June 4, 2015 (Could US revive NSA surveillance?)

PRIVACY/SECURITY

BACK FROM THE DEAD: US OFFICIALS TO ASK SECRET COURT TO REVIVE NSA SURVEILLANCE
[SOURCE: The Guardian, AUTHOR: Spencer Ackerman]
The Obama Administration intends to use part of a law banning the bulk collection of US phone records to temporarily restart the bulk collection of US phone records. US officials confirmed that in the coming days they will ask a secret surveillance court to revive the program -- deemed illegal by a federal appeals court -- all in the name of “transitioning” the domestic surveillance effort to the telephone companies that generate the so-called “call detail records” the government seeks to access. The unconventional and unexpected legal circumstance depends on a section of the USA Freedom Act, which President Barack Obama signed into law on June 2, that provides a six-month grace period to prepare the surveillance and legal bureaucracies for a world in which the National Security Agency is no longer the repository of bulk US phone metadata. During that time, the act’s ban on bulk collection will not yet take effect. But the NSA stopped its 14-year-old collection of US phone records at 8pm ET on May 31, when provisions of the Patriot Act that authorized it until that point lapsed. The government will argue it needs to restart the program in order to end it. US officials did not say if the secret Fisa court will hear arguments from the newly established “amicus”, who will be empowered by the Freedom Act to contest the government’s contentions before the previously non-adversarial court. The Freedom Act permits the amicus to argue before the court in novel circumstances. “We are taking the appropriate steps to obtain a court order reauthorizing the program. If such an order is granted, we’ll make an appropriate announcement at that time as we have with respect to past renewal applications,” said Marc Raimondi, the Justice Department’s national security spokesman, told the Guardian on Wednesday.
benton.org/headlines/back-dead-us-officials-ask-secret-court-revive-nsa-surveillance | Guardian, The
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

THE REAL WINNERS IN THE FIGHT OVER GOVERNMENT SURVEILLANCE
[SOURCE: Washington Post, AUTHOR: Andrea Peterson]
After the Senate passed legislation aimed at reforming a program that collected data about the phone calls of millions of Americans, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) quoted an Associated Press headline calling the bill a "victory for Edward Snowden" and added his own twist: "It is also a resounding victory for those currently plotting attacks against the homeland," he said. Supporters of the legislation would dispute that argument, pointing instead to the Constitution or the public at large. But there's another group that won big: Tech companies. "The Internet industry's support for surveillance reform was critical -- and exceptional to the extent that until the Snowden revelations, although they had sometimes gotten involved in law enforcement, they'd steered clear of national security since it was such a sensitive topic," said Kevin Bankston, the executive director of New America's Open Technology Institute. A slew of major tech companies were tied to National Security Agency surveillance in some of the first reports sourced to former government contractor Edward Snowden. Reporting and documents released in June 2013 revealed that many of the biggest names in tech, including Google, Facebook, Apple and Microsoft, were part of a program called PRISM that let the spy agency tap into services -- accessing things like chats, documents and e-mails. Other revelations showed how the agency evaded security measures and infiltrated the links between some companies' data centers. And with the passage of the USA Freedom Act, tech companies are claiming their first significant policy win.
benton.org/headlines/real-winners-fight-over-government-surveillance | Washington Post
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

SURVEILLANCE BALANCE?
[SOURCE: New York Times, AUTHOR: Michael Shear]
For more than six years, President Barack Obama has directed his national security team to chase terrorists around the globe by scooping up vast amounts of telephone records with a program that was conceived and put in place by his predecessor after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Now, after successfully badgering Congress into reauthorizing the program, with new safeguards the President says will protect privacy, President Obama has left little question that he owns it. The new surveillance program created by the USA Freedom Act will end more than a decade of bulk collection of telephone records by the National Security Agency. But it will make records already held by telephone companies available for broad searches by government officials with a court order. “The reforms that have now been enacted are exactly the reforms the president called for over a year and a half ago,” said Lisa Monaco, the president’s top counterterrorism adviser. She called the bill the product of a “robust public debate” and said the White House was “gratified that the Senate finally passed it.” The President is trying to balance national security and civil liberties to put into practice the kind of equilibrium he has talked about since he was in the Senate, when he expressed support for surveillance programs but also vowed to rein in what he called government overreach.
benton.org/headlines/pushing-revised-surveillance-program-president-obama-strikes-his-own-balance | New York Times
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

