WebProNews

Tag: Legislation

  • Senate Introduces Global Cybercrime Enforcement Bill

    The U.S. is trying to dabble in policing the Internet again, but in a vastly different way. Meet S.1469 or the International Cybercrime Reporting and Cooperation Act.

    The bill was introduced recently into the Senate by Senator Kirsten Gillibrand of New York. It’s goal is “to require reporting on the capacity of foreign countries to combat cybercrime, to develop action plans to improve the capacity of certain countries to combat cybercrime, and for other purposes.” What are those other purposes? Let’s read the proposed bill and find out!

    After the introduction and definitions of various parts of the bill, it gets into what the bill is all about. Section three is called the “Annual Report” and it requires the head of whatever new Federal agency is made to combat cybercrime to report to Congress. They are to report on “the extent and nature of activities relating to cybercrime that are attributable to persons or property based in the country and impact the United States Government, United States persons, or United States electronic commerce.” They are also to report on the “effectiveness of the laws” and “measures taken by the government to protect consumers from cybercrime.”

    Section four, titled “Utilization of Foreign Assistance Programs” deals with how the U.S. will cooperate with foreign countries in battling cybercrime. The bill says that the President will give priority to improving “the effectiveness and capacity of the legal and judicial systems and the capabilities of law enforcement agencies with respect to cybercrime.”

    The countries that will receive the most aid are those that the U.S. determines to have “a low capacity to combat cybercrime.”

    The bill would also let the U.S. provide foreign countries with the tools to improve “critical infrastructure, telecommunications systems, financial industry, legal or judicial systems, or law enforcement capabilities of that country” to combat cybercrime.

    Section five, titled “Action Plans for Combating Cybercrimes for Countries of Cyber Concern” says that after the report mentioned in section two is made to Congress that the President must create an action plan that will assist “the government of that country to improve the capacity of the country to combat cybercrime.”

    There is also a provision that says the President will have to reassess the countries that have been placed under action plans. Countries may be removed and placed on action plans at will if they cease or become countries of “cyber concern.”

    The President will be required, under section five, to meet with the leaders of each country of “cyber concern” to formulate action plans to combat cybercrime.

    If a country fails to meet an action plan benchmark, which is one year after the action plan has been developed, the U.S. is given three courses of action to punish the country into complying with its request – block any new financing or loans for the countries in question, restrict trade to the countries in question and restrict foreign assistance.

    Thankfully, there is an exception that states “the President may not suspend, restrict, prohibit, or withdraw assistance … that is provided for humanitarian or disaster relief or for projects related to building capacity or actions to combat cybercrime.”

    The President is allowed to waive the requirement of an action plan if the President “determines that such a waiver is in the national interest of the United States” and “submits to Congress a report describing the reasons for the determination.”

    Section six only details the responsibilities of the Secretary of State to designate a “high-level employee of the Department of State” to coordinate the combating of cybercrime on a state and international level.

    Section seven details that the President appoint an “employee of the United States Government with primary responsibility with respect to matters relating to cybercrime policy.” This employee must also “consult with industry groups in the United States, civil society organizations, and other organizations with an interest in combating cybercrime.”

    Finally at the end, section eight demands that the President take into account “the efforts of the government of that country to combat cybercrime” before finalizing or modifying any trade agreements.

    This bill seems like the U.S. wants to be the head coordinator of a global cybercrimes unit. The fact that the bill gives the President the power to freeze funds and trade to countries that do not comply is somewhat worrying. The bill was referred to committee and could be up for a vote whenever they feel like it. We’ll keep you up to date on any changes.

    The entire bill can be found on Open Congress. Read it for more information and become informed.

    Do you think that the U.S. is trying to become an international cybercrime police force? Or is this just a step in the right direction in stopping cybercrime? Let us know in the comments.

  • President Obama Doesn’t Support SOPA, But Signs ACTA?

    Move over SOPA, tell ACTA the news? Or is this more of a case of “move over SOPA, it’s ACTA time?” Or does, “Stop! ACTA time!” work? For me, it’s “just when you thought it was safe to go back on the web, ACTA happens.” That’s right folks, while SOPA/PIPA were being placed in the ditch as smoldering husks, President Obama signed the ACTA “treaty,” which is, at its most elementary, a multinational agreement that addresses intellectual property enforcement.

