABLE MERGER
[SOURCE: USAToday, AUTHOR: Andre Mouton]
[Commentary] Comcast struck a nerve in February with its proposed merger with Time Warner Cable, and no wonder. Rightly or wrongly, the cable giant has become the face for rising TV and Internet prices, abrasive customer policies, and a broadband system that many believe to be corrupt and uncompetitive. Its face-off with Netflix has put Comcast on the wrong side of popular opinion, and a troubled history with net neutrality has raised eyebrows (and blood pressures) in Silicon Valley. But is the Comcast/TWC merger really a bad thing?
Myth No. 1: The merger is bad for customers because service will inevitably cost more. Comcast is also ahead of the pack when it comes to Internet data caps and overage charges. If a progressive pricing scheme were introduced, it might allow for more affordable contracts, and the majority of Comcast and TWC customers would stand to benefit. Perhaps I'd be able to keep my budget plan after all.
Myth No. 2: The merger is bad for competition. According to the government, 88% of Americans have access to two or more wireline providers. Ninety percent have access to four or more wireless providers. Cable faces competition from DSL, satellite, and LTE, and while these services aren't as fast as cable, they commonly offer download speeds of 10-15 mbps. That's enough to stream three HD movies simultaneously -- and more than enough for most families. Meanwhile, Google, AT&T, and Verizon are rolling out fiber-optic networks in major cities around the country; a quarter of the population now has access.
Myth No. 3: The merger is bad for America. A broadband study from the Information Technology & Innovation Foundation finds that "of the nations that lead the United States in any of the four key metrics (deployment, adoption, speed, and price), no nation leads in more than two." The ITIF also finds that Americans have a greater variety of options when it comes to broadband, and a more progressive pricing scheme. So let's take it easy with the torches and the pitchforks.
benton.org/node/182220 | USAToday
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

SPECTRUM/WIRELESS

NEW FCC SPECTRUM SCREEN WOULD COUNT ALL OF SPRINT'S AIRWAVES
[SOURCE: Wall Street Journal, AUTHOR: Ryan Knutson]
Sprint will soon become a much bigger holder of wireless airwaves in the eyes of US telecom regulators, a shift that could make it harder for the carrier to do spectrum deals while easing the process for its rivals. The Federal Communications Commission said it plans to adjust the way it counts airwaves when setting the so-called spectrum screens that trigger additional scrutiny of mergers or spectrum deals. The bulk of the spectrum being added to the screen -- 101 megahertz of the 128.5 megahertz in total -- is primarily controlled by Sprint and not currently counted. The proposed change is expected to be voted on at the FCC's May 15 meeting. The FCC applies extra scrutiny to deals when a carrier owns more than a third of all available spectrum in a given market or when the deal would push it over that mark. The new screens would cause Sprint, the country's third-largest carrier by subscribers, to hit or exceed the one-third threshold in most major markets. The new limits could benefit Verizon Communications, AT&T and T-Mobile US, because they would own a smaller percentage of the total. That would make it less likely they would trigger extra scrutiny when doing smaller spectrum deals.
benton.org/node/182234 | Wall Street Journal
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

AMAZON PHONE REPORTEDLY COMING WITH “PRIME DATA” MOBILE BROADBAND
[SOURCE: GigaOm, AUTHOR: Kevin Tofel]
Amazon’s smartphone could be an AT&T exclusive and come with a feature called “Prime Data”. The leaked information was published on the Boy Genius Report, which also provided some of the reported first looks of Amazon’s handset, expected to launch in September. What is Prime Data? That’s a good question, but if you think about Amazon’s business model, you can get an idea of what it might be. The company has long subsidized products in order to boost engagement on its shopping and services sites, hoping to spur more sales. The data feature would likely be some amount of mobile broadband included with the phone each month at no charge. It’s possible that Amazon could even add more data to a monthly account based on product purchases or Amazon Instant Video rentals.
benton.org/node/182205 | GigaOm
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