WIRETAP ACT
[SOURCE: Washington Post, AUTHOR: Orin Kerr]
[Commentary] The federal Wiretap Act is the major privacy law that protects privacy in communications. The Wiretap Act prohibits intercepting the contents of a communication without the consent of at least one of the parties to the communication. As enacted in 1968, the law was intended primarily to regulate wiretapping of telephone calls. In that context, the law is pretty clear: The law prohibits using a wiretapping device to tap the phone line without the consent of one of the participants on the call. But times have changed. In 1986, Congress extended the Wiretap Act to the Internet. Applying the Wiretap Act to the Internet can be tricky because the Internet enables person-to-computer communications. The switch from person-to-person telephone communications to person-to-computer Internet communications creates two tricky interpretive problems. First, how do you identify “contents” of person-to-computer communications? And second, when is a computer a “party to the communication”?
[Kerr is the Fred C. Stevenson Research Professor at The George Washington University Law School]
benton.org/headlines/websurfing-and-wiretap-act | Washington Post
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

FCC REFORM

HOUSE PANEL APPROVES FCC TRANSPARENCY BILL
[SOURCE: The Hill, AUTHOR: David McCabe]
A House panel passed a bill aimed at making the Federal Communications Commission more transparent over the objections of Democratic Representatives who opposed a trio of Republican Representative amendments on what was originally a bipartisan measure. The FCC Process Reform Act was approved by the House Commerce committee through a voice vote. The bill institutes reforms to the way the FCC goes about its business and comes after the FCC handed down its controversial network neutrality rules. Republican Representatives added three amendments based on bills they proposed when the reform bill was first considered by the Communications Subcommittee. One, from Rep Adam Kinzinger (R-IL), requires that the FCC publish the text of any rule or other action no later than 24 hours after the Chairman circulates them to the Commissioners. Another requires the FCC to publish a description of any order completed at the bureau level. Rep Renee Ellmers (R-NC) proposed an amendment that would require the Commission to publish changes to its rules.
benton.org/headlines/house-panel-approves-fcc-transparency-bill | Hill, The
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

REPS ESHOO, PALLONE WILL OPPOSE FCC REFORM BILL
[SOURCE: Broadcasting&Cable, AUTHOR: John Eggerton]
House Communications Subcommittee Ranking Member Anna Eshoo (D-CA), has signaled she can accept an Federal Communications Commission reform bill with a delay on a provision letting more than two FCC commissioners meet outside of public meetings, but can't accept it if it includes Republican-backed amendments she has already said she opposes. That came in prepared text for her opening statement for a markup of HR 2583, the FCC Process Reform Act in the House Commerce Committee June 3. Ranking Member Eshoo had been a co-sponsor of the bill, but apparently wanted her name off it to avoid having to vote against her own bill, which has the Republican votes to be amended to include their proposals. Those include requiring the FCC to publish texts of draft decisions when they are circulated (customarily three weeks before a vote), to publish its decisions within 24 hours of a vote, and to publish 48 hours beforehand for decisions granted on delegated authority. Ranking Member Eshoo said while she continued to support the underlying bill, even with the delay on commissioners meeting, she also suggested the above requirements were essentially poison pills. House Commerce Committee Ranking Member Frank Pallone (D-NJ) concurred. "While I support HR 2853 in its current form, I have been clear that I cannot support the other Republican drafts I anticipate will be added as amendments during markup," Ranking Member Pallone said. "Experts have said, quite simply, that it would result in confusion, litigation, and delay. So I will oppose those bills and any final bill that includes its provisions."
benton.org/headlines/reps-eshoo-pallone-will-oppose-fcc-reform-bill | Broadcasting&Cable
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

INTERNET/BROADBAND

CAN LIFELINE CLOSE THE DIGITAL DIVIDE?
[SOURCE: Los Angeles Times, AUTHOR: Editorial staff]
[Commentary] The federal government has been offering subsidies to help the poor afford phone service since the court-ordered breakup of the Ma Bell system in the mid-1980s. Now the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission wants to give low-income Americans a new option by letting them use the Lifeline subsidy for high-speed Internet connections instead of a home phone line or a mobile phone account. The change is worth making. But as the FCC admits, it's quixotic to think that merely providing a discount on broadband will close the digital divide. Less than half of the households with incomes less than $25,000 a year have broadband at home, and although affordability is a factor, consumer advocates and Internet service providers say that the cost of computers (or smartphones) and the lack of digital skills are at least as important. There's also the question of whether a broadband connection that can't necessarily make 911 calls amounts to a Lifeline service. The FCC is aware of these issues, having recently completed a series of pilot projects that offered discounted broadband to low-income consumers. And with new anti-fraud measures in place, it makes sense to allow the current Lifeline discount to be applied to broadband and see if it brings more low-income families online. If not, it will be time for Congress to find a better way than Lifeline to close the digital divide.
benton.org/headlines/can-lifeline-close-digital-divide | Los Angeles Times
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