    There are many issues involved with President Obama’s signing of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement — which occurred in September 2011 — and whether or not it should be treated as an executive agreement or an actual treaty between the agreeing countries. With an executive agreement, the President does not require the approval of the Senate, whereas, with a treaty, Senate approval is required. That, however, is not the issue, especially when you consider the initial zeal with which the both houses of the U.S. Government supported SOPA and PIPA.

    Until the protestation blackouts, that is.

    As for ACTA, there hasn’t been a great deal of push back from the Senate concerning President Obama’s signature, although, perhaps there should be. As TechDirt points out:

    The law is clear that the only things that can be covered by executive agreements are things that involve items that are solely under the President’s mandate. That is, you can’t sign an executive agreement that impacts the things Congress has control over. But here’s the thing: intellectual property, in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, is an issue given to Congress, not the President.

    Does this mean President Obama overstepped his boundaries by signing ACTA? If you follow the letter of the law, as laid out by TechDirt, then yes, yes he did.

    Perhaps that what explains one of the latest White House petitions, asking for ACTA to be submitted to the Senate for “Ratification as Required by the Constitution for Trade Agreements.” As you can see, the petition takes the position that ACTA is indeed a treaty and because of that, President Obama’s signature is not enough for the United States to be apart of. From the petition’s page:

    The Administration has opposed SOPA and PIPA due to the damage these laws could do to the Internet. But many view the Anti-Counterfeiting Trace Agreement (ACTA) to be far worse.

    This Administration supported the negotiation of ACTA in secret with a selected group of nations and with input from many corporate interests. The public and consumers were excluded from this process. FOIA requests were denied because of “National Security” concerns.

    We object to the Administration’s negotiation of ACTA in secret, and approval of ACTA by Executive Agreement.

    Considering the White House’s stance on both SOPA and PIPA, not to mention, Vice President Biden’s own words about regulating the Internet, which are available in the following video:


    …The fact that President Obama signed such an inflammatory piece of legislation is disheartening. Does this mean the only reason the White House spoke out against the infamous acts was because the backlash was so loud? Does this also mean that because the American public, or, at least, those who “reside” on the Internet, is still largely silent concerning ACTA and the potential damage it can do, President Obama didn’t see the harm in signing it?

    Of course, if ACTA does have to go to the Senate before its ratified, will it meet any resistance? Any at all?

  • Online Poker Community Speaks Out Via Social Media, Hopes Lawmakers Will Hear

    It’s an interesting time for the poker industry in the U.S. as multiple laws have been introduced to Congress regarding the legalization of the online game. The poker community has been pushing for such legislation for years and is optimistic that some type of action will happen soon.

    Should online poker be legalized? Let us know your thoughts?

    One way that the online poker community is trying to get its message out is through social media. As Rich Muny, the Vice President of Player Relations at the Poker Players Alliance (PPA), explained to WebProNews, interaction on social networks is very natural for poker players since the Internet is where they play their game.

    Since the 2008 election, many politicians see that a presence in social media is important. In return, the poker industry is using this trend to get their message out. Muny told us that the perception is that all online gaming efforts are driven by lobbyists and not the players. However, through social media, the players themselves are able to show that they support legislation.

    Social media outlets have also helped poker players provide education to lawmakers not only on legislative matters, but also on other areas involving the game of online poker.

    “There’s education for legislation, education for what we’re seeking, education for what it does, and education on the fact that a lot of people support the right to play,” said Muny.

    He calls the impact of social media “astounding” and said that it is especially important that poker celebrities such as Doyle Brunson, Phil Hellmuth, and Daniel Negreanu are actively participating in the conversation as well. Even if these stars don’t address the legislation issues specifically, they still help to create buzz around online poker. What’s more, organizations like the PPA can capitalize on the buzz to create further awareness.

