WebProNews

Tag: Marsha Blackburn

  • 86% of Developers Want Legislation to Open App Stores

    86% of Developers Want Legislation to Open App Stores

    With the Open App Markets Act (OAMA) making its way through the Senate, at least 86% of developers are in favor of app marketplace legislation.

    The OAMA is bipartisan legislation aimed at Apple’s App Store and Google’s Play Store. The legislation is designed to reduce Apple and Google’s role as gatekeepers for their respective platforms.

    “This legislation will tear down coercive anticompetitive walls in the app economy, giving consumers more choices and smaller startup tech companies a fighting chance,” said Senator Richard Blumenthal. “For years, Apple and Google have squashed competitors and kept consumers in the dark—pocketing hefty windfalls while acting as supposedly benevolent gatekeepers of this multi-billion dollar market. I’m proud to partner with Senators Blackburn and Klobuchar in this breakthrough blow against Big Tech bullying. This bipartisan bill will help break these tech giants’ ironclad grip, open the app economy to new competitors, and give mobile users more control over their own devices.” 

    According to the Coalition of App Fairness, 86% of developers want legislation that will prevent anti-competitive practices, as well as prevent Apple and Google from favoring their own apps and services. Developers clearly hope the OAMA will help level the playing field.

    “The evidence is clear – app developers want the Open App Markets Act to pass so that they can have the opportunity to compete in a fair digital marketplace,” said Meghan DiMuzio, Executive Director for the Coalition for App Fairness. “For too long, developers have been harmed by gatekeepers’ monopolistic practices, and consumers have suffered from less choice and innovation. We applaud Congress’ leadership on this issue to date and continue to urge members of Congress to act quickly to ensure a fair and competitive marketplace.”

  • Senators Introduce Legislation Attacking Encryption

    Senators Introduce Legislation Attacking Encryption

    Another day, another attack on the encryption standards that protect every single person using the internet and computing devices.

    Senators Lindsey Graham, Tom Cotton and Marsha Blackburn introduced the Lawful Access to Encrypted Data Act in a bid “to bolster national security interests and better protect communities.”

    It’s hard to tell whether the authors are trying to attack encryption, or if they simply don’t understand how it works…or both. Either way, the result is the same: This legislation will gut the end-to-end encryption (E2EE) billions of people rely on.

    Case in point:

    “After law enforcement obtains the necessary court authorizations, they should be able to retrieve information to assist in their investigations. Our legislation respects and protects the privacy rights of law-abiding Americans,” says Graham.

    Similarly:

    ”This bill will ensure law enforcement can access encrypted material with a warrant based on probable cause and help put an end to the Wild West of crime on the Internet,” said Cotton.

    The announcement specifically states:

    “Encryption is vital to securing user communications, data storage, and financial transactions. Yet increasingly, technology providers are deliberately designing their products and services so that only the user, and not law enforcement, has access to content – even when criminal activity is clearly taking place. This type of ‘warrant-proof’ encryption adds little to the security of the communications of the ordinary user, but it is a serious benefit for those who use the internet for illicit purposes.”

    These statements ignore some of the basic facts involved in the encryption debate. Let’s break this down.

    1. All of the above statements place a great deal of emphasis on a warrant. The encryption debate has never been about tech companies’ willingness or unwillingness to abide by a warrant. The issue, plain and simple, is that you cannot have strong encryption that has backdoors. Experts have been warning about the dangers of weakening encryption for years. They’ve done so here, and here, and here, and here, and here, and here and here, as well as countless other places too numerous to list.

      Ultimately, this is not a case where these senators can ‘have their cake and eat it too.’ Either everyone has strong encryption that protects them, or no one does. Even these senators rely on encryption to conduct their business. Signal is widely considered to be the most secure messaging app on the planet, in large part because of the type of encryption this legislation targets. It is so secure that the Senate specifically encourages Senate staff to use Signal.

      Yet this legislation is so dangerous to the very type of encryption that Signal relies on that the company has already warned that, if it passes, Signal will likely stop being available in the US altogether.

