Hill, The

[Commentary] Everyday we turn to the Internet for the seemingly endless amount of information and entertainment it provides. But most people don’t realize that we can only do these things because of a law passed in 1998—the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). The DMCA ensures that anyone can use Internet platforms to create content, post comments, and share ideas online as long as the platforms they use act responsibly. Despite the creative and economic value the DMCA has helped create, the copyright industry is currently seeking to radically change the law to force online platforms to police for copyright infringements on their behalf by using content filtering technology.
[Evan Engstrom is the executive director of Engine, a policy, advocacy, and research organization that works to support tech startups.]

Fight for the Future is promising to put up billboards attacking lawmakers who vote in favor of a bill that would dismantle privacy protections for internet users. If the bill is signed into law, as is widely expected, the Fight for the Future campaign will put up billboards in Washington (DC) and select districts that list the lawmakers who voted for the measure.

A draft of the billboard shows a list of the 50 Republicans who voted for the bill on March 23, along with the text, “They betrayed you.” “Congress should know by now that when you come for the Internet, the Internet comes for you, these billboards are just the beginning,” said Evan Greer, the group’s campaign director. “People from across the political spectrum are outraged, and every lawmaker who votes to take away our privacy will regret it come election day.”

Conservative media outlets have suffered through a tumultuous few weeks punctuated by infighting and public controversy, underscoring the difficulty some are having adjusting to the new levels of attention and scrutiny that comes with their elevated status in the age of President Trump.

The transition from the edges of the media to its center can be difficult. Conservative media’s mainstream peers have greeted them with suspicion and hostility, often eager to highlight the newcomers’ stumbles or question their legitimacy. In interviews with nearly a dozen key figures in conservative media, right-leaning reporters and editors spoke about their relative youth and inexperience and the need to professionalize and move on from the sensationalism that initially helped them attract readers. They see their challenge as one that mirrors what the Republican Party as a whole is experiencing, as it makes the transition from being the opposition party to the party in power.

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.”

Lawmakers grilled law enforcement officials in a tense hearing March 22 over their use of facial recognition programs. Democrats and Republicans raised concerns about the FBI’s use of facial recognition technology during a House Oversight Committee hearing, pressing a bureau official about the ability to access photos of hundreds of millions of citizens and the technology’s accuracy.

“This is really Nazi Germany here that we’re talking about,” Rep Stephen Lynch (D-MA), said of the facial recognition databases. “They had meticulous files on individuals, most of them of Jewish faith and that’s how they tracked their people. I see little difference in the way people are being tracked under this.” Over 117 million American adults can be found in a law enforcement facial recognition database, which draws in part from drivers license data, according to an October report from the Center on Privacy and Technology at Georgetown Law.

[Commentary] The Federal Communications Commission and Congress are taking steps to weaken and eliminate the FCC’s privacy rules for broadband Internet service providers (ISPs) like Comcast and AT&T. The proponents of these efforts make two arguments - neither of which will leave consumers with the privacy protections they now have and deserve.

The first is that there should be one set of privacy rules for ISPs and so-called “edge” companies like Google and Facebook, and that these privacy practices should be overseen solely by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), which currently has no legal authority over ISPs. I agree that one set of rules for the Internet ecosystem might be desirable, but why shouldn’t they meet the higher FCC standard that affords consumers more protection? And while the FTC is an important partner to the FCC on a variety of consumer protection and competition matters, including privacy, it lacks the ability to adopt rules - a critically important tool when it comes to protecting consumers.

The second argument is that even without the broadband privacy rules, the FCC can still protect consumer privacy under Section 222 of the Communications Act, which requires telecommunications carriers to protect the privacy of their customers’ information. But there is a more fundamental problem. If, as FCC Chairman Ajit Pai believes, that the FTC, and not the FCC, should have the legal authority to regulate the privacy practices of ISPs, why would his agency enforce Section 222 at all? Indeed, his colleague Commissioner Mike O’Rielly made clear in his dissent to the October privacy decision that he does not believe the FCC has that authority today.

Nobody should fall for this privacy shell game. The FCC’s broadband privacy rules are currently the best protection consumers have for their personal information online.