    @TexDolly
    Doyle Brunson    If the speed limit is 55 and you are going 80 but everyone is passing you, you might be in Texas! 13 hours ago via web · powered by @socialditto

    @phil_hellmuth
    phil_hellmuth    Long day! Gave my Sis Molly Xmas shopping spree in Madison, caught fam dinner + Bucks game in Milwaukee, just won 97 pts at Chinese poker 5 hours ago via Twittelator · powered by @socialditto

    @RealKidPoker
    Daniel Negreanu    Looks like I’m doing www.shortstackedradio.com tonight at 11pm EST 14 hours ago via Twitter for iPhone · powered by @socialditto

    Muny said that the social media efforts have been a “very effective” means for getting lots of information out quickly. The PPA even has a daily action plan that includes preset tweets and Facebook posts that target the exact legislators that need to be reached.

    Muny told us that the online poker community hopes that its message is heard and that online poker will be regulated in the near future.

  • Facebook Privacy Questioned By European Commission – Facebook Reacts

    It appears that the European Commission is preparing to crack down on Facebook. According to a report from the Telegraph earlier this week, the EC is planning to introduce a new directive that would actually ban targeted advertising on the site.

    The newspaper raised privacy concerns and reported that the social giant “‘eavesdrops’ on its users to gather information about their political opinions, sexuality, religious beliefs – and even their whereabouts.”

    Facebook has a personalized advertising model that allows advertisers to target their audience based on various factors including location, demographics, likes, keywords, and other information it receives on users including registration data and information that users share on the platform. However, Facebook does not permit advertisers to know who its users are and also keeps its performance reports anonymous.

    Should Facebook’s advertising model be questioned? Let us know your thoughts.

    This type of advertising model is not only what Facebook uses to make money, but it is also the model that many other Web companies utilize. Nonetheless, Facebook seems to be the primary focus of this effort.

    In a response to WebProNews, a Facebook spokesperson told us:

    “The Sunday Telegraph article is inaccurate, sensational and misrepresents both how Facebook’s advertising model works and the current advertising privacy debate across Europe. By using Facebook, a free service, people agree to see ads that are valuable to them. Crucially people give their consent to be shown relevant ads by agreeing to our terms when they sign up – unlike other online advertising models. We also make clear that we do not share personal information with advertisers without their consent.  We have spent considerable time and effort building an ads model which allows people to see relevant advertising whilst respecting their privacy: https://www.facebook.com/about/privacy/advertising.“

    “We are fully compliant with EU law, have our international headquarters in Dublin and unlike some other online services, we do not use tracking technology to serve adverts. Our system only provides advertisers with anonymised and aggregated information for the purpose of targeting ads. We do not share people’s names with an advertiser without a person’s explicit consent and we never sell personal information to third parties.”

    If the EC agrees to implement this legislation when it meets in January, Facebook could face legal action or a significant fine. To make matters worse, the European Union’s data protection working party is meeting next week to analyze the social network and discuss how it should be audited.

    Incidentally, this European news comes just as Facebook reached a settlement with the FTC over user privacy. Through the settlement, the social network is required to give users a clear and prominent notice before it changes the way data is shared.

    In a blog post about the settlement, CEO Mark Zuckerberg acknowledged that mistakes had been made but promised better privacy and more user control going forward.

    “I’m the first to admit that we’ve made a bunch of mistakes… But we can also always do better. I’m committed to making Facebook the leader in transparency and control around privacy.”

    In the post, he also announced two new corporate privacy officer roles. Erin Egan was appointed to the Chief Privacy Officer of Policy, and Michael Richter was appointed to the Chief Privacy Officer of Products.

    Does Facebook’s money-making model raise a privacy issue, or is the EC making invalid claims?

  • What is the Right Solution for Internet Tax?

    The Internet sales tax issue has been debated for a number of years, but the issue grew to a new level of intensity after the state of California signed into law a bill that required all online retailing sites to pay taxes on their affiliate advertising. This, of course, sparked a big dispute since many online retailers such as Amazon cut off their affiliate programs in the state.

    As a result, a lot of the affiliates in the state lost most, if not all, of their revenue. Nick Loper, who was among the affiliate victims, spoke to WebProNews back in August and told us that he lost 70 percent of his revenue almost immediately after the law went into effect. He ended up moving to Nevada and starting completely over.

