WebProNews

Tag: House of Representatives

  • House Intelligence Committee Collaborating With Obama Administration On New CISPA

    CISPA was one of the more worrisome Internet-related bills of 2012. It threatened the online privacy of just about everyone by allowing corporations to share information with governments in the hopes of sniffing out cyber threats. The House approved bill died while waiting for a vote from the Senate, but it looks like it will be back this year with some new protections in tow.

    The Hill reports that Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger, the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, is partnering with Intelligence Chairman Mike Rogers to re-introduce CISPA into the house this year. The original CISPA was threatened with a veto from the White House, but Ruppersberger hopes to avoid that this year by working directly with White House staff in the crafting of the bill.

    What kind of cybersecurity bill can we expect from a collaboration between the House and the Obama administration? It’s too early to tell, but Ruppersberger says that his team is “working with the White House to to make sure that hopefully they can be more supportive of our bill than they were last time.” These discussions with the White House are reportedly “working pretty well.”

    For the bill to have support from the White House, it will have to feature more of the privacy protections found in the Senate’s CSA. Both CISPA and CSA raised concern over their lack of privacy protections, but the White House seemed to favor CSA.

    The reemergence of CISPA is only the beginning of a year that will be putting a lot of emphasis on cybersecurity. The U.S. is already gearing up for what could turn into massive offensives that are carried out online. Calls for a cybersecurity bill that sets ground rules for what the nation can and can not do will only continue to grow as the year goes on.

  • Rep. Greg Walden To Introduce Internet Freedom Bill

    The Internet came under attack far too many times in 2012, but the biggest threat came from the United Nations and its ITU branch. If the group had its way, the Internet would have come under control of the U.N. instead of the current multi-stakeholder approach. A number of nations, including the U.S., rejected the treaty on the grounds of Internet freedom. Now one lawmaker is wanting to make that position the official policy of the U.S.

    The Hill reports that Rep. Greg Walden, chairman of the House Communications and Technology subcommittee, has proposed a bill that would make it the official policy of the U.S. to promote Internet freedom around the world. The bill was introduced during a hearing this week that’s looking into the ITU and its attempts to control the Internet.

    Walden talked up the legislation during the hearing by saying that the “traditional hands-off approach” is key to the continued growth of the Internet:

    “Governments’ traditional hands-off approach has enabled the Internet to grow at an astonishing pace and become perhaps the most powerful engine of social and economic freedom and job creation our world has ever known.”

    The proposed legislation features a number of findings that Internet freedom proponents will find most gratifying:

  • Given the importance of the Internet to the global economy, it is essential that the Internet remain stable, secure, and free from government control.
  • The world deserves the access to knowledge, services, commerce, and communication, the accompanying benefits to economic development, education, and health care, and the informed discussion that is the bedrock of democratic self-government that the Internet provides.
  • The structure of Internet governance has profound implications for competition and trade, democratization, free expression, and access to information.
  • Countries have obligations to protect human rights, which are advanced by online activity as well as offline activity.
  • The position of the United States Government has been and is to advocate for the flow of information free from government control.

    • Walden’s bill is well intentioned, but it can’t really do anything to stop the U.N.’s Internet power grab. All it can really do is make Internet freedom the official stance of the U.S., but it can’t make that the official stance of other nations voting at ITU negotiations.

    For that, the U.S. and its allies must continue the argument that the current multi-stakeholder approach to the Internet is the right one. That argument may not be a popular one at a meeting of nations featuring the likes of Russia and China, both of which want unprecedented control of the Internet, but it’s about the only thing we have.

  • House Committee Demands Answers From Justice Department Over The Prosecution Of Aaron Swartz

    It’s been a few weeks now since noted activist Aaron Swartz committed suicide. Since then, there has been a lot of discussion in regards to our justice system and how it handles prosecution. The House promised to look into it, and now the Oversight and Government Reform Committee will be doing just that.

    Darrell Issa, House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman, and Elijah Cummings, sent a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder demanding a briefing from the Justice Department on the prosecution of Aaron Swartz. Most of the letter recounts the history of Swartz’ case, but the end dives into what the Committee wants out of the briefing:

    Many questions have been raised about the appropriate level of punishment sought by prosecutors for Mr. Swartz’s alleged offenses, and how the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, cited in 11 of 13 counts against Mr. Swartz, should apply under similar circumstances. For example, according to Marc Zwillinger, a former federal prosecutor familiar with cybercrime investigations, “[t]he question in any given case is whether the prosecutor asked for too much, and properly balanced the harm caused in a particular case with the defendant’s true culpability.”

    From there, the letter demands that the Justice Department answer the following questions at a briefing:

  • What factors influenced the decision to prosecute Mr. Swartz for the crimes alleged in the indictment, including the decisions regarding what crimes to charge and the filing of the superseded indictment?
  • What Mr. Swartz’s opposition to SOPA or his association with any advocacy groups among the factors considered?
  • What specific plea offers were made to Mr. Swartz, and what factors influenced the decisions by prosecutors regarding plea offers made to Mr. Swartz?
  • How did the criminal charges, penalties sought, and plea offers in this case compare to those of other cases that have been prosecuted or considered for prosecution under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act?
  • Did the federal investigation of Mr. Swartz reveal evidence that he had committed other hacking violations?
  • What factors influenced the Department’s decision regarding sentencing proposals?
  • Why was a superseding indictment necessary?

    • It’s kind of a long shot, but the DoJ might just humor the House Committee and actually show up. The Department will have to schedule the briefing for a day before February 4. We’ll let you know if the DoJ responds, or it it schedules a briefing. If it does show up, it might yield some interesting results as Issa has proven to be pretty tough on these matters.