[Gigi Sohn is an Open Society Foundations Leadership in Government Fellow.]

[Commentary] Let the competition to build 5G broadband facilities begin! Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai in his early actions and speeches is returning the FCC to supporting the policies that delivered the most facilities-based broadband competition and private investment of any country in the world, and that also produced rapid deployment of at least five competitive broadband facilities to 95 percent of Americans in a little over a decade.

Chairman Pai and Commissioner Mike O’Rielly know that promoting facilities-based broadband competition proved highly successful before, and it can be as successful again in ensuring that America’s current lead in 4G LTE broadband deployment continues with strong 5G private investment and deployment going forward.

[Cleland is president of Precursor LLC and chairman of NetCompetition, a pro-competition e-forum supported by broadband interests.]

A top political ally to Vice President Mike Pence is an investor in the conservative news organization that was granted special access to cover Secretary of State Rex Tillerson's latest overseas trip. Nick Ayers, an Atlanta-based political strategist who worked on the campaign, is a part owner of the Independent Journal Review, whose White House correspondent was the only reporter allowed to accompany Tillerson on a trip to Asia this week.

There is no evidence to suggest that Ayers was behind or involved in the decision to allow the reporter to accompany Tillerson on his trip, nor is there any indication that the strategist is involved in the organization's editorial decisions. A State Department spokesman said the decision to allow IJR reporter Erin McPike on the trip was "to bring somebody in who doesn’t necessarily cover the State Department, a media outlet that isn’t steeped in foreign policy and give it a new, fresh perspective.” That decision enraged reporters assigned to cover the State Department, and reignited questions about the whether the Trump administration grants special privileges to news outlets that it views as favorable.

Foreign reporters challenged President Donald Trump to address his wiretapping accusation and attacks on the media at a joint press conference with German Chancellor Angela Merkel. A German reporter asked President Trump whether he regrets claiming that former President Barack Obama bugged Trump Tower during the presidential campaign, provoking Trump to joke about reports that the National Security Agency had once monitored Merkel’s phone under Obama. “As far as wiretapping, I guess by this past administration, at least we have something in common, perhaps,” President Trump said with a grin.

President Trump beat back questions about why the White House had accused Britain’s intelligence agency of having helped Obama surveil Trump Tower, saying press secretary Sean Spicer had merely read aloud a report from a Fox News legal analyst. “We said nothing. All we did was quote a certain very talented legal mind who was the one responsible for saying that on television. I did not make an opinion on it,” President Trump said. “That was a statement made by a very talented lawyer on Fox. So you should not be talking to me. You should be talking to Fox.”

[Commentary] Voice of America began radio broadcasting in 1942, to combat Nazi propaganda. Per its charter, it is mandated to “serve as a consistently reliable and authoritative source of news.” Since WWII, it has been the front-edge of America’s informational interface with citizens around the world, particularly those battling dictatorships and tyranny. VOA is the largest public diplomacy program of the United States government and broadcasts in more than 40 languages. Serving an estimated weekly global audience of 236.6 million, they provide news, information, and cultural programming through the Internet, mobile and social media, radio, and television. With today’s information overload, where fake news goes viral, and real news is labeled fake, where hacks and leaks dominate our news cycle, Voice of America is an indispensable tool in our engagement with global citizens.

As President Trump considers his priorities, as he looks to beef up the U.S. military, and potentially make major cuts in diplomacy, and as the Congress reviews his 2018 budget submitted this week to Congress, they should be reminded that the fate of nations over this past decade has changed on a dime. And it was not weapons systems that fell these governments, but the power of information to mobilize a people. For good or for bad. When you consider recent history, the sophistication of Russia’s disinformation campaign, and the online recruitment tools ISIS uses, VOA’s importance is clear. President Trump should be “doubling down” on its broadcasts, and not considering cuts for a network that dispatches truth, hope and inspiration to some of the most volatile parts of the world. Further, he should take care to safeguard VOA’s integrity, its gold-standard global media brand.

[K. Riva Levinson is President and CEO of KRL International LLC]