    The motive for California’s law was driven primarily by its struggling financial situation. Because many other states are facing similar scenarios with large budget deficits, they too are contemplating related actions. It’s understandable why states want to impose these taxes, but does that make it right?

    Can these interstate tax propositions actually solve the tax problem? What do you think?

    Adam Thierer, a senior research fellow with the Technology Policy Project at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, doesn’t think that they would. He co-wrote a report with Veronique de Rugy on this topic, and as he explained to WebProNews, the tax issue is very complex and far-reaching.

    “The debate about Internet taxation is really an interesting debate, because the sales tax only being a state and local tax is not something that can be easily applied to something that’s interstate in nature, which the Internet and Internet sales clearly are,” he said.

    Even before Internet taxes became an issue, states have wanted to impose taxes on interstate companies that provide catalog and mail order services. However, they have not been able to do so because of their constitutional restraints. According to Theirer, the Supreme Court has provided limitations in this area because the states can’t put “discriminatory or unfair burdens” on companies that they don’t have any authority over.

    Congress is now trying to get these limitations reversed with new legislation. In August, the “Main Street Fairness Act” was introduced to the Senate. It, in essence, calls for a set of federal guidelines that would dictate how states could collect sales taxes from online retailers.

    A second bill, called the “Marketplace Equity Act of 2011,” and was introduced to the House last week. It is similar to the one introduced in the Senate but is a little different since it would give states the authority to require retailers, both on and offline, to collect sales taxes even when customers are located in states where the companies have no physical presence.

    “What both these measures try to do is find a way to, essentially, authorize a state-based system of taxation for the Internet,” said Thierer.

    “The reason, again, that the courts have not thus far allowed it is because, really, the complexity question. It’s not just that the states don’t have authority over interstate vendors; it’s that if they went to actually impose these taxes, it would create a huge burden on interstate sales and trade.”

    States are aware that tax systems are complex, and many of them have joined the Streamlined Sales Tax Governing Board to simplify the processes. They are working to not only explain rates, but they are also working to clarify definitions such as the difference between a cookie and candy bar. This might seem of minimal value on the surface, but as Thierer explained to us, each of these items is taxed very differently.

    He went on to say that, even if the systems were clarified, there would still be issues with this approach. He told us that states want to tax one another’s imports instead of taxing their own exports, which is a process that he calls a “tax cartel.”

    “The wrong answer, in my opinion, is to essentially tax everybody up to a higher level,” said Thierer. “The better approach would probably be to tax downward and find a way to have a more competitive tax arrangement, so that we don’t set this collusionary approach that some states want to use.”

    “I think that that would create a troubling disincentive to actually seeing more tax competition,” he added.

    Thierer also pointed out his frustration with Amazon being at the center of this debate, saying that he was “very troubled” by it. He not only thinks that Amazon is pulling the spotlight away from other online retailers, but he is also disturbed that it is making deals with politicians in order to eliminate its tax own burden. The online retailer has been negotiating with states to avoid or delay paying taxes in exchange for investment and jobs in those states.

    “In theory, that sounds great,” said Theirer. “I really do wonder about Amazon’s ability to deliver on it, but at the end of the day, this is really just politics, and it’s not the kind of solution that is ultimately going to serve the broader marketplace or consumers.”

    Theirer believes that there is a better approach to the tax issue than the approach that both the states and Amazon are taking. In the report, Theirer and de Rugy propose 3 potential solutions to the tax problem. One option would be to abolish sales taxes entirely. For this to work, states would have to rely on income, property, and various other taxes.

    On the other extreme, a second option would be to have a nationwide sales tax that would give states a certain portion of the income. Thierer, however, doesn’t think either of these methods is ideal. Instead, he is advocating an “origin-based sourcing rule” that would apply the structure of offline sales taxes to the Internet.

    As he explained, it’s the idea of taxing consumers at the origin of sale, not at the destination, which is what the states want to do.

    “The states and localities want to have a destination-based system where they try to figure out where everybody’s going to consume their online goods… that’s what creates the complexity and the costs associated with the plan that they desire,” said Thierer.