IT’S TIME FOR A RATIONAL PERSPECTIVE ON WI-FI
[SOURCE: GigaOm, AUTHOR: Peter Rysavy]
[Commentary] Wi-Fi has so dazzled us with its achievements that many people can’t see its fundamental limitations. Unless network planners and policymakers grasp those limitations, they are likely to reach misguided conclusions about the optimal role of Wi-Fi in our mobile-broadband fabric. The case for a Wi-Fi-only world is based on false notions that existing wireless broadband providers are less innovative than others within the Internet ecosystem and that networks can grow organically, as suggested by Comcast in its recent pleadings to acquire Time Warner. The theory is that if government were to give innovators sufficient unlicensed spectrum, a global Wi-Fi network, available everywhere, built by hundreds or even thousands of entities, would materialize, similar to what happened with the Internet. However, because unlicensed bands are short range, any Wi-Fi network, no matter how many hotspots are deployed, will still result in massive coverage gaps. As serious as the concerns over coverage are the problems inherent to unlicensed frequencies: interference and congestion. Connecting to the Internet via Wi-Fi at hotels and airports, for instance, has become a hit-or-miss proposition. It sometimes works, but more often it’s slow or unavailable due to the escalating number of people using these networks. A truly ubiquitous, fast mobile broadband network needs both licensed and unlicensed spectrum. Licensed spectrum gives operators manageability and predictability, which enables them to safely invest in a top-down fashion the tens of billions of dollars in the infrastructure necessary for coverage. Given the volume of traffic carried on these networks -- traffic that can’t be off-loaded—these cellular networks will need continually greater capacity. Meanwhile, unlicensed spectrum gives millions of entities the flexibility to invest in a bottom-up manner to provide localized high capacity. The two approaches are symbiotic and mutually interdependent—with no foreseeable changes. Both will benefit from technology advances and both will need more spectrum over time. [Rysavy heads Rysavy Research]
benton.org/node/182269 | GigaOm
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

THE MOBILE INDUSTRY IS FIGHTING THE WRONG WAR IN EMERGING MARKETS
[SOURCE: Quartz, AUTHOR: Marco Veremis]
[Commentary] Mobile is counting on the developing world (and its estimated 5 billion mobile subscriptions) in a big way. As Mozilla demonstrates a $25 smartphone, undercutting on price has long been the industry’s strategy to wooing emerging market consumers. However, content also matters significantly. On smartphones, content manifests in apps, meaning mobile providers and companies must ask: Is the battle for cheaper smartphones a worthwhile fight, or does the real war lie in making their content accessible? There are considerable obstacles to actively reaching consumers in emerging markets. More than a third of these consumers, for example, find content too expensive to access, while 32% are not aware of any kind of incentives or promotions to drive purchases. The Trojan horse in the room is that a majority of app stores require access to credit payment methods, while more than one in five (21%) emerging market consumers do not have access to credit or bank facilities. In addition, a majority of potential smartphone users in emerging markets do not have access to banking or credit card accounts, and as such cannot use the Apple App Store or Google Play, even if they wanted to. Yet another obstruction is translation. One in six (18%) emerging market consumers cannot view content from app stores on their current devices, one in four (24%) cannot find the content they are looking for and one in five (20%) find that content is not in their local language. Notably, each of these obstacles are completely avoidable, and by focusing on remedying them, companies could easily pull ahead of the pack in reaching their target customers. With a nod toward the sheer importance of content -- especially that which is globally branded -- 60% of consumers state that when purchasing it, they want a format that suits their device, rendering mobile manufacturers somewhat irrelevant in this regard. No doubt: app stores are where brands active on mobile should place their focus. As devices diversify, content is a constant denominator in the eyes of emerging nations, and so king. [Veremis is o-founder, CEO and chairman of Upstream]
benton.org/node/182251 | Quartz
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

TELEVISION

ANALYST SEES STATION MERGERS AFFECTING REVERSE COMPENSATION
[SOURCE: Broadcasting&Cable, AUTHOR: Jon Lafayette]
The wave of TV station consolidation that is driven in part to extract larger retransmission payments from cable and satellite operators, might also help broadcasters push back against network demands for reverse retransmission payments. In a new report, analyst Michael Nathanson of MoffettNathanson Research says that retransmission payments to the Big Four broadcasters has increased seven-fold to more than $1.5 billion over the past five years. The network’s owned and operated stations command much bigger retransmission payments than other affiliate owners. Nathanson estimates that Fox stations got retransmission payments of $1.01 per home in 2013. CBS' stations got 90 cents, NBC’s got 87 cents and Disney’s generated 83 cents, he figures. Non-O&O station groups earned retransmission payments ranging from almost $1 for Nexstar to 25 cents for Tribune. Getting fees closer to what the O&Os get is one factor driving station mergers. But the networks are looking to grab a piece of their affiliates growing retransmission fees. “By most accounts, the expected rate of reverse retransmission payments for a Big Four station in one of the Top 100 markets is between $0.50-$0.75 per subscriber, which would mean that station owners would be forking over a majority of their own current retransmission payments,” Nathanson says in the report.
benton.org/node/182193 | Broadcasting&Cable
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