    [h/t: The Hill]

  • “Aaron’s Law” To Go Before House Judiciary Committee

    In the wake of Aaron Swartz’ suicide, Rep. Zoe Lofgren said she was drafting a bill to fix the archaic Computer Fraud and Abuse Act that led to his arrest. She even appealed to Reddit users to help her write the first draft. Now that first draft is heading up the legislative food chain.

    The Hill reports that “Aaron’s Law” will be going before the House Judiciary Committee in the coming weeks. The Committee will also be looking at a number of other factors, including judicial decisions in cases involving the CFAA, before it makes any decision.

    At the annual State of the Net conference, House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte said that his Committee will be looking into Swartz’ case and others in the coming weeks:

    “We certainly are going to look at that very carefully and see what we can do in that area, but at this point in time we’re looking at what occurred in specific instances and what needs to done to make sure that the law isn’t abused. There’s a lot of legal input, judicial input into this and we’re going to look at that and pair it up against what the language of the law is today and how we’re going to pursue it—but we’re just starting on that.”

    It may not provide much comfort to Swartz’ grieving family, friends and supporters, but they must be a little relieved that lawmakers will be looking into what they see as an abuse of the law. In fact, Swartz’ family blamed their son’s death on a “criminal justice system rife with intimidation and prosecutorial overreach.”

    It’s hard to say if the Committee will side with Lofgren and Swartz’ supporters on this issue, but there is plenty of public support for reform. People unwittingly violate terms of service agreements every day, and a broad interpretation of the CFAA as is could lead to these people facing jail time over an innocuous offense. Lofgren’s bill would “work to prevent a repeat of the abuses of power [Swartz] experienced.”

    [Image: ragesoss/flickr]

  • Rep. Zoe Lofgren Plans Amendment To CFAA Called Aaron’s Law

    In the wake of Aaron Swartz’ passing over the weekend, many people questioned why such a brilliant young man would take his own life. His family and many others said his death was “the product of a criminal justice system rife with intimidation and prosecutorial overreach.” Now people are calling for reforms to the law that allowed the justice system to come out so strongly against him, and one lawmaker is answering that call.

    TechDirt reports that Rep. Zoe Lofgren is proposing an amendment to the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act called Aaron’s Law. She explained what the amendment would do in a thread announcing the legislation on Reddit:

    As we mourn Aaron Swartz’s tragic death, many of us are deeply troubled as we learn more about the government’s actions against him. His family’s statement about this speaks volumes about the inappropriate efforts undertaken by the U.S. government. There’s no way to reverse the tragedy of Aaron’s death, but we can work to prevent a repeat of the abuses of power he experienced.

    We should prevent what happened to Aaron from happening to other Internet users. The government was able to bring such disproportionate charges against Aaron because of the broad scope of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) and the wire fraud statute. It looks like the government used the vague wording of those laws to claim that violating an online service’s user agreement or terms of service is a violation of the CFAA and the wire fraud statute.

    Using the law in this way could criminalize many everyday activities and allow for outlandishly severe penalties.

    When our laws need to be modified, Congress has a responsibility to act. A simple way to correct this dangerous legal interpretation is to change the CFAA and the wire fraud statutes to exclude terms of service violations. I will introduce a bill that does exactly that. In addition to the posted link, a draft copy of the bill is available here. In coming days, I will seek cosponsors for the bill from both political parties.

    As you know from prior posts, I am drafting broader measures to improve copyright law that are separate from this effort. But this bill to amend CFAA and wire fraud statutes, which I would like to call “Aaron’s Law,” should be enacted separately and swiftly. It could be an important tribute to him.

    But that is likely to happen only with your help and your support.

    In short, the amendment would decriminalize Terms of Service violations. It was the one crime that Swartz was “guilty” of, and others have been trapped for under the CFAA for similar acts. Unfortunately, violation of ToS under CFAA carries a stiffer penalty than many violent crimes as pointed out by activists as part of Anonymous’ #OpAngel campaign that seeks to reform the law as well.

    How good of a chance would Aaron’s Law have if it’s introduced in the House? It’s hard to say. Lofgren’s bills that address technology and Internet related matters don’t exactly have a stunning track record. The 113th Congress has some new members, however, and these new members may be more open to passing reform to bills created in the 80s that no longer apply to modern day scenarios.

    [Image: ragesoss/flickr]

  • Obama Signs Amended VPPA Into Law: Netflix Users Can Now Share Viewing History On Facebook

    In 2012, Netflix spent the year battling a decades old law that said its users couldn’t share what their viewing history on Facebook or social networks. The company started lobbying Congress and its efforts finally paid off with a bill that passed both the House and the Senate. Now the bill is officially signed into law.

    The Hill reports that an updated Video Privacy Protection Act has been signed by President Obama. The updated law allows users of video services like Netflix to share what they’re watching on social networking services. Now Netflix can bask in the joy of creating Facebook apps that have the potential to drive adoption of its services even more.

    The new VPPA is an update to a bill that was crafted in 1988 after Supreme Court Justice nominee Robert Bork’s videotape rental history was published by the Washington City Paper. It was deemed a massive invasion of privacy, and Congress enacted the VPPA to ban the sharing of any video history without the written consent of the consumer in question.

    Of course, you may be concerned about any privacy implications in the new VPPA. Worry not as the bill has two important clauses that should keep your dirty laundry out of the public eye if you so wish. First and foremost, the rental company in question, in this case Netflix, must give users a “clear and conspicuous” option to stop sharing their viewing history. Furthermore, a consumer’s consent to sharing will automatically expire after 24 months unless they renew it.

    All in all, this updated bill sounds pretty good. In fact, the only downside is that Sen. Patrick Leahy’s attached legislation that would require law enforcement to obtain a warrant when snooping through email was removed from the VPPA in the Senate. But hey, why should you care about warrantless surveillance when you can be showing your friends how many movies you watch on Netflix?

