Hill, The

Privacy groups are considering asking the federal government to intervene in Facebook’s recent purchase of fitness app Moves.

The Electronic Privacy Information Center and the Center for Digital Democracy both said that they are considering asking the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to investigate Facebook’s acquisition of Moves.

The new policy says the company “may share information, including personally identifying information, with our Affiliates (companies that are part of our corporate groups of companies, including but not limited to Facebook) to help provide, understand, and improve our Services.”

A Facebook spokeswoman said that Moves user data will not be integrated into Facebook's profiles of users. Instead, the company will use the data to to support the app, the spokeswoman said.

Privacy advocates expressed concerns about the updated policy. “The fact that they’ve changed their privacy policy so quickly is disappointing” and “deserves some investigation,” Julia Horwitz, consumer protection counsel at the Electronic Privacy Information Center, said.

Jeff Chester, executive director of the Center for Digital Democracy, said he is “exploring FTC regulatory action.”

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) is pushing banks and other financial institutions to post privacy disclosures online, so information about their data-sharing activities is more accessible to consumers.

The CFPB announced it is considering a new rule that is intended to limit banks' data-sharing activities and improve transparency, and claimed it would save the industry millions of dollars each year.

“Consumers need clear information about how their personal information is being used by financial institutions,” CFPB Director Richard Cordray said in a statement. “This proposal would make it easier for consumers to find and access privacy policies, while also making it cheaper for industry to provide disclosures.”

Currently, banks are required to mail privacy disclosures to their customers once a year. But the new rules would instead allow these disclosures to be posted online, under certain conditions. The privacy disclosures explain whether a bank is sharing customers' personal information, what information is being shared, and whom it is being shared with.

House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA) said he is tired of selling off public airwaves only to fund a pork-barrel project or make a tiny dent in the deficit.

Selling off chunks of the spectrum to make a little short-term cash, he said, would be like selling off pieces of the Mississippi River or the Saint Lawrence Seaway.

“Public assets for the public good have never been before sold in the way that we deal with spectrum,” he said at a conference pushing for more unlicensed spectrum, which allows Wi-Fi systems and devices like garage door openers to operate.

In 2015, the Federal Communications Commission is planning to buy back chunks of the airwaves currently owned by broadcasters and resell them to wireless companies, which need the spectrum to offer high-speed Web access for consumers’ phones and tablets. Most of the airwaves will be allocated for specific companies, but the FCC will reserve some for unlicensed use to support Wi-Fi and other services. Just how much of the spectrum is unlicensed depends on how much broadcasters sell back to the government.

[Commentary] It is imperative that all Americans have access to a truly free and open Internet. I strongly support network neutrality.

Network neutrality is about preserving a free and open Internet ecosystem, where consumers can access new products and ideas, and have an open market for new innovations. There should be no “gatekeepers,” or toll roads. More important, it’s about the idea that anyone can use the Internet to make his or her voice heard.

Allowing deals for prioritization could easily be used to favor some content at the expense of others and be used as a barrier to entry for a small startup without the resources to buy access to an Internet fast lane.

I agree that we need open Internet rules that encourage companies to compete for customers without striking special deals. I am hopeful the FCC will propose a set of rules that will truly preserve an open and free Internet that spurs innovation and protects consumers.

All Americans that care about the future of the open Internet should share their views with the FCC. The agency needs to hear from you about why the Internet must remain a platform for innovation and free expression.

[Commentary] Internet application and content companies, what some refer to as “edge providers,” are increasingly concerned by the Federal Communications Commission’s newfound ability to regulate the Internet, and rightfully so.

For years, edge providers -- Pandora, Google, LinkedIn, Facebook, WhatsApp, to name just a few -- have flourished from the government’s hands-off approach to the Internet. Both Republicans and Democrats championed a structure that allowed the “application layer” of Internet architecture to be free from government intervention, apart from occasional Federal Trade Commission activity.

That is now subject to change. A very real threat is that edge providers could fall within the reach of the FCC’s newly invented authority to regulate the Internet under Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996.

FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler recently announced the Commission will seek comment on proposed new net neutrality rules that will “meet the court’s test.” His focus may be on broadband providers, but edge providers shouldn’t be lulled into complacency. The notion of preserving an “open Internet” is so vague that any rules meant to accomplish that goal could unintentionally impact edge providers’ business models.