NCTA'S BIG GUNS WEIGHT IN ON TITLE II
[SOURCE: Broadcasting&Cable, AUTHOR: John Eggerton]
The National Cable & Telecommunications Association's high-powered lawyers told reporters they were confident the Federal Communications Commission's Title II reclassification of the Internet would be overturned by the court, and that could happen with the baseline, bright-line rules remaining in effect. That came in a meeting with reporters featuring NCTA president Michael Powell, former solicitor general Ted Olson and former Supreme Court nominee Miguel Estrada. Olson and Estrada tore into the FCC, saying it was trying to write new law, change policy without justification or notice, and otherwise run roughshod over the Congress, communications law and the Administrative Procedures Act, which set out the rules for how agencies regulate, with prohibitions on arbitrary and capricious decision making. They argued the cable and telecommunication companies legal challenge was high stakes, and one of the most important challenges -- the term "monumental" was used -- to regulatory authority ever, given that it deals with the Internet's future. Olson talked of a suffocating FCC whose heavy hand of regulation would "stifle and strangle" innovation and investment. They said that the FCC switched from a Sec. 706 based approach that had talked about Title II in only two graphs, and even then only as a backstop, its own version of Title II for the 21st Century, with 128 graphs outlining it. That, they said, did not square with APA guidelines that the public must be given notice of what the FCC is actually planning to do, and allowed to comment on it. They did not use the term bait and switch, but the suggestion was the FCC had signaled one thing, and done something entirely different without sufficient notice of the change.
benton.org/headlines/nctas-big-guns-weigh-title-ii | Broadcasting&Cable | The Hill
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

CABLE

THE FCC JUST MADE IT EASIER TO RAISE YOUR CABLE RATES
[SOURCE: National Journal, AUTHOR: Brendan Sasso]
The Federal Communications Commission has quietly approved a proposal that could make it easier for major cable providers like Comcast to raise prices. The decision is a rare win at the FCC for the cable industry, which has suffered a series of losses on network neutrality and other major issues under FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler, himself a former cable lobbyist. The FCC voted 3-to-2 to limit the power of state and local regulators over cable TV packages and prices, according to agency officials. The agency declared that it will assume that there is "effective competition" for cable services nationwide. FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler won support from the commission's two Republicans, but the two other Democrats opposed the decision, officials said. It is extremely unusual for an FCC chairman to side against the commissioners in his own party. A spokesperson for Chairman Wheeler declined to comment on the decision, which has not yet been made public. A number of top congressional Democrats had urged Chairman Wheeler not to loosen the regulations on major cable companies, warning it could lead to higher prices for consumers to get access to news, sports, weather, and other programming.
benton.org/headlines/fcc-just-made-it-easier-raise-your-cable-rates | National Journal
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

OWNERSHIP

DISH AND T-MOBILE?
[SOURCE: Wall Street Journal, AUTHOR: Ryan Knutson, Thomas Gryta, Shalini Ramachandran]
Apparently, Dish Network is in talks to merge with T-Mobile USA, a deal that would accelerate a wave of consolidation across the US media and communications industries. The two sides are in close agreement about what the combined company would look like, with Dish Chief Executive Charlie Ergen becoming the company’s chairman and his T-Mobile counterpart, John Legere, serving as the combined company’s CEO. Tougher questions about a purchase price and the mix of cash and stock that would be used to pay for a deal remain unresolved. A Dish deal with T-Mobile would combine the country’s second-largest satellite TV operator with its fourth-largest wireless carrier. It would also address major strategic issues for both sides. Dish lacks the robust broadband Internet service that cable companies can lean on to offset a declining TV business. It also has amassed billions of dollars of wireless licenses but hasn’t built the cellular network needed to put them to use. T-Mobile’s wireless service would help address both needs. T-Mobile, meanwhile, has added subscribers at an industry-leading rate over the past several quarters, but still is dwarfed by much bigger rivals AT&T and Verizon. Dish’s wireless licenses would give T-Mobile a path to boosting the capacity of its network.
benton.org/headlines/dish-network-merger-talks-t-mobile-us | Wall Street Journal
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

