Digital Content

Sen Ron Wyden (D-OR), a member of the Select Committee on Intelligence, wants to know how many "backdoor" searches of e-mails and other communications the government has conducted. He is concerned about warrantless searches the attorney general can authorize of information collected from or about US citizens if it also involves a person from another country or agent of a foreign power. He also wants to know if the intelligence community can conduct searches of that information without an individual warrant and what limits there are in searching the information if that person is not the target—the target has to be a foreign power or agent on the other side of that communication collected under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). Sen Wyden is also concerned about the lack of public awareness of the breadth of the data collection and limits on oversight, as well as what he says is the vagueness of government procedures for collection and use.

[Commentary] When I was White House communications director for President Barack Obama I would warn the White House press corps that they were living on borrowed time. In a digital age, with the proliferation of communication platforms, the media was eventually going to need a better answer for why 50 or so reporters deserved daily access to the White House — access not available to other outlets and the general public. Now, the clock has run out. The ultimate disrupter, in the form of President Donald Trump, is seeking to change nearly every rule that presidents and the reporters who cover them have lived by. To lose this give and take — either by refusing to turn on the cameras or by putting a showman at the podium — would be a significant blow to an accountable democracy.

[Jennifer Palmieri served as White House communications director from 2013 to 2015 and was communications director for Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign]

Verizon acknowledged using a new video optimization system but said it is part of a temporary test and that it did not affect the actual quality of video. The video optimization appears to apply both to unlimited and limited mobile plans. But some YouTube users are reporting degraded video, saying that using a VPN service can bypass the Verizon throttling. The Federal Communications Commission generally allows mobile carriers to limit video quality as long as the limitations are imposed equally across different video services despite network neutrality rules that outlaw throttling. The net neutrality rules have exceptions for network management. "We've been doing network testing over the past few days to optimize the performance of video applications on our network," said a Verizon spokesperson. "The testing should be completed shortly. The customer video experience was not affected."

With net neutrality fresh on the minds of many in the United States, it seems that the data speeds at which Verizon Wireless customers can stream Netflix videos have quietly been capped in some instances. Until one or both companies provide clarification, it’s a bit early to point the finger at Verizon. Verizon rivals AT&T and T-Mobile include some level of video “optimization” (better described as throttling) as part of their base unlimited data plans. Sprint does not, and Verizon has never given any indication that it would put a limit on video streaming speeds for unlimited customers.

A bipartisan bill has been introduced to establish copyright protections for performances of pre-1972 musical works. Reps Darrell Issa (R-CA) and Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) are sponsoring the Compensating Legacy Artists for their Songs, Service, and Important Contributions to Society (CLASSICS) Act (HR 3301).

“This an important and overdue fix to the law that will help settle years of litigation and restore some equity to this inexplicable gap in our copyright system," Issa said. “For years, we have been working to ensure royalty payments for artists who recorded many of our great musical classics before 1972," said Nadler. The new bill is an adjunct to the legislators' Fair Play Fair Pay Act music licensing bill introduced earlier this year and has been introduced in the past.

The US Department of Defense (DoD) faces persistent fundamental change in its strategic and operating environments. This report suggests this reality is the product of the United States entering or being in the midst of a new, more competitive, post-US primacy environment. Post-primacy conditions promise far-reaching impacts on US national security and defense strategy. Consequently, there is an urgent requirement for DoD to examine and adapt how it develops strategy and describes, identifies, assesses, and communicates corporate-level risk. From a defense strategy and planning perspective, post-primacy has five basic defining characteristics including: Hyperconnectivity and the weaponization of information, disinformation, and disaffection.

The European Union’s top court is set to decide whether the bloc’s “right to be forgotten” policy stretches beyond Europe’s borders, a test of how far national laws can—or should—stretch when regulating cyberspace. The case stems from France, where the highest administrative court on July 19 asked the EU’s Court of Justice to weigh in on a dispute between Alphabet's Google and France’s privacy regulator over how broadly to apply the right, which allows EU residents to ask search engines to remove some links from searches for their own names.

At issue: Can France force Google to apply it not just to searches in Europe, but anywhere in the world? The case will set a precedent for how far EU regulators can go in enforcing the bloc’s strict new privacy law. It will also help define Europe’s position on clashes between governments over how to regulate everything that happens on the internet—from political debate to online commerce. France’s regulator says enforcement of some fundamental rights—like personal privacy—is too easily circumvented on the borderless internet, and so must be implemented everywhere. Google argues that allowing any one country to apply its rules globally risks upsetting international law and, when it comes to content, creates a global censorship race among autocrats.

[Commentary] Fakes in the world of print publishing are relatively easy to discredit if not always to spot. Inconsistencies, errors, and—perhaps most importantly—widely accessible originals, make the job of persuasively forging content a significant challenge. In digital publishing, however, even maintaining original content cannot be taken for granted.

Being able to identify genuine digital material is “a huge issue,” says David Schulz, a prominent First Amendment lawyer and director of the Media Freedom & Information Access Clinic at Yale Law School. Given the increasing sophistication of fake digital content, Schulz asks, “How do you prove something was ‘out there’? How do you prove it’s authentic?” If reputable news organizations digitally sign their content, it would increase the difficulty of creating fake news by raising doubts about material that isn’t similarly authenticated. Likewise, developing such a standard would support archives that can withstand attempts to reauthor history. Although the technical challenge is substantial, it’s also one that is important to take on, as new organizations strive to rebuild public trust and set their work apart from that of content mills and fake news factories.

[Susan McGregor is Assistant Director of the Tow Center for Digital Journalism and Assistant Professor at Columbia School of Journalism.]

According to our preliminary research, there is some form of zero-rating in 20 out of 28 European nations. Zero-rating spans European Union economies of all sizes, from the United Kingdom to Romania, Germany, and Spain. This finding is consistent with Digital Fuel Monitor’s reports: in 2014, European Internet Service Providers offered at least 75 zero-rated apps; in 2015, they offered at least 35 zero-rated apps; and in 2016, they offered at least 62 zero-rated apps. Our preliminary research has found that today, in 2017, there exists at least 73 zero-rated apps across the continent.

[Commentary] Despite its name, the California Broadband Internet Privacy Act, awaiting votes in the state Senate, won’t do anything meaningful to protect consumer privacy on line. Instead, it will curb innovation and reduce competition, hurting consumers whose interests it purports to protect.

The measure, AB 375 by Assemblyman Ed Chau (D-Monterey Park), is intended to crack down on internet service providers that are allegedly selling sensitive personal web browsing information without consumers’ consent. Its backers argue that it will fill a supposed “privacy gap” left when Congress repealed Federal Communications Commission draft rules adopted during Barack Obama’s administration. Here’s why they’re wrong. First, the proposal attacks a nonexistent problem. Internet service providers have committed that they will seek permission from consumers before using sensitive personal information, such as health and financial data. Customers will have to affirmatively “opt in” before any such transaction could take place. So no one’s personal data is being sold. Second, even if a problem exists, there are legal tools to combat it. In short, there is no legislative privacy gap. Third, the state bill is based on a flawed proposal by the FCC. Don’t take my word for it. Ask America’s top privacy cop, the FTC.

[Jon Leibowitz, a partner at Davis Polk & Wardwell, was Federal Trade Commission chair from 2009-2013. He is co-chair of the 21st Century Privacy Coalition, a trade group of broadband providers.]