CONTENT

TERMS OF SERVICE
[SOURCE: New York Times, AUTHOR: Natasha Singer]
The terms of service on many websites are so wordy and so legalistic that users may not understand -- or even be aware of -- the intellectual property rights that they cede when they check the “agree” box to set up an account, according to a new study from researchers at the Georgia Institute of Technology. The Georgia Tech study reviewed 30 popular social networking and creative community sites that encourage people to share material, examining the rights to use work that were claimed in the sites’ terms of service agreements. Sites examined in the study included: Wikipedia, LinkedIn, Pinterest, YouTube, Flickr, IMDB, Facebook, Twitter, Google Plus, Remix64 and Fanfiction. Of course, people who wish to see their creative work published need to permit certain uses -- like authorizing a site to publicly post their content. But users may be surprised to learn about other permission they must grant in order to use a site. For instance, the study reported that 11 of the sites required users to agree that the sites could license their content to a third party. Yet users are unlikely to understand what they are agreeing to because terms of service agreements tend to be daunting in length and readability. The Georgia Tech researchers calculated that it would take someone nearly eight hours to read the agreements on the 30 sites in the study, at an average adult pace of 250 words per minute.
benton.org/node/182236 | New York Times
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

ADVERTISING

MARKETERS MUST EMBRACE THE TRANSITION INTO THE POST-TELEVISION WORLD
[SOURCE: AdWeek, AUTHOR: Randall Rothenberg]
Ad agencies, marketers and the media are awash with buzz about the competition between the Digital Content NewFronts and the subsequent broadcast network upfront marketplace. But all the gossip and prognostication miss an essential fact: Digital video is not television. The NewFronts is not an assault on this classic medium. Rather, digital video represents a culmination of television and the start of a post-television world. Granted, it’s clear how this misunderstanding came to be. There’s little precedence for the unfolding of digital video -- a medium that can appear so similar to existing, predominant media yet is such a dramatic evolution from its apparent kin. Already in its young life, digital video can do everything that television can -- it can easily deliver big brand, direct response and local advertising, just like the TV set in your den has done for so many decades. Its producers and networks can already create entertaining and culturally relevant programming that assembles valuable audiences. Premium video content is truly premium by the highest measure: cultural cachet. In 2013, Netflix proved its chops as an original content producer when it won an Emmy Award for Best Director for House of Cards.
benton.org/node/182275 | AdWeek
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

SECURITY/PRIVACY

HEARTBLEED: UNDERSTANDING WHEN WE DISCLOSE CYBER VULNERABILITIES
[SOURCE: The White House, AUTHOR: Michael Daniel]
[Commentary] In early April, the National Security Agency sent out a Tweet making clear that it did not know about the recently discovered vulnerability in OpenSSL known as Heartbleed. While we had no prior knowledge of the existence of Heartbleed, this case has re-ignited debate about whether the federal government should ever withhold knowledge of a computer vulnerability from the public. But there are legitimate pros and cons to the decision to disclose, and the trade-offs between prompt disclosure and withholding knowledge of some vulnerabilities for a limited time can have significant consequences. Disclosing a vulnerability can mean that we forego an opportunity to collect crucial intelligence that could thwart a terrorist attack stop the theft of our nation’s intellectual property, or even discover more dangerous vulnerabilities that are being used by hackers or other adversaries to exploit our networks. We have also established a disciplined, rigorous and high-level decision-making process for vulnerability disclosure. This interagency process helps ensure that all of the pros and cons are properly considered and weighed. While there are no hard and fast rules, here are a few things I want to know when an agency proposes temporarily withholding knowledge of a vulnerability:
How much is the vulnerable system used in the core Internet infrastructure, in other critical infrastructure systems, in the US economy, and/or in national security systems?
Does the vulnerability, if left unpatched, impose significant risk?
How much harm could an adversary nation or criminal group do with knowledge of this vulnerability?
How likely is it that we would know if someone else was exploiting it?
How badly do we need the intelligence we think we can get from exploiting the vulnerability?
Are there other ways we can get it?
Could we utilize the vulnerability for a short period of time before we disclose it?
How likely is it that someone else will discover the vulnerability?
Can the vulnerability be patched or otherwise mitigated?
[Daniel is Special Assistant to the President and the Cybersecurity Coordinator]
benton.org/node/182253 | White House, The
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