  • The Future Of Sharing Your Netflix History On Facebook Is Now In Obama’s Hands

    Some of the best news this week was when the VPPA was approved by the House. The 1988 bill desperately needed to be updated so that Netflix socialites could share their viewing history on social networks. Now the bill has proven itself to be a fast worker as it’s now on its way to Obama’s desk.

    Bloomberg reports that the VPPA has passed the Senate on Thursday thus clearing the way for the bill to be signed into law by President Obama. It would be the end to a fight that was started earlier this year after Netflix had to pay a pretty hefty settlement for being in violation of the decades old law. It would appear that Netflix’ increased spending on lobbyists will not go to waste.

    So it looks like the reformed VPPA is going to be passed. What does this mean for the consumer that regularly uses Facebook and Netflix? If the bill gets signed into law, you’ll be able to share your viewing history on social media like Facebook, Twitter and other services. It won’t just be Netflix either. Services like Hulu Plus and Amazon Instant Video will obviously want a piece of the sharing pie. They get free advertising and you get to tell your friends how obsessed you are with watching reruns of Power Rangers.

    It sounds great, but should you be concerned about your privacy? Probably not. The version of the bill that made its way to President Obama’s desk has two important consumer protection clauses. The first clause requires any “video rental service” (i.e. Netflix) to display a “clear and conspicuous” option to stop sharing their viewing data at any and all times. The second clause requires the aforementioned consent to expire after 24 months unless the consumer chooses to opt in again.

    It’s very likely that President Obama will sign the updated VPPA into law before Christmas. Netflix probably has a Facebook share option just waiting to go live upon the bill being signed into law. It’s the best Christmas gift the video streaming service could ever ask for.

  • House Approves VPPA: Americans Might Soon Be Able To Share Netflix Viewing Data On Facebook

    In the last few weeks of the current congress, members seem to going into overdrive as they introduce some last minute bills. The latest bill to reach approval in the House is of particular significance as its an update to the archaic, and frankly rather stupid, VPPA.

    The Hill reports that the House, by voice vote, approved H.R. 6671 which is an update to the Video Privacy Protection Act. The bill, originally passed in 1988, was meant to prevent the press and other groups from accessing video rental records of citizens without their written consent. Video rentals are a thing of the past, however, and now the bill only impedes the ability of Netflix to let its users share their viewing history on Facebook and other social networks.

    This is the second time that the House has approached an update to the VPPA. Last year, the House passed H.R. 2471 which the current H.R. 6671 draws heavily from. The bill never made it past the Senate, but the legislative body did offer some suggestions that made it into the new iteration of the bill.

    The bill’s sponsor, Rep. Bob Goodlatte, had this to say about the updated bill:

    “With today’s technology, consumers can quickly and efficiently access video programming through a variety of platforms, including through Internet protocol-based video services, all without leaving their homes. This bill updates the VPPA to allow videotape service providers to facilitate the sharing on social media networks of the movies watched or recommended by users.”

    Ignoring Goodlatte’s use of the antiquated term “videotape,” the bill itself has some good stuff in it. Those who fear that the proposed update gets rid of all privacy protections in the VPPA will be happy to know that individual privacy plays a major role in the House bill after taking suggestions from the Senate.

    The first update to the bill includes a clause that requires video rental companies (i.e. Netflix) to give consumers a “clear and conspicuous” option to stop sharing their video viewing data on social networks at any time. The second update requires a consumer’s consent to expire after 24 months unless they choose to opt in again.

    H.R. 6671 will reportedly benefit from bipartisan and bicameral support. It should see easy passage in the next few weeks after lawmakers are able to sort through the current fiscal cliff mess.

  • House Unanimously Opposes UN Takeover Of The Internet

    Politics are messy. It’s hard to get any two parties to agree on something, and it’s still full of vitriol and mudslinging when they do. That’s why it’s so refreshing to see lawmakers agree on something for once, even if it might not accomplish much.

    On Wednesday, the House unanimously passed a Senate resolution that calls for the US to oppose any proposals that would hand over control of the Internet to the United Nations. The resolution, introduced earlier this year by Sen. Claire McCaskill and Marco Rubin, is meant to send a strong signal to the ITU delegates meeting this week to discuss whether or not control of the Internet should be handed over to the UN.

    The resolution in question is only three pages long, but it’s powerful in its prose. The opening points to how important the Internet is to a global economy, free speech, access to knowledge, protection of human rights and other worthwhile causes. It’s for these reasons that the US supports the “current multistakeholder model that has enabled the Internet to flourish.”

    The representatives speaking on the House floor on Wednesday echoed the resolution with Rep. Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee saying, “We need to send a strong message to the world that the Internet has thrived under a decentralized, bottom-up, multi-stakeholder governance model.”

    Rep. Anna Eshoo of California marveled at the bipartisan support of the resolution, and added that the Obama administration also backs the resolution.

    “I think that we are all very, very proud that there is not only bipartisan, but bicameral support underlying this resolution, and there is complete support across the Executive Branch of our government. In other words, the United States of America is totally unified on this issue of an open structure, a multi-stakeholder approach that has guided the Internet over the last two decades.”

    Despite the resolution, countries from around the world will be campaigning for a UN takeover of the Internet for the next week. The US delegates at WCIT in Dubai are fighting back, and are currently confident that the ITU won’t pass any resolutions that will affecting the sovereignty of the Internet.