    On the other hand, he believes his idea would, “create tax competition eliminate the constitutional tax headaches associated with the states’ current plan, and it would make sure that we don’t have a confusing, complicated array of rates and systems for interstate vendors to contend.”

    It’s clear that the Internet tax issue is complex, but the big question at the end of the day is – do any of these approaches actually provide a solution to the problem? If so, would you be more apt to follow states’ proposal or Thierer’s proposal?

    Do you have ideas for what should be done about Internet-related taxes? Let us know in the comments.

  • California’s Amazon Tax Law Forces Affiliate Marketer to Move to Nevada

    After years of operating a successful comparison shopping site in California, Nick Loper recently had to shut down his business and move to another state to start over. Why? Loper was one of the affiliate marketing victims of the online sales tax law that California passed earlier this summer.

    Did California’s tax law impact you? Please share.

    The law, which is often referred to as the “Amazon Tax Law,” requires online retailers to pay taxes on their affiliate advertising. Almost immediately after this law went into effect, online retailers, such as Amazon, cut ties with affiliate marketers in the state.

    According to Loper, this action meant that a half dozen of his largest advertisers on ShoesRUs terminated their relationship with him, leaving him shy of 70 percent of his revenue.

    “It was, essentially, out of business overnight,” he said.

    The California law was intended to help the state with its struggling financial issues and to also reduce the competitive advantage that many brick and mortars believe online retailers have over them. Loper, however, does not think that either of these goals has been fulfilled.

    “Neither of those groups are better off today than they were before the law passed,” he told us. “The state’s not getting any revenue and the playing field, per se, still has not been equalized.”

    Loper also pointed out that he would have never thought such a law would be implemented in a state that is the home of so many tech companies and the Silicon Valley. But, since it was, he had no choice but to move from California to Nevada to start a new business.

    His new site is a comparison shopping site for shoes called ShoeSniper and is similar to his previous site. He chose Nevada because it does not have an online sales tax. Fortunately for him, he has already regained nearly all of his former advertising relationships.

    Interestingly, as the debate surrounding online sales tax debate continues, more states are considering taking actions similar to the law that California recently passed. What’s even more interesting is that Congress is contemplating action at a federal level. Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL), recently introduced the “Main Street Fairness Act,” which Amazon, incidentally, supports. The House has introduced a similar bill as well.

    Would  you like to see the online sales tax issues solved at a state level or federal level?

  • Analyst Weighs in on New Online Poker Bill, Expresses Optimism

    A new Internet gaming bill was recently introduced to the U.S. House that focuses specifically on poker. The Internet Gambling Prohibition, Poker Consumer Protection, and Strengthening UIGEA Act of 2011, or H.R.2366, would regulate online poker and would create an interstate licensing program for Internet poker websites.

    States, however, would still be able to “opt out if they don’t want to participate,” according to the press release. It also stated, “The lawmakers believe this is an issue of personal freedom and that the government shouldn’t stop people from playing a game of skill.”

    Do you agree with the lawmakers and believe that this bill is based on “personal freedom”? We’d love to know.

    It’s no secret that the online poker industry has had a troubled past, which was evidenced by the recent “Black Friday” event when the FBI shut down three popular online poker sites for alleged bank fraud. Because of this event and other controversies around online poker, Representative Barton (R-TX) introduced the bill in hopes of providing clarity to the industry.

    According to Eli Lehrer, the Vice President of The Heartland Institute, the proposed bill makes “common sense.” He said, “It contains some common sense protections against people being defrauded, which right now in the current netherworld of online gambling is all too common and way to easy.”

    On the topic of the taxes the bill would impose, Lehrer pointed out, “At a time when we need more revenue and there’s an enormous resistance to raising taxes of any sort, it cannot be bad idea.”

    Incidentally, the Internet Gambling Regulation and Tax Enforcement Act was also introduced recently, which focuses on all Internet gambling and not just poker. Lehrer believes that it is actually a “better idea” because it has more freedom and creates more revenue. It does not, however, have bipartisan support, which is not the case with Barton’s bill.

    Lehrer said that bipartisan support is especially noteworthy given the current divisions in Congress.

    “Anything significant that gets bipartisan support is a big deal,” he added.