CONSUMERS BUFFETED BY SECURITY HACKS STILL DON'T UNDERSTAND DATA PRIVACY
[SOURCE: AdWeek, AUTHOR: Melissa Hoffmann]
Despite of being constantly worried about online security in the wake of numerous data hacks and security breaches among top Web companies and retailers, market research firm Toluna found that people still don’t really understand online privacy and data security. Three in five consumers (62 percent) said that they are more concerned about online privacy than they have been in the past, and 44 percent of those surveyed feel that they are not in control of their information on the Internet. But even as the White House readies a report on data privacy, Toluna found that there is still some confusion about what online privacy actually means -- even though the rules have been in place for a long time. Fewer than half of those surveyed characterized their understanding as “good.” About a quarter (26 percent) admitted they know little to nothing about online data use. However, US consumers understand that data can improve their online experiences. In general, they reported feeling happier about the use of their data online if they were asked for permission first, and a majority (52 percent) said they appreciate the use of targeted advertising. Two-thirds of those surveyed (66 percent) are happy to let brands use their information to serve them relevant discounts and loyalty rewards.
benton.org/node/182273 | AdWeek
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

PHONES ARE GIVING AWAY YOUR LOCATION, REGARDLESS OF YOUR PRIVACY SETTINGS
[SOURCE: Quartz, AUTHOR: Rachel Feltman]
Sensors in your phone that collect seemingly harmless data could leave you vulnerable to cyberattack, according to new research. And saying no to apps that ask for your location is not enough to prevent the tracking of your device. A new study has found evidence that accelerometers -- which sense motion in your smartphone and are used for applications from pedometers to gaming -- leave “unique, trackable fingerprints” that can be used to identify you and monitor your phone. Here’s how it works, according to University of Illinois electrical and computer engineering professor Romit Roy Choudhury and his team: Tiny imperfections during the manufacturing process make a unique fingerprint on your accelerometer data. The researchers compared it to cutting out sugar cookies with a cookie cutter -- they may look the same, but each one is slightly, imperceptibly different. When that data is sent to the cloud for processing, your phone’s particular signal can be used to identify you. In other words, the same data that helps you control Flappy Bird can be used to pinpoint your location. Choudhury’s team was able to identify individual phones with 96% accuracy.
benton.org/node/182249 | Quartz
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

GOVERNMENT & COMMUNICATIONS

SEC KERRY CALLS TO ‘TEAR DOWN’ INTERNET CENSORSHIP
[SOURCE: The Hill, AUTHOR: Julian Hattem]
Different countries’ control of the Internet is increasingly dividing the world into “two different visions” reminiscent of the Cold War, Secretary of State John Kerry warned. In remarks to a global Internet governance conference, Sec Kerry said that barriers to Internet access and online freedom needed to be torn down, just like the Berlin Wall in 1989. "Today, we’ve all learned that walls can be made of ones and zeros and the deprivation of access even to those ones and zeros, and that wall can be just as powerful in keeping us apart in a world that is so incredibly interconnected,” he said at the fourth annual Freedom Online Coalition conference. “So it's very much our ... common responsibility to try to tear down those walls just as it was our responsibility to try to do that during the Cold War.” He specifically mentioned Russia and Venezuela as countries with an “an absolutely unmistakable pattern” of Internet crackdown. “The places where we face some of the greatest security challenges today are also the places where governments set up firewalls against some of the basic freedoms online,” he said.
benton.org/node/182218 | Hill, The
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

SCOTUS SHOULD PROTECT CELLPHONE PRIVACY
[SOURCE: Washington Post, AUTHOR: Editorial staff]
[Commentary] Just how much does the Constitution protect your digital data? The Supreme Court is only just coming to grips with that question. The Court will consider whether police can search the contents of a mobile phone without a warrant if the phone is on or around a person during an arrest. New, disruptive technology sometimes demands novel applications of the Constitution’s protections. Orin Kerr, a law professor, compares the explosion and accessibility of digital information in the 21st century with the establishment of automobile use as a virtual necessity of life in the 20th: The Justices had to specify novel rules for the new personal domain of the passenger car then; they must sort out how the Fourth Amendment applies to digital information now.
benton.org/node/182291 | Washington Post
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

BEST SOCIAL MEDIA PRACTICES IN CONGRESS RECOGNIZED IN NEW RESEARCH
[SOURCE: Congressional Management Foundation, AUTHOR: Press release]
Announcing the winners of the Congressional Management Foundation's (CMF) 113th Congress Gold Mouse Awards identifying the 87 winners including the 70 best websites in Congress and, for the first time, 17 Members of Congress using innovative social media practices to interact with constituents. However, while praising the best legislators who are promoting transparency and accountability in government, CMF also criticized many in Congress for missing opportunities to enhance citizen engagement, according to the best practices report. "Too few are using social media to build trust and understanding of Congress, and too many are employing 1960s-style 'Mad Men' advertising strategies -- repetitive and simplistic jargon wielded like a hammer to hit citizens on the head ... over and over again." CMF also identified trends in congressional websites, among them:
While still weak, Member websites have shown signs of improvement, with an increasing number providing basic legislative and casework information and links. More than three-quarters (79%) provide the Member's voting record, compared to 56% in the previous Congress.
A majority of congressional websites lack substantive elements of accountability and transparency, such as: where the Members stand on the issues, how they voted on key pieces of legislation, and what they're doing in Congress on constituents' behalf.
Democratic personal offices earned twice as many awards as Republicans, and Republican-led committees won nearly all of the committee awards.
benton.org/node/182226 | Congressional Management Foundation
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