    [h/t: The Hill]

  • White House Probe Reportedly Finds No Evidence Of Spying From Chinese Telecom

    White House Probe Reportedly Finds No Evidence Of Spying From Chinese Telecom

    Earlier this month, the House Intelligence Committee accused Chinese tech companies Huawei and ZTE of spying on America. They feared that these two companies were investing in American telecoms only to gain access to critical American infrastructures. Turns out those fears may be unfounded.

    Speaking to sources familiar with the matter, Reuters has found that a White House probe into Huawei turned up nothing. The company is being just that – a company. There’s no clear evidence that they are working with the Chinese government to undermine American infrastructure.

    With that being said, the probe did find something very interesting. Most of Huawei’s products can be easily exploited by hackers. In particular, Huawei-made routers have bad code that investigators say is the result of poor coding, not intentional sabotage. The fear now is that Huawei’s products could be used by any private or state-sponsored hackers to gain access to privately stored information.

    Other sources speaking to Reuters say the bad code was deliberate. A computer scientist told them that Huawei’s routers contain “back doors” that he feels were deliberately inserted “with care.” If the company was spying, it would allow them to siphon data from citizens and government entities using the routers.

    In their defense, Huawei’s US spokesperson Bill Plummer said that the company’s products do not contain any backdoors. He also points out that all hardware is susceptible to hackers, and that Huawei would fix any vulnerabilities found in their products.

    For now, the probe hasn’t found any damning evidence. That means Huawei is in the clear for now, but the House Intelligence Committee will most likely not back down. Co-author of the House Intelligence Committee report, Dutch Ruppersberger, told Reuters that “China has the means, opportunity, and motive to use telecommunications companies for malicious purposes.”

    It’s almost looking like America is ready to enter a new Cold War with China. A big problem with that is that China has far more resources at their disposal than the Soviet Union ever did. The advanced technology at both countries’ disposal could make things far more complicated as well. It’s been said before that the next World War would be fought over the Internet, and events like this make that future seem all the more possible.

  • House Intelligence Committee Says Chinese Telecoms Pose Security Threat

    House Intelligence Committee Says Chinese Telecoms Pose Security Threat

    China has two major telecom companies – Huawei and ZTE. Both companies create networking devices and Android phones. The latter are becoming more popular in the US as they make some of the smallest phones on the market. That popularity has become concern as the House Intelligence Committee says both companies are security threats.

    For the past year, the House Intelligence Committee has been probing the inner workings of Huawei and ZTE. US lawmakers are concerned that these two companies would help China access the critical infrastructure in the US. The fears are not entirely unfounded either as Huawei was founded by Ren Zhengfei, a former member of the People’s Liberation Army. This gives Huawei a close relationship with China’s military that makes US officials uneasy.

    For their part, both Huawei and ZTE are dismissing the claims as nothing but paranoia. In fact, Huawei’s vice-president, William Plummer, had this to say on the matter:

    Purporting that Huawei is somehow uniquely vulnerable to cyber mischief ignores technical and commercial realities, recklessly threatens American jobs and innovation, does nothing to protect national security, and should be exposed as dangerous political distractions.

    Even so, the House Intelligence Committee says that Huawei and ZTE both provided “incomplete, contradictory, and evasive responses” during the investigation. This has led the House to recommend that all US companies and federal contractors refrain from using Huawei or ZTE products.

    Adding to all the fear, the White House was attacked last week by hackers. The Obama administration wouldn’t say where the attack came from, but other reports claimed China was behind the attack. This recent attack probably only further confirmed the House committee’s fears.

    China is going to remain a hot button issue as we near the presidential election. Both candidates are going to speak on their foreign policy in regards to China. It remains to be seen if either candidate will bring up this latest report as reason to start being more cautious around China.

    [h/t: BBC]

  • Rep. Zoe Lofgren Is A True Internet Hero

    The Internet is constantly under attack from those who would seek to control it. This year alone, we have seen numerous attempts to regulate the Internet in the name of safety, security, preventing terrorism or just because outdated businesses can’t evolve with the times. That’s why it’s always refreshing to see somebody in government actually understand the importance of keeping the Internet free from cumbersome and destructive regulation.

    Today’s Internet warrior is Rep. Zoe Lofgren, who hails from the state of California. She has introduced two new bills into the House that would protect Internet freedoms and give more power to the people. These bills are H.R. 6529 – The ECPA 2.0 Act of 2012 – and H.R. 6530 – The Global Free Internet Act of 2012. These two bills represent some of the best ideas that Washington has ever had in regards to Internet freedoms.

    First up is the ECPA 2.0 Act of 2012. We’ve already gone over the original ECPA and the efforts in the Senate to update the bill to modern standards. Lofgren’s bill would be much more comprehensive than the Senate’s version and includes some much needed protections for all Americans and their digital communications.

    Here’s the four basic principles of ECPA 2.0 as described by a fact sheet on Lofgren’s Web site:

  • The government should obtain a warrant before compelling a service provider to disclose an
    individual’s private online communications.
  • The government should obtain a warrant before it can track the location of an individual’s
    wireless communication device.
  • Before it can install a pen register or trap and trace device to capture real time transactional
    data about when and with whom an individual communicates using digital services (such as
    email or mobile phone calls), the government should demonstrate to a court that such data is
    relevant to a criminal investigation.
  • The government should not use an administrative subpoena to compel service providers to
    disclose transactional data about multiple unidentified users of digital services (such as a bulk
    request for the names and addresses of everyone that visited a particular website during a
    specified time frame). The government may compel this information through a warrant or court order, but subpoenas should specify the individuals about whom the government seeks information.

    • It all sounds well and good, but the Senate’s proposed update, which features even less protection, has already met with stiff resistance from the Department of Justice and law enforcement. They argue that warrantless surveillance of your communication is the only way they can stop bad people from doing unspecified bad things.

