Open government

The Connected Government Act (S 1769) would require all federal agencies that create or update a website intended for use by the public to ensure that the website is mobile friendly. A mobile friendly website is defined as one that is configured in such a way that it may be easily navigated and viewed on a smartphone, tablet computer, or similar mobile device. In addition, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the General Services Administration (GSA), would report on the implementation of these requirements within 18 months.

Enacting S. 1769 would not affect direct spending or revenues; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures do not apply. CBO estimates that enacting S. 1769 would not increase direct spending or on-budget deficits in any of the four consecutive 10-year periods beginning in 2028. S. 1769 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.

The Supreme Court is setting aside a request to live stream its oral arguments. The attorney for Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. told members of Congress that live streaming even the audio portion of its oral arguments might impact the outcome. "The Chief Justice appreciated and shares your ultimate goal of increasing public transparency and improving public understanding of the Supreme Court," Roberts' attorney, Jeffrey P. Minear, wrote the four members of Congress seeking to have the court's gerrymandering case live streamed in audio. "I am sure you are, however, familiar with the Justices' concerns surrounding the live broadcast or streaming of oral arguments, which could adversely affect the character and quality of the dialogue between the attorneys and Justices. Consequently, the Court is unable to accommodate your request."

At least six of President Trump’s closest advisers occasionally used private email addresses to discuss White House matters, current and former officials said.

Stephen Bannon, the former chief White House strategist, Reince Priebus, the former chief of staff, advisers, Gary Cohn and Stephen Miller, and Ivanka Trump have all used personal email accounts to conduct government business. Officials are supposed to use government emails for their official duties so their conversations are available to the public and those conducting oversight. But it is not illegal for White House officials to use private email accounts as long as they forward work-related messages to their work accounts so they can be preserved.

Presidential son-in-law and senior adviser Jared Kushner has corresponded with other administration officials about White House matters through a private email account set up during the transition, part of a larger pattern of Trump administration aides using personal email accounts for government business.

Kushner uses his private account alongside his official White House email account, sometimes trading emails with senior White House officials, outside advisers and others about media coverage, event planning and other subjects. “Mr. Kushner uses his White House email address to conduct White House business,” said Abbe Lowell, a lawyer for Kushner. “Fewer than 100 emails from January through August were either sent to or returned by Mr. Kushner to colleagues in the White House from his personal email account. These usually forwarded news articles or political commentary and most often occurred when someone initiated the exchange by sending an email to his personal rather than his White House address.” Aides who have exchanged emails with Kushner on his private account since President Donald Trump took office in January include former chief of staff Reince Priebus, former chief strategist Steve Bannon, National Economic Council director Gary Cohn, and spokesman Josh Raffel. In some cases, those White House officials have emailed Kushner’s account first. At times, Bannon and Priebus have also used private email accounts to correspond with Kushner and others.

Pandering to the base is a tradition as old as politics itself. But in the social media age, it’s easier than ever for politicians to take those tailored messages—the kind they might not like to share with the whole world—and disseminate them only to the people who are most likely to agree. And targeting allows campaigns to silo thousands of possible audiences with just a click, making it harder than ever to hold politicians accountable for all of it.

Some have taken to calling this type of ad a “dark post,” an overly nefarious name for what is, in actuality, just the way digital ads operate today. Technically speaking, Trump's ad buy works the same as one for the pair of Zappos shoes that somehow follows you around the internet. You’re seeing those shoes because Facebook thinks you're in the market for shoes. But President Trump isn’t running a shoe store; still less than a year into his term, he's already running a reelection campaign. And when the president sends one subset of the population a message that the rest of the population can’t see—especially one that's at odds with reality—it feels like a fundamental failure of government transparency.

A group of Democratic senators has joined in a call for the Federal Communications Commission to allow for public "review and comment" on tens of thousands of network-neutrality complaints provided through a Freedom of Information Act request in May, saying the FCC has not provided sufficient opportunity to vet them.

They said the documents were only produced a few days before the August Open Internet Order proceeding deadline and were only posted to the FCC website recently. “Although the Commission has undertaken an historic proceeding to undo the Open Internet Order, the FCC has failed to provide stakeholders with an opportunity to comment on the tens of thousands of filed complaints that directly shed light on proposed changes to existing net neutrality protections,” they wrote in a letter to FCC Chairman Ajit Pai. “The public deserves an opportunity to review and analyze evidence that has a direct impact on the proceeding.” The senators want Chairman Pai to tell them what efforts the FCC has taken to analyze the complaints, responses from ISPs and other documents, how it will incorporate them into the record and when, whether the FCC will issue a public notice and comment cycle on them.

Signing on to the letter were Senators Ed Markey (D-MA), Charles Schumer (D-NY), Ron Wyden (D-OR), Al Franken (D-MN), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) and Kamala Harris (D-CA).

The National Hispanic Media Coalition filed a joint Motion, with 20 additional organizations, in the Federal Communications Commission’s Restoring Internet Freedom proceeding asking the FCC to enter into the record all open internet complaints, ombudsperson correspondence, and carrier responses since the 2015 Open Internet Order, and set a comment period to allow for public input on the new evidence. NHMC initially asked for all related documents in May and, as of this writing, has not received any of the attachments to the ombudsperson emails and has received only 823 pages of the 18,000 carrier responses to consumer complaints about issues they experienced.

It’s easy to get fixated on all the “smart” innovations out there—roads that talk to you, cars that talk to the road, and all kinds of sensors. But if it’s not the gadget that makes a city smart, then what does?

The heart of a smart city is actually the data and the brain is using that data to change your decision-making process, to make you react faster in cases where the city needs to react, to make you predictive where you can be to save money or provide a better service, or to give you a better appreciation of what's happening in your city. 85 percent of the data that you need to run a smart city, you’ve probably already got. Any city can be a smart city, or a smarter city, just by getting better control of their data and by understanding what it's saying to them. And it's going to say something different to every city, because every city has different needs and requirements, and different governance structures.

U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly tore into President Trump’s voter commission for reneging on a promise to fully disclose public documents before a July 19 meeting, ordering the government to meet new transparency requirements and eliciting an apology from administration lawyers.

Judge Kollar-Kotelly of Washington said the Election Integrity Commission released only an agenda and proposed bylaws before its first meeting at the White House complex. But once gathered, commissioners sat with thick binders that included documents the public had not seen, including a specially-prepared report and a 381-page “database” purporting to show 1,100 cases of voter fraud, both from the Heritage Foundation, and also received a typed list of possible topics to address from the panel vice chairman, Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach. Judge Kollar-Kotelly said the panel’s after-the-fact argument was “incredible” when it said it did not believe documents prepared by individual commissioners for the July meeting had to have been posted in advance.

Shortly after Ajit Pai was named chair of the Federal Communications Commission in February, he said he wanted the agency to be “as open and accessible as possible to the American people." Six months on, the agency is falling short of Pai’s lofty goal in some key areas.

Critics are especially concerned about the FCC’s handling of complaints from the public about internet providers and the causes of a May 7 outage of the public-comments section of the agency’s website. "Chairman Pai promised to make the FCC more transparent, but the early returns aren't looking good," said Sen Ron Wyden (D-OR). "The FCC seems more concerned with helping Big Cable than living up to his promise." Many complaints about a lack of transparency at the FCC relate to the commission’s plan to reverse some of its net-neutrality rules, which prohibit internet providers from favoring some forms of traffic over others. The FCC’s proceeding failed to mention that the agency has received more than 47,000 informal complaints about alleged net-neutrality violations since the rules took effect in 2015.