ELECTIONS & MEDIA

ONE MORE ISSUE FOR WHEELER?
[SOURCE: Huffington Post, AUTHOR: Marty Kaplan]
[Commentary] The last best hope to stop Big Money's rout of American democracy is a former trade group lobbyist who's reluctant to stretch his spandex superhero suit too thin. The Federal Communication Commission already possesses the power to rescue us from dark money. Tomorrow morning, says Michael J. Copps, who was a FCC commissioner for 10 years, FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler could say: We have had on the books since the original Telecommunications Act of 1934 a requirement that the sponsors of ads, including political ads, must be identified, and we're going to start enforcing it. We don't have to wait for the President to send a disclosure bill to Congress that won't go anywhere; we don't have to wait for Congress to bite the hand that feeds it. The FCC can do that rulemaking on its own, and after a 120-day public comment period, if you conceal who's paying for those ads, you'll get nailed. Enforcing that provision is "at the top of my bucket list," says Copps, "and I'm looking for company, Tom." "Maybe you have noticed," he said a couple of weeks ago, when asked if the FCC will use the authority it already has to require disclosure of the secret sponsors of political ads, "we have a long list of telecommunications-related decisions that we are dealing with right now, and that will be our focus." He punted to the Hill: "Well, if the Congress acts, then we will clearly follow the mandate of Congress." But as he had to know, just two days before he said that, the House Communications and Technology subcommittee, on a party-line vote, shot down a law that would have forced dark money into the light. Five out of six ain't bad. But net neutrality, privacy and the other issues on Wheeler's plate, important as they are, won't rescue democracy from the rot of corruption. Maybe another outpouring of public outrage can get him to reach for the spandex one more time. Paging John Oliver?
[Kaplan is a USC Annenberg professor and director of the Norman Lear Center]
benton.org/headlines/fcc-chief-tom-wheeler-five-sixths-superhero | Huffington Post | Benton Foundation
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

IF YOU USE FACEBOOK TO GET YOUR NEWS, READ THIS FIRST
[SOURCE: Washington Post, AUTHOR: Caitlin Dewey]
Facebook’s 1.44 billion users rely on the site for lots of things: keeping in touch, sharing photos, casual stalking. But if you get your political news through Facebook, as more than 60 percent of millennials do, please browse with extreme caution: The site doesn’t show you everything, and may subtly skew your point of view. This is not, of course, a new fear; moral panic over “echo chambers” and “filter bubbles” is as old as the social Web, itself. But a new survey by the Pew Center suggests there may be some new urgency here. Per that survey, a majority of American Internet users now get political news from Facebook -- and the 2016 elections, as we know, are in just over a year. That’s really important, and important to understand, because Facebook is quite unlike traditional conduits of news. (Think: your local ABC affiliate, your gossipy neighbor, this page, what have you.) As in those more traditional settings, Facebook gives you a great deal of control over which sources you follow and what you choose to read. But unlike those other, traditional sources, Facebook also hides many stories selectively. According to a recent Washington Post experiment, as much as 72 percent of the new material your friends and subscribed pages post never actually shows up in your News Feed.
benton.org/headlines/if-you-use-facebook-get-your-news-please-love-democracy-read-first | Washington Post
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

EDUCATION

THE E-RATE OVERHAUL IN 4 EASY CHARTS
[SOURCE: Education Week, AUTHOR: Benjamin Herold]
Big changes to the E-rate program made by the Federal Communications Commission over the past 18 months are showing up in dramatic ways in 2015's requests for telecommunications-related funding by schools and libraries. The biggest shift: Huge demand -- and support -- for internal wireless connectivity. According to new data provided to Education Week by the FCC, applications for E-rate discounts to help purchase the equipment and services needed for internal wireless networks were up 92 percent compared to 2014-15. And for the first time in three years, those requests are likely to actually be granted. The FCC says it expects to make funding commitments for all of those so-called "Category 2" applications deemed eligible. The price tag could rise as high as $1.6 billion. That money will be available because of a policy overhaul adopted by the FCC in summer 2014, as well as its historic vote in early 2015 to increase the annual E-rate spending cap from $2.4 to $3.9 billion. The new E-rate is directing resources "where schools and libraries need the most help: getting access to robust broadband," FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler wrote in a recent blog post. The changes will be widely felt on the ground, and soon. Historically, for example, a relatively small handful of large urban districts ate up whatever limited E-rate funds were available to support internal connections, leaving most schools and libraries with nothing. By instituting a new cap on the per-pupil amount that any one applicant could request, however, the FCC ensured that in 2015, all eligible applicants will share in the newly available funds for wireless. More than $238 million in commitments have already gone out. Not everything is roses: Many districts and libraries may face new holes in budgets resulting from the FCC's phase-down of support for older telecommunications technologies, which begins in 2015. But overall, Chairman Wheeler wrote, "we're thrilled that modernization is working as projected."
benton.org/headlines/e-rate-overhaul-4-easy-charts | Education Week
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

Benton

Search

Benton

Daily Digest

Analysis

June 4, 2015 (Could US revive NSA surveillance?)