    The Global Free Internet Act is by far the more interesting of the two bills. She points out that foreign governments alongside the U.S. government “create risks to the global free flow of information, international trade in Internet-related goods and services, and the technical standards that underpin the Internet.” In response, she proposes a task force that would help keep the Internet free.

    The Global Free Internet Act would create a Task Force on the Global Internet that identifies, prioritizes, and develops a response to policies and practices of the U.S. government, foreign governments, or international bodies that deny fair market access to Internet-related goods and services, or that threaten the technical operation, security, and free flow of global Internet communications. Members of the Task Force include the heads of several executive branch agencies, four U.S. persons nominated by Congressional leadership, and four U.S. persons who are not government employees nominated by the Internet itself. The Task Force would hold public hearings, issue reports no less than annually, and coordinate the activity of the U.S. government to respond to threats to the Internet. When the next SOPA-like legislation, restrictive international trade agreement, or overbroad treaty from an international body becomes a threat, it is the job of this Task Force to sound the alarm and propose a course of action.

    The language in this description should be noted for it singles out SOPA, ACTA and TPP as being threats to the Internet. It also suggests that people outside of Washington be appointed to this task force by average citizens who use the Internet. It’s ambitious, aggressive and just what the Internet needs. Unfortunately, money talks louder than words and various lobbying groups have proven that they’re willing to throw more money than they have to keep the Internet on a tight leash.

    Regardless, these bills at least present the idea that people in Washington actually care about a free and open Internet. The Internet was added to each party’s official platforms at their respective conventions, but neither actually laid out any firm plans on how to protect the Internet. Our most beloved commodity needs to rely on Internet warriors like Rep. Lofgren and Sen. Ron Wyden to make it through the next few tumultuous years.

    TechDirt has supplied both bills in their entirety. You can read them below.

    ECPA Act 2.0 of 2012

    hr 6529 – ecpa 2.0 act – rep lofgren

    Global Free Internet Act

    hr 6530 – global free internet act of 2012 – rep lofgren

  • House Passes Resolution To Protect Open Internet, Google Applauds

    The United States House of Representatives passed a Concurrent Resolution aimed at preserving and advancing “the multistakeholder governance model under which the Internet has thrived.”

    The resolution recognizes the importance of the Internet to the global economy, and access to knowledge, services, commerce and communication, as well as the “accompanying benefits to economic development, education, and health care, and the informed discussion that is the bedrock of democratic self-government that the Internet provides.”

    It also aims to protect freedom of expression and innovation. Read the document here (pdf).

    Google, for one, is happy with the bipartisan resolution, which opposes increased international regulation of the Internet.

    Vint Cerf, Google’s Chief Internet Evangelist, who is widely recognized as one of the “fathers of the Internet,” had the following to say on Google’s Public Policy blog:

    As I have recently testified and written, a battle in the war for the Internet is opening at the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), a United Nations organization. This December, the ITU is conducting a review of the international agreements governing telecommunications, and some member countries see the ITU conference as an opportunity to expand the ITU’s regulatory authority to reach the Internet.

    Traditionally, international discussions of Internet policy have flourished in a “multistakeholder” system that involves the input of lawmakers, academics, civil society, and users. If certain member states are successful in Dubai, they could change the Internet governance process as we know it, increasing state control over networks and substantially limiting the role of users and other vital, nongovernmental actors in important Internet policy debates.

    By passing this resolution, the U.S. Government has recognized the Internet’s critical role in growing the global economy, its unique status as a platform for innovation, and the success of multistakeholder model that lies at the heart of its governance. In the lead-up to the December conference, the future of the Internet is at stake, and I hope that other countries will adopt publicly similar positions.

    Meanwhile, in other Internet law news, on Thursday, the Senate voted to kill the Cybersecurity Act of 2012. More on that here.

  • SHIELD Act Is A Patent Troll’s Worst Nightmare

    I think we all agree that something has to be done about patent trolls. The patent system that they abuse is broken and it does nothing to better the economy. In fact, recent studies say patent trolls actually cost the economy about $29 billion in 2011. What’s a country with crappy patent laws to do? Pass a bill that would define software patents and punish the trolls that seek to abuse them.

    Thankfully, that bill is now a reality. Introduced in the House, Rep. Peter DeFazio of Oregon and Rep. Jason Chaffetz of Utah have introduced the Saving High-Tech Innovators from Egregious Legal Disputes (or SHIELD) Act. The bill is specifically aimed at defining software patents. It’s a must since our own patent system hasn’t been updated since 1952 and all patent disputes are argued with these outdated laws.

    So what does the SHIELD Act specifically accomplish? First and foremost, it seeks to define what a software patent is. As was mentioned, the legal understanding of a software patent is based on an outdated law from 1952. The SHIELD Act aims to define a software patent as “any process that could be implemented in a computer regardless of whether a computer is specifically mentioned in the patent.” On that note, it also defines a computer as “an electronic, mangnetic, optical, electrochemical, or other high speed data processing device performing logical, arithmetic, or storage functions.”

    As Ars Technica points out, the SHIELD Act only attempts to define the software patent. It doesn’t endorse the software patent since many people feel that software shouldn’t be patented. This opens the door for a later act that would outright abolish the software patent. In the meantime, this definition does well to protect software manufacturers from outlandish software patent suits that aren’t really software.

    In a statement, Rep. DeFazio says that his legislation “would force patent trolls to take financial responsibility for their frivolous lawsuits.” The SHIELD Act does just that and it’s the best part of the bill. If a patent troll is found to be filing a frivolous lawsuit that they had no hope of winning, they will be on tap to pay the defendant’s legal fees. It would make patent trolls think twice before bringing a lawsuit. The current system makes sure that they don’t owe a cent even if they lose the case.