    As for the passing of this bill, Lehrer told us the chances are “possible” but were “by no means guaranteed.”

    In, what may be a blow against the bill, the American Gaming Association is not in support of the bill. It is reportedly working on its own version of legislation for online poker.

    Would you like to see this bill pass?

  • Google Lobbying Plus One: Nevada Legalizes Autonomous Cars

    Google Lobbying Plus One: Nevada Legalizes Autonomous Cars

    In case you’re still looking for futuristic flying cars, you may want to rest your gaze on the state of Nevada, thanks to some lobbying by Google. The state of Nevada has just passed legislation allowing the Nevada Department of Transportation to create rules and regulations governing the use of driverless automobiles. While the new law, Assembly Bill No. 511 (PDF), doesn’t necessarily make autonomous cars legal, the fact is, the legal groundwork concerning the operation of these vehicles will now take shape, courtesy of the state of Nevada.

    WebProNews previously discussed Google’s participation in the process, which saw Google hire a Las Vegas-based lobbyist to promote Assembly Bill 511. Clearly, the lobbying was successful, although the details of what methods were used are scarce, although, it wouldn’t be surprising if some Nevada officials were having the time of their lives in Vegas, all on Google’s dime. Greasing the wheels, and all that.

    As for the legislation itself, Forbes quotes Ryan Calo, a Stanford professor who says the legislation is a big step towards autonomous vehicular operation:

    The law charges the Nevada DOT with setting safety and performance standards and requires it to designate areas where driverless cars may be tested.

    While this is a long way towards the flying cars of the future, it’s refreshing to see the future embraced on such a practical level. The new law also makes it hard not to watch the end of Back to the Future and actually have some hope renewed.


    Granted, Google’s advances in the driverless vehicular operation are a long, long way from Dr. Emmett Brown’s creation, but this is still a step in the right direction. Who knows? If Google masters autonomous driving, maybe they’ll turn their attention to cars that can fly. From the looks of it, Google’s doing rather well with the driverless car thing, so maybe it is time to expand those horizons:


    Concerning Nevada’s new law, something just occurred to me: Will driverless police cars be tasked with enforcement if driverless civilian vehicles go to fast? Food for thought.

  • CA Privacy Bill Defeated – Big Win for Social Networks

    Although the Social Networking Privacy Act was a proposed state law in California, it received a lot of attention. The proposed bill would have impacted not only social networks like Facebook, but it would have also affected any Web company that connected people to the Internet, such as Google, eHarmony, and Match.com.

    If passed, the bill would have required these companies to make their user settings private by default. Although it didn’t pass, it was brought before the Senate 3 times. The final 2 votes both came in at 16-21, which defeated the bill.

    As consumers, would you like for these services to make their settings private by default? Let us know.

    State Senate Majority Leader Ellen Corbett introduced the bill and was very adamant on pushing it through. However, tech companies were also very influential in their opposition to it. They feared that users would quit the registration process, since it would take a long time to customize all their settings.

    Tammy Cota, who is the executive director for the Internet Alliance, told WebProNews that legislators often forget that these sites have a global reach involving hundreds of thousands of users. The bill would have required these businesses to pay $10,000 per incident of noncompliance, which could have ran into a substantial amount of money given the large number of users.

    Cota, who was pleased that the bill did not pass, said there was “no need for it.”

    Although this was a state law, online privacy has been getting a lot of attention from Washington as well with U.S. Senators McCain and Kerry’s Commercial Privacy Bill of Rights Act of 2011 and Congresswoman Jackie Speier’s Do Not Track Me Online Act of 2011. With all this spotlight, legislators seem very interested in imposing some type of law regarding Internet privacy.

    Cota also told us that Senator Corbett would likely revise her bill in an effort to bring it to vote again.

    Should online privacy be regulated, or is it fine the way it is?

  • Texas Pulls “Groping Bill” After TSA Threatens Flight Shutdowns

    Score one for the federal government, I guess. The Texas Senate was forced to abandon their plans to pass a bill referred to as the “Groping Bill” after the Transportation Security Administration played the federal trump card.

