Palantir Knows Everything About You
Founded in 2004 by Peter Thiel and some fellow PayPal alumni, Palantir cut its teeth working for the Pentagon and the CIA in Afghanistan and Iraq. The company’s engineers and products don’t do any spying themselves; they’re more like a spy’s brain, collecting and analyzing information that’s fed in from the hands, eyes, nose, and ears. The software combs through disparate data sources—financial documents, airline reservations, cellphone records, social media postings—and searches for connections that human analysts might miss. It then presents the linkages in colorful, easy-to-interpret graphics that look like spider webs. US spies and special forces loved it immediately; they deployed Palantir to synthesize and sort the blizzard of battlefield intelligence. It helped planners avoid roadside bombs, track insurgents for assassination, even hunt down Osama bin Laden. The military success led to federal contracts on the civilian side. The Department of Health and Human Services uses Palantir to detect Medicare fraud. The FBI uses it in criminal probes. The Department of Homeland Security deploys it to screen air travelers and keep tabs on immigrants.
Americans Favor Protecting Information Freedoms Over Government Steps to Restrict False News Online
The widespread concerns over misinformation online have created a tension in the United States between taking steps to restrict that information – including possible government regulation – and protecting the long-held belief in the freedom to access and publish information. A new Pew Research Center survey finds that the majority of Americans are resistant to action by the US government that might also limit those freedoms but are more open to action from technology companies. When asked to choose between the US government taking action to restrict false news online in ways that could also limit Americans’ information freedoms, or protecting those freedoms even if it means false information might be published, Americans fall firmly on the side of protecting freedom. Nearly six-in-ten Americans (58%) say they prefer to protect the public’s freedom to access and publish information online, including on social media, even if it means false information can also be published. Roughly four-in-ten (39%) fall the other way, preferring that the U.S. government take steps to restrict false information even if it limits those freedoms. When the same question is posed about technology companies taking those steps, however, the balance changes. More US adults (56%) favor technology companies taking steps to restrict false information, even if it limits the public’s freedom to access and publish information. By comparison, 42% prefer to protect those freedoms rather than have tech companies take action, even if it means the presence of some misinformation online.
Chairman Pai Remarks at Farm Foundation/USDA Summit
[Speech] It’s no secret that I’m a native of small-town Kansas. I know how great it is to grow up in rural America. And I want future generations to be able to have that same experience—to see small towns as a place where they can start a family and build a career. This isn’t just nostalgia. It’s about our economy and national competitiveness. In a connected global economy, we can’t leave millions of Americans sitting on the sidelines. Some say we can’t afford to bring high-speed connectivity to places like rural Kansas. I say we can’t afford not to.
The paid prioritization ban in historical context: More regulated than the Bell Empire?
[Commentary] When it came to unreasonable discrimination, the Federal Communications Commission's paid prioritization ban was more restrictive than the obligations that Section 202 placed on the old Bell telephone monopoly. Section 202 prohibits “unreasonable discrimination” by telecommunications providers. Courts and the commission have applied a three-part test to such claims. To bring a complaint, a plaintiff must show that he or she received a service that was “like” a service provided to another customer and that the two customers were treated differently when receiving that service. If the plaintiff meets these two hurdles, the burden then shifts to the telecommunications provider to show that the difference in service was reasonable. But Section 202 prohibits only differential treatment in the provision of “like” services.
[Daniel Lyons is also an associate professor at Boston College Law School]
ACA on Double TV Station Reach Discount: It's Doubly Wrong
The American Cable Association, which represents small and midsized cable operators, has a response to broadcasters' proposals to double their audience reach: No way. The ACA told the Federal Communications Commission that the proposal is both ill-conceived and unlawful. The National Association of Broadcasters wants the FCC to extend the UHF discount to VHF stations, which means all broadcast groups could effectively double their audience reach cap from 39% to 78% of the national audience. Affiliate associations want the same thing, except they want to maintain the 39% limit for network-owned stations. "Both proposals for an 'Everybody Discount' are ill-conceived as a matter of policy and impermissible as a matter of law," the ACA told the FCC. As ACA points out, doubling the discount is equivalent to raising the cap, a solution broadcasters "presumably seek only because significant questions remain as to the Commission’s authority to raise or eliminate the cap itself."
Benton (www.benton.org) provides the only free, reliable, and non-partisan daily digest that curates and distributes news related to universal broadband, while connecting communications, democracy, and public interest issues. Posted Monday through Friday, this service provides updates on important industry developments, policy issues, and other related news events. While the summaries are factually accurate, their sometimes informal tone may not always represent the tone of the original articles. Headlines are compiled by Kevin Taglang (headlines AT benton DOT org) and Robbie McBeath (rmcbeath AT benton DOT org) -- we welcome your comments.
(c)Benton Foundation 2018. Redistribution of this email publication -- both internally and externally -- is encouraged if it includes this message. For subscribe/unsubscribe info email: headlines AT benton DOT org
Benton experts make knowledge and analysis accessible to include more people in communications policymaking.
Kevin Taglang
Executive Editor, Communications-related Headlines
Benton Foundation
727 Chicago Avenue
Evanston, IL 60202
847-328-3049
headlines AT benton DOT org