    The SHIELD Act is the best shot we have at reforming the patent system. In its current state, it’s hopelessly broken. While it doesn’t fix everything that’s wrong with our current patent system, it’s a start that could lead to more legislation that would fix everything else. We might be able to even put an end to the silly wars between Apple and Samsung.

    You can read the full text of the proposed bill at the EFF’s Web site. Here’s hoping it actually gets somewhere in this election year.

  • The Ghost Of SOPA Has Come Back To Haunt Us In New Bill

    The Ghost Of SOPA Has Come Back To Haunt Us In New Bill

    It was pretty awesome to see the Internet come together to beat back SOPA and PIPA. It was one of the defining moments of the Internet, but many people knew it wasn’t over. Like the end of a particularly good film, the villain vows he will return for a sequel as he is cast into oblivion. Unfortunately, Rep. Lamar Smith just said SOPA three times and now a part of it is back in a new bill he’s sponsoring.

    The bill is called The Intellectual Property Attache Act and it gives more power to IP attaches. According to TechDirt, these are the people who work with foreign governments to expand IP rules and enforce American copyright around the world. At face value, this sounds like a good thing. There are plenty of foreign countries that still deal in physical counterfeiting and piracy. An expansion to IP attaches might make their job easier.

    Unfortunately, things are never that simple. The exact same expansion was presented in SOPA, but now it’s worse. The bill moves the IP attaches out of USPTO jurisdiction into their own agency. Their role under this new agency would be “to advance the intellectual property rights of United States persons and their licenses.” It wouldn’t be so bad if the bill was about working with other countries to create their own IP rules, but this is all about expanding American IP law to every other nation.

    The worst part about this bill is that nobody knew about it until it was too late. We only knew about it on Monday and now it’s on the fast track through committee. If it’s anything like CISPA, they will push through a vote without considering any amendments to the legislation.

    Another worrying aspect is that Rep. Darrell Issa, defender of the Internet and SOPA hater, is signed on as a sponsor for the bill. Issa was one of the strongest opponents to SOPA and PIPA when they were being trotted around in January and now he’s in support for what is essentially a chunk of what he was against. What gives? Speaking to TechCrunch, a spokesman for Issa said that the SOPA hater supports the bill because it helps “American individuals and companies that are experiencing intellectual property infringement in certain foreign countries.” He does, however, say that he will push to amend the bill with “clear IP exceptions like fair use” before it’s marked up.

    To be honest, we could be over thinking this. The Internet seems to get pretty jumpy whenever Rep. Smith is brought up anymore and SOPA is still fresh in the minds of many people. Of course, it doesn’t help when the bill in question takes its cue straight from parts of SOPA. Will Rep. Smith try to push through other parts of SOPA in other bills if we let this one slide?

  • House Will Vote To Repeal Obamacare On July 11th

    The Majority Leader of the United States House of Representatives, Eric Cantor, has announced that shortly after the Republican led house comes back from its Independence day recess, there will be another vote on the repeal of Obamacare. This comes after the Supreme Court voted to uphold the controversial bill 5-4.

    When asked about the new vote, Canter said: “The Supreme Court’s decision to uphold ObamaCare is a crushing blow to patients throughout the country. ObamaCare has failed to keep the President’s basic promise of allowing those who like their health care to keep it, while increasing costs and reducing access to quality care for patients.”

    The vote will take place on July 11th and, as Eric Cantor put it, “will clear the path for ‘patient-centered reforms that lower costs and increase choice.’” This vote will pass, but will more than likely not make it out of the Senate. If for some reason it does, then there is no way that Obama will sign the repeal to his signature piece of legislation. This vote is mostly seen as a political move in advance of the November elections which will now be all about Obamacare.

  • Google Issues a Call For Legislative Transparency

    Google has issued a statement announcing that it believes public policy should be based on sound data analysis. Seth Webb, a senior policy manager for Google, stated that Google takes transparency seriously, and that it also believes citizens can be more active in politics when more data is made public. Webb announced Google’s transparency stance in a post on the Google Public Policy Blog:

    Last year, for example, the U.S. House of Representatives identified transparency as one of its top priorities, and since then it has taken several steps towards becoming more open. The House now streams and archives video of committee hearings, and it shares draft legislation for public consultation online.

    As part of its ongoing effort to promote openness and transparency, the House of Representatives voted for an appropriations bill that directs a task force to examine and expedite the process of disclosing large amounts of legislative data to the public. Even before the bill was passed, Congressional leadership issued a statement on the importance of transparency and requested for the task force to begin its work immediately.

    Google is promoting the ability for bulk legislative data to be provided in formats such as XML, so that websites and apps can parse it and provide up-to-date information on legislation. Also, it hopes that researchers will be able to analyze the data for research purposes.

    Webb praised earlier initiatives to open government data, such as President Obama’s recently issued Digital Government Strategy, which called for executive branch offices to open up more of their data and for more deployment of mobile technology that will allow citizens to access government data at all times. Alongside this praise, Webb also stated that Google looks forward to even more increased legislative transparency in the future.

  • United Nations’ Proposal To Regulate Internet Going Before House This Week

    It seems that everybody wants a hand in the massive cookie jar known as the Internet. The latest group that wants some form of control over the Internet is the United Nations. I don’t need to tell you how bad of an idea that is and it seems that our government finally agrees with the Internet on something.

    The House of Representatives will be examining the proposal this week. According to The Hill, the UN backed proposal is already supported by China, Russia, Brazil and other countries that would benefit greatly from being able to control the Internet. If there’s one thing that we’ve learned, it’s that the U.S. hates it when foreign countries try to control the Internet.