    According to Forbes, The Groping bill would have made illegal any pat-downs performed by the TSA that involved touching the “anus, sexual organ, buttocks, or breast…including through the clothing.” Texas law enforcement would have been able to arrest TSA officials for sexual harassment. The penalty could range from fines of up to $4,000 and/or jail time.

    The Texas House of Representative actually passed the bill, much to the chagrin of the TSA. They blogged about the passing of the bill, saying that “We wish we lived in a world where you could just walk on a plane with no security screening, but that just isn’t the case unfortunately. Aviation security agencies worldwide have been using pat-downs long before TSA was created to prevent dangerous items from getting onto airplanes.”

    As the bill was about to be voted upon in the Texas Senate, the U.S. Attorney from the state passed out a letter that warned of the consequences of enacting the new law. Basically, the Groping law would be in violation of federal law, and states are not allowed to pass measures that regulate the federal government.

    HB 1937 would conflict directly with federal law. The practical import of the bill is that it would threaten criminal prosecution of Transportation Security Administration personnel who carry out the security procedures required under federal statutes and TSA regulations passed to implement those statutes. Those officials cannot be put to the choice of risking criminal prosecution for carrying out their federal duties.

    If HR 1937 were enacted, the federal government would likely seek an emergency stay of the statute. Unless or until such a stay were granted, TSA would likely be required to cancel any flight or series of flights for which it could not ensure the safety of passengers and crew.

    Basically, pull the groping bill or you guys aren’t flying anywhere.

    Republican bill sponsor Dan Patrick withdrew the proposal after the realization that he wouldn’t have enough votes in the Senate to pass it. The U.S. government messed with Texas, and won.

    The TSA is a popular punching bad across the interwebs, as images and videos from pat-down procedures often go viral. Last month, this video went viral of a 6-year-old girl being checked by an TSA agent:

    And earlier this month, this twitpic also made the rounds showing what looks like the investigation of a baby for a diaper bomb.

    Facebook has a plethora of pretty funny pages to like if you too feel oppressed by the TSA – “When TSA gropes me, I will fake orgasm” and “If the TSA wants to grope me, they should at least buy me dinner first” being two of my favorites.

    How do you feel about this state vs. federal government stand off? Should TSA agents pay for privacy invasions, or are they just doing their jobs?

    Lead image Courtesy

  • Apple Adds Do Not Track

    Apple Adds Do Not Track

    As the demand grows for consumer privacy on the internet, Apple Inc. is the latest company to take a step in the right direction.  They have added a Do Not Track option to the latest test version of their new browser.

    As the WSJ reports, “The tool is included within the latest test release of Lion, a version of Apple’s Mac OS X operating system that is currently available only to developers. The final version of the operating system is scheduled to be released to the public this summer.”

    Do Not Track is the term used for options that let users opt-out of online tracking by third parties, usually marketers who wish to monitor and keep track of users’ web traffic. The way these options work within browsers is to send out a short message to sites that request no information be taken about the user’s internet habits.  The key word here is request, as it is not yet mandatory for advertisers or web companies to honor the Do Not Track system.

    Do Not Track was proposed by the FTC last December.  Last month, they testified before the Senate regarding the progress of the initiative and what they propose for the future as well.  Earlier this week Senators John Kerry and John McCain co-sponsored a privacy bill that proposes a comprehensive opt-out of information that would be mandatory by law.  Senator Kerry said that this “robust” opt-out would render specific Do Not Track options unnecessary.

    With Apple joining the party, it makes Google the only company not to have a Do Not Track option built directly into their browser, Chrome.  Both IE9 and Firefox 4 have these options.

    According to the WSJ:

    A spokesman for Google, which is a major player in online advertising, said the company “will continue to be involved closely” in industry discussions about do-not-track. In the meantime, he said Google offers an add-on program for Chrome that users can download called “Keep My Opt-Outs” that will let users request that their data not be used for targeted advertising.

    It will be interesting to see if Do Not Track becomes the mandated norm or even more comprehensive consumer privacy is pushed through Congress with the Kerry-McCain bill or one very similar.  Some argue that the Kerry-McCain bill does not go far enough, but is the best of the current privacy bills on the table.  It also has that bi-partisan thing going for it, which seems to help legislation get passed.