JUDGE’S RULING SPELLS BAD NEWS FOR US CLOUD PROVIDERS
[SOURCE: GigaOm, AUTHOR: Barb Darrow]
A court ruling over search warrants means continued trouble for US cloud providers eager to build their businesses abroad. In his ruling, US Magistrate Judge James Francis found that big Internet service providers (ISPs) -- including name brands Microsoft and Google -- must comply with valid warrants to turn over customer information, including e-mails, even if that material resides in data centers outside the US, according to several reports. Microsoft recently challenged such a warrant and this ruling was the response. In a blog post, Microsoft Deputy General Counsel David Howard characterized this as a necessary first step in what will likely be a long battle. The ruling basically upholds the status quo for US companies who have tried to reassure foreign governments that data residing in their data centers outside the US will be safe from overreach by US law enforcement or security agencies.
benton.org/node/182259 | GigaOm
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

FCC REFORM

MODERNIZING THE FCC ENTERPRISE
[SOURCE: Federal Communications Commission, AUTHOR: David Bray]
According to the Government Accountability Office, Federal agencies are currently spending over 70% of their Information Technology budgets on maintaining legacy systems. Government-wide, these maintenance costs amount to over $54 billion a year spent on existing legacy systems, and delays needed transitions to newer technologies. Moreover, this cost only captures those legacy processes automated by IT; several paper-based, manual processes exist and result in additional hidden, human-intensive costs that could benefit from modern IT automation. In the spirit of openness, I’d like to share our seven tracks as we embark on our journey to modernize the FCC enterprise. These tracks and supporting goals represent our focused efforts to bring the FCC into the 21st century and ensure the Commission has some of best IT in government supporting its mission. Like an iceberg where a majority of the ice is hidden underwater, modernizing manual, human-intensive processes at the FCC will reduce legacy “sunk costs” at the Commission. The result will be a more agile, responsive, IT-enabled FCC enterprise able to work faster and float “above water”. Our workforce will be more effective, efficient in their time and energy, and better able to deliver the highest quality public service to the US public and FCC partners.
Improve Secure Employee Telework & Mobility
Secure Internal & External Collaborations
Strengthen FCC’s IT Security Posture
Transform Access to FCC Enterprise Data
Modernize Legacy Systems & Tracking
Improve FCC.gov & Complaint Reform
Increase Transparency & System Usability
[Bray is the FCC’s Chief Information Officer]
benton.org/node/182261 | Federal Communications Commission
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

POLICYMAKERS

TERRELL MCSWEENY BEGINS TERM AT FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
[SOURCE: Federal Trade Commission, AUTHOR: Press release]
Federal Trade Commission Chairwoman Edith Ramirez welcomed Terrell McSweeny as she began her official duties as an FTC Commissioner. President Barack Obama named McSweeny to a term that ends on September 25, 2017. She was confirmed by a 95-1 vote in the US Senate on April 9, 2014. Before joining the FTC, McSweeny served as Chief Counsel for Competition Policy and Intergovernmental Relations for the US Department of Justice Antitrust Division. She joined the Antitrust Division after serving as Deputy Assistant to the President and Domestic Policy Advisor to the Vice President from January 2009 until February 2012, advising President Obama and Vice President Biden on policy in a variety of areas, including health care, innovation, intellectual property, energy, education, women’s rights, criminal justice and domestic violence. McSweeny’s government service also includes her work as Senator Joe Biden’s Deputy Chief of Staff and Policy Director in the US Senate, where she managed domestic and economic policy development and legislative initiatives, and as Counsel on the Senate Judiciary Committee, where she worked on issues such as criminal justice, innovation, women's rights, domestic violence, judicial nominations and immigration and civil rights. She also worked as an attorney at O'Melveny & Myers LLP. Commissioner McSweeny is a graduate of Harvard University and Georgetown University Law School.
benton.org/node/182214 | Federal Trade Commission
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

Benton

Search

Benton

Daily Digest

Analysis

April 29, 2014 (The Perfect and the Good)