    Thankfully, our government doesn’t seem to like this proposed regulation. The Hill has found that a majority of congressmen from both sides of the political spectrum are against it. It would appear that the Obama administration is also not a fan of letting the UN’s International Telecommunication Union have more of a stake in the way the Internet is run.

    Sen. Marco Rubio was quoted as saying that he’s against letting countries that are “not exactly bastions of Internet freedom” have a stake in the international Internet. He went on to say that countries, like Russia and China, that censor search terms “should not be a leader in international Internet regulatory frameworks.”

    To discuss the issue, the House is inviting several prominent people involved in the workings of the Internet to discuss the proposal. Those invited include Robert McDowell, FCC commissioner; David Gross, former State Department official; and Sally Wentworth, senior manager of public policy at the Internet Society. At face value, it looks like the House has chosen a varied approach when it comes to approaching this particular proposal.

    The main issue at hand is that governments want more control over the Internet. According to The Hill, the UN wants more control to better fight cyber attacks and control how international Internet access is regulated. You can already see how such a proposal is a bad idea. Our own government is already trying to violate its citizens’ privacy by using cybersecurity as an excuse. Just imagine CISPA on a global scale with multiple stakeholders including China trying to control the Internet. You have a recipe for absolute disaster and the destruction of what those working on the Internet have worked hard over the last 30 years to help create.

    The only problem is that the U.S. is not the only nation in the UN. There are unfortunately far more nations that would presumably love to control the Internet than countries that support the current non-government organization approach. The UN proposal could come up vote as soon as December when it meets in Dubai. We’ll keep you updated on this latest assault on Internet freedom.

  • Sen. Wyden Comes Out Against Cybersecurity Act of 2012

    The drama surrounding the various cybersecurity bills floating around Congress is never ending. CISPA passed the House, but what’s next? The controversial bill will head to the Senate, but they have their own cybersecurity bill to deal with – the Cybersecurity Act of 2012.

    When the White House came out against CISPA last month, they offered their support for the CSA. They said that it offered better protection of personal privacy than CISPA. That may be true, but it’s still not good enough according to Sen. Ron Wyden.

    Speaking to The Hill, Wyden says that the CSA is similar to CISPA in that it “subordinate(s) all existing privacy rules and constitutional principles to the poorly defined interest of ‘cybersecurity.’” He says that the bill should be more specific about what kind of data can be shared between corporations and government. He also argues that it should companies should be not be able to get legal immunity so easily.

    Wyden’s remarks jive with the argument that the ACLU made last week. Their main contention was also in regards to how the bill can essentially ignore privacy laws. The ACLU addressed another point of the bill that Wyden neglected to mention though. CSA allows the government to share the data they collect with any governmental agency including the NSA.

    Where Wyden really hits it home, however, is when he says that the debate over CISPA and CSA is just like the debate from earlier this year on SOPA and PIPA. He says that both of these debates presented a “false choice” to congressmen. They either had to choose one or the other. Those in support of the bill argue that being for privacy rights make a congressman also in support of cyberterrorism. There is no middle ground, only extremes. Unfortunately, that seems to be the only way of debate in Washington these days.

    Wyden has a tough fight ahead of him though. Even though it seems more and more likely that CISPA will die in the Senate, CSA will probably pass in some form or another. The White House seems all too willing to sign the CSA into law so that’s where we’re obviously in trouble.

    As always, if you feel particularly strong about this issue, you can contact your senator via ACLU’s contact form. I received a pretty standard issue reply from Sen. Rand Paul when I sent one in, but maybe you’ll have better luck. At least it lets them know that their constituents, the ones that voted them in, are watching their every move.

  • Amended CISPA Is A Direct Threat To Internet Privacy

    The bill we’ve grown to fear is much, much closer to being a reality in our lives with the passing of the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA), courtesy of the House of Representatives. The controversial bill passed with a vote of 248-168, giving us a clear indication of how much our elected leaders value your Internet privacy.

    That is, they don’t.

    Does the passage of CISPA, even though it is awaiting Senate approval, give you cause for concern, especially in regards to privacy and the respect of certain, fundamental rights? Are the elected officials in the United States capable of regulating something as vast and as complex as the Internet? Let us know what you think in the comments section.

    Aside from the fact that CISPA actually passed, there are other troubling issues surrounding the now-House approved bill. First off, as pointed out by TechDirt, the vote for CISPA’s passage wasn’t supposed to be until today (Friday, April 27). The second issue is the CISPA that just passed through the House has some amendments attached (PDF), and some feel this fact makes the bill a bigger threat to an individual’s online privacy than it was in previous manifestations. The amendments were sponsored by various representatives, but there’s one in particular that caught the eye of many CISPA critics: amendment number six.

    Sponsored by Misters Ben Quayle and Mike Thompson, and Miss Anna Eshoo, the sixth amendment has been presented as something that clarifies and limits scope of CISPA, but after reading the text attached to the proposed alteration, CISPA is actually worse than it was before the amendment was attached. A summary of the alteration that is most troubling:

    Would limit government use of shared cyber threat information to only 5 purposes:

    1) cybersecurity;
    2) investigation and prosecution of cybersecurity crimes;
    3) protection of individuals from the danger of death or physical injury;
    4) protection of minors from physical or psychological harm; and
    5) protection of the national security of the United States.

    Again, this amendment was introduces to “limit” the scope of CISPA, but as you might be able to infer, the vagueness of the alteration only makes accessing such information much easier. Essentially, if your actions are seen as a cybersecurity threat based on the five incredibly vague conditions listed, the threat information is readily available to any and all interested government parties, without the need of a search warrant or any other search and seizure protections offered by the Fourth Amendment.

    It appears that by adding such vague terms, the House of Representatives has successfully found a way to circumvent one of the key components to the Bill of Rights, or, as TechDirt puts it:

    Somehow, incredibly, this was described as limiting CISPA, but it accomplishes the exact opposite. This is very, very bad.