The only intellectually honest conclusion for net neutrality supporters is to extend the burden to everyone: broadband providers and edge providers. The only way to achieve that seems to be creative use of Section 706. With every Internet site, service and application vulnerable to Internet security threats, these could readily come under the purview of the FCC.

Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Commissioner Maureen Ohlhausen thinks Congress can get together and pass legislation to protect consumers when hackers steal their data online, she said.

She also said she was “somewhat optimistic” about the prospect of a bill, after a series of headline-grabbing data breaches in recent months.

“I think there has been continuing interest in Congress and I think some of these big data breaches have kept the energy up behind it,” she said. “It’s very difficult,” she added. “Congress, obviously, has a lot on its plate...[but] I have found on a bipartisan basis there has been an interest in better data security guidance and having legislation in that regard.”

Two competing technology industry trade groups have resolved a lawsuit over lobbyists who moved from one organization to another.

Details about the deal were not disclosed, but executives expressed hope that the resolution between TechAmerica and the Information Technology Industry Council (ITI) would settle a fracture that had erupted in the tech lobbying world. Both trade groups pledged to put the matter behind them and refocus on the needs of their members.

"ITI is committed to focusing on the vibrancy of the technology sector and the dynamic future that [information and communications technology] innovation brings to consumers around the world,” CEO Dean Garfield said in a statement.

His firm represents tech giants like Apple, Google and Microsoft. “To ensure continued success in achieving this vision, ITI and TechAmerica have agreed to the resolution of pending litigation between them and have entered into a confidential agreement to resolve all claims, without any admission of wrongdoing,” Garfield added. TechAmerica head Shawn Osborne added that the deal “is in the best interests of our members.”

As the Federal Communications Commission considers allowing Internet “fast lanes,” the Progressive Change Campaign Committee is looking to hold President Barack Obama accountable to the commitment he made to an online “level playing field” during his 2008 campaign.

The campaign’s site hosts a video from a 2007 campaign event where then-Sen Obama described himself as “a strong supporter of net neutrality.” Internet providers should not “charge different rates to different websites,” because that “destroys one of the best things about the Internet, which is there’s this incredible equality there” he said.

Companies like Google and Facebook “might not have been started if you had not had a level playing field for whoever’s got the best idea, and I want to maintain that basic principle in how the Internet functions,” he said. As President, he said, he would “make sure that that’s the principle that my FCC commissioners are applying as we move forward.”

oe Niederberger, who posed the net neutrality question to Obama in 2007 and is now behind NoSlowLane.com, criticized the Obama Administration for the current plan to allow Internet “fast lanes.” “The new FCC chair should carry out the president’s promise and support net neutrality,” he said in a video on the site.

For the first time, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Court heard a formal argument that the National Security Agency’s bulk collection of people’s phone records is illegal.

In a friend-of-the-court brief filed early in April and just declassified, the Center for National Security Studies said that the surveillance program is not authorized under current law.

“Congress has never authorized the telephone metadata program,” the think tank told court. “When the government acts in an area of questionable constitutionality, Congress cannot be deemed to have authorized that action by mere implication or acquiescence,” it added, “Rather, Congress must explicitly indicate that it intends to alter the rights and limitations normally afforded by the law.”

Yet with regards to the controversial NSA operation, Congress never “made such an explicit statement.” According to Kate Martin, the director of the Center for National Security Studies, the brief is the first formal argument the FISA Court has heard outlining how the bulk data collection does not comply with the law. “The court hasn’t heard the opposing view on that before issuing these orders, on that question,” she said.

A broadcaster-backed effort to keep local radio stations from paying musicians for songs has gained the support of more than half of the House of Representatives.

As some members push measures that would require AM/FM radio stations to pay for the songs they play, 219 members of the House have signed onto the Local Radio Freedom Act. That resolution -- introduced by Reps Michael Conway (R-TX) and Gene Green (D-TX) in early 2013 -- prohibits "any new performance fee, tax, royalty, or other charge” on local AM/FM radio stations.

The Senate companion resolution was introduced in 2013 by Sens John Barrasso (R-WY) and Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND); 12 other senators back it. Though AM/FM radio stations do not currently have to pay artists for songs the stations broadcast, some members of Congress are pushing bills that would require radio stations to pay these “royalty fees.”

According to the National Association of Broadcasters, the large number of supporters backing the Local Radio Freedom Act indicates that many in Congress agree that radio royalty fees aren’t needed.