Upcoming policy issue

Most critiques of the nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh, President Donald Trump’s nominee to replace Justice Anthony Kennedy on the Supreme Court, focus on his positions on a woman’s right to choose, his extreme deference to presidential power, or his views on sensible gun laws.

With new attacks by President Donald Trump, high-stakes testimony Sept 5 on Capitol Hill, and a midterm election vulnerable to online manipulation, tech’s giants are bracing themselves for two months after Labor Day that could decide whether and how much the government regulates them. The companies — led by Facebook and Google but with Twitter, Apple, and Amazon also in the mix — are caught in a partisan vise, between privacy-oriented critics on the left who fear further election interference and newer charges from the right of anti-conservative bias and censorship.

Lobbying groups and trade associations, including several representing the tech industry, are pushing for a litany of deep changes to California's new data protection law that they say would make the law easier to implement before it goes into effect in January 2020. But privacy advocates worry that pressure from powerful businesses could end up gutting the law completely. "This is their job: to try to make this thing absolutely meaningless.

While President Donald Trump has few direct ways of going after Google, his administration and allies in Congress could find ways to make life difficult for the company. Antitrust officials at the Justice Department or Federal Trade Commission, for example, could investigate whether the search giant is abusing its market dominance. Trump's Republican allies in Congress could subject the company to more unpleasant, high-profile hearings.

Tech companies long averse to regulation are starting to embrace the idea of federal data privacy rules as they nervously eye foreign governments' moves toward more tightly regulating their expansive businesses. It's too late for tech to escape sweeping new privacy rules like Europe's General Data Protection Regulation. But clear rules from the US could serve as a global standard as countries around the world look to impose or tighten privacy laws.  As it stands, Europe's first-mover regulations are already resonating globally.

A bipartisan bill now in Congress would give the National Institutes of Health $95 million over five years to fund studies on how media and technology effect children.

Two bills aimed at reinstating aspects of the repealed Obama-era net neutrality rules are headed to a vote in the California General Assembly. The measures, billed by state legislators as “the strongest net neutrality protections in the country,” were stripped of key provisions earlier in 2018 amid fierce opposition from industry groups, but those components were later restored, and the measures have gained momentum in recent weeks.

An exacting look at Judge Brett Kavanaugh's judicial record is crucial to understand where he stands on issues of critical importance to the American people. In one such case, United States Telecom Association. v. FCC, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals was called upon to review the constitutionality of the Federal Communications Commission’s net neutrality regulations from 2015.

Google is drawing fire from the privacy community for quietly tracking the location of smartphone users -- even when they took specific steps to prevent the tech giant from doing so. Google services on Android devices and iPhones stored users’ location data even if they turned off the setting known as “Location History.”  The move could bring the company new attention from lawmakers. Sen Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) has already spoken out, saying on Twitter, "Google’s relentless obsession with following our every movement is encroaching  & creepy.

Sinclair Broadcasting has a right to establish that that they did not engage in “misrepresentations and/or lack of candor”—an assertion by the Federal Communications Commission—in matters related to its $3.9 billion acquisition of Tribune Media. The FCC has designated the matter for an administrative hearing before an administrative law judge. That hearing must go forward. The character of the licensee is an important component in determining whether the party is a fit trustee for the public’s airwaves.