    Very bad indeed. You want to know what’s worse than that, however? The complete lack of outrage on various social media sites. Apparently, the sheep won’t get outraged unless Wikipedia conducts a site blackout or someone releases a 30-minute video that everyone shares on Facebook.

    An example of this apathy can be found on Twitter where such popular trends like Lady Gaga, Colt McCoy, Finally Friday and Delmon Young are active. While the #UNFailsSyria trend gives us some hope, once you click the trend, you quickly see there aren’t many Americans commenting on it. I guess they’re saving their tweets for Lady Gaga and celebrating the fact that Friday is indeed here.

    Apathy at its finest.

    Of course, there has been some reaction, but clearly, not enough to stir the masses the way the SOPA blackout did:

    @dailypaul
    Daily Paul    CISPA worse than thought! Last minute provisions are chilling! http://t.co/ucssH1WW #RonPaul2012 1 hour ago via twitterfeed ·  Reply ·  Retweet ·  Favorite · powered by @socialditto

    @doctorow
    Cory Doctorow    Pls RT. Congress deletes 4th Amendment: CISPA passed in sneak attack http://t.co/75pPfmGD 14 hours ago via web ·  Reply ·  Retweet ·  Favorite · powered by @socialditto

    @Timcast
    Tim Pool    Our government is run by people who are too out of touch personally, and technologically. #CISPA 1 hour ago via web ·  Reply ·  Retweet ·  Favorite · powered by @socialditto

    While CISPA passage through the house is indeed troubling, there’s still hope in the form of a President Obama veto, but then again, like a wonderfully-insightful Twitter user pointed out:

    @JustinMcElroy
    Justin McElroy    Sure, Obama is promising to veto #CISPA, but how can I trust a man who can’t even ADMIT HE AM A MOOSLIM? 58 minutes ago via TweetDeck ·  Reply ·  Retweet ·  Favorite · powered by @socialditto

    Yes, that particular tweet was done in jest, but do not doubt there are people running around who hold that very thought dear, and that’s almost as bad as the apathetic attitudes the American public has towards CISPA. In case you’re wondering how this amended version of CISPA affects you, provided it survives a potential Obama veto, CNet has thrown together a handy FAQ discussing the many ways the bill could impact your Internet privacy.

    Among those that stood out:

    Q: Is CISPA worse than SOPA?
    For all its flaws, SOPA targeted primarily overseas Web sites, not domestic ones. It would have allowed the U.S. attorney general to seek a court order against the targeted offshore Web site that would, in turn, be served on Internet providers in an effort to make the target virtually disappear.

    It was kind of an Internet death penalty targeting Web sites like ThePirateBay.org, not sites like YouTube.com, which are already subject to U.S. law.

    CISPA, by contrast, would allow Americans’ personal information to be vacuumed up by government agencies for cybersecurity and law enforcement purposes, as long as Internet and telecommunications companies agreed [Emphasis added]. In that respect, at least, its impact is broader.

    CNet’s entry goes hand-in-hand with the idea that CISPA in its current state ignores the principles laid down in the Fourth Amendment. If that’s not enough to raise your level of consternation over how elected officials in the United States view Internet regulation, I’m not sure what will.

    Let us know your thoughts on this potentially-damaging bill. Are the fears legitimate or much ado about nothing?

  • SNOPA Is One Internet Bill Worth Rooting For

    With the Internet exploding this morning at the news of CISPA passing the House, people may have put the bane of SOPA in the past. It turns out that SOPA was just the evil cousin of a much more benign technology bill that is very welcome in this climate of the government not caring about your privacy rights.

    MSNBC got the scoop today on SNOPA, a bill that I’m going to start calling the Internet’s prince in shining armor. Pardon the hyperbole, but after CISPA, I’m willing to take anything. If you were wondering, SNOPA stands for Social Networking Online Protection Act. The bill does just as it describes – protects you from snooping employers and schools wanting access to your Facebook or other social media.

    We covered the topic before, but it bears repeating just how bad of a problem this is. In short, it turns out that there’s a disturbing trend among American employers asking for applicants’ Facebook passwords. The reasoning is that they want to see what kind of person you are because your Facebook page is obviously a clear indicator of how you act in a professional setting.

    Anyway, all this culminated in a statement from Facebook and civil rights groups, but it never really got anywhere. That is until New York Representative Eliot Engel introduced the bill today. MSNBC obtained a letter from Engel’s office that explains the bill and its goals:

    “As you know, social media and networking has become such a widespread part of communications in our country, and around the globe. However, a person’s digital footprint is largely unprotected.

    There have been countless examples of employers requiring an applicant to divulge their user name and password as part of the hiring process. Additionally, some universities, and even secondary schools, have required the student either divulge their personal information, or grant the institution access to the personal account by ‘friending’ the student. These coercive practices are unacceptable, and should be halted.

    We have to draw a line between what is publicly available information, and what is personal, private content. I think we would all object to having to turn over usernames and passwords for email accounts, or even worse, to bank accounts. User-generated social media content should be no different.”

    Now this is the kind of bill that should be supported by the House. Unfortunately, these same people rejected a previous attempt to amend an already existing bill that would ban the practice. I don’t see much hope for SNOPA especially after the House already decided to side against the citizens and their rights.

    Still, it’s a first step and it may get us somewhere. It’s hard to remain optimistic, but there are wars to be fought against those who would seek to regulate the Internet and the freedom it stands for. Backing SNOPA would be one of those efforts that help protect users of the Internet from those who seek to use it for nefarious purposes, no matter how well intentioned they may be.

    [h/t: The Next Web]