      Again, either everyone has strong encryption or no one does…including the senators targeting encryption.

    2. The legislation wrongly asserts that companies fail to cooperate with law enforcement, “even when criminal activity is clearly taking place.” Again, this is not a matter of intentionally failing to cooperate; it is a technical impossibility.

      Companies simply cannot create strong encryption that can simultaneously be accessed at will, either by the company, law enforcement or anyone else. In many cases, such as Apple, companies cooperate as much as they possibly can, but they cannot change the laws of physics.
    3. The assertion that “‘warrant-proof’ encryption adds little to the security of the communications of the ordinary user” ignores how the technology is frequently used by the “ordinary user.” The fact is, E2EE protects private communication, securing text messages, video chats, emails and voice calls, ensuring people can communicate without fear.

      Businesses rely on E2EE on a daily basis to ensure they can freely discuss internal matters without fear of corporate eavesdropping and espionage. Victims of abuse often rely on these services to communicate with loved ones without their abuser being able to find them. Journalists and activists in areas ruled by oppressive regimes rely on E2EE for their very lives.

    The announcement cites several examples where E2EE thwarted attempts by law enforcement. While true, the question remains: How is that different from any other technology?

    One example encryption proponents cite is shredder manufacturers. Do these companies have to create shredders that reconstitute a document just because some bad actors use paper shredders to cover their tracks? Of course not. While some do use shredders to cover illegal activity, the vast majority of individuals use them for perfectly legal reasons.

    The same is true of E2EE. There will always be those who use any technology for illegal, immoral and unethical reasons. The vast majority, however, will use it as it was intended, for perfectly legal activity.

    If passed, however, this new legislation will punish the whole on behalf of the few.

  • Senators Will Introduce Coronavirus Data Privacy Bill

    Senators Will Introduce Coronavirus Data Privacy Bill

    A group of senators will introduce legislation to help protect consumer privacy as companies focus on using data to help combat COVID-19.

    Governments and companies around the world have turned to big data in an effort to map the spread of the coronavirus, and try to get ahead of it. One of the most publicized efforts is being undertaken by Apple and Google, as the two companies work on a contact tracing API. The API, and subsequent apps, will use anonymous Bluetooth keys to keep track of the phones an individual has been in close proximity with. If a person tests positive, each person that has been in contact with them over the previous 14 days will be notified they have been exposed and need to quarantine.

    Needless to say, many individuals have expressed concern over the privacy implications and, as a result, half of Americans have no intention of installing any contact tracing app.

    To help ease concerns, and protect the privacy of Americans, Senators Roger Wicker, John Thune, Jerry Moran and Marsha Blackburn have announced their intention to introduce a data privacy bill. The goal is to provide much-needed transparency and give consumers a measure of control over how their data will be used, as well as hold businesses accountable for how they use it.

    “While the severity of the COVID-19 health crisis cannot be overstated, individual privacy, even during times of crisis, remains critically important,” said Thune. “This bill strikes the right balance between innovation – allowing technology companies to continue their work toward developing platforms that could trace the virus and help flatten the curve and stop the spread – and maintaining privacy protections for U.S. citizens.”

    Here’s to hoping the legislation will help prevent abuses of consumer data.

  • ICANN Chief Says Russia, China Will Not Hijack Internet Oversight

    On March 14 the United States Commerce Department’s National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) announced plans to transition oversight of the nonprofit Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) to the global “multi-stakeholder” community.

    Headquartered in the Los Angeles suburb of Marina del Rey, ICANN controls what is essentially the address book of the Internet: the massive database of top level domain names such as .com, .gov., .net, and .org.

    Additionally, the NTIA currently contracts with ICANN to carry out the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) functions. The IANA is a responsible for managing the numbering system for Internet Protocol (IP) addresses.

    The NTIA’s contract with ICANN, which has been in existence since 1998, is set to expire in September 2015 and the Department of Commerce says it won’t renew the contract.

    “The timing is right to start the transition process,” said Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information Lawrence E. Strickling. “We look forward to ICANN convening stakeholders across the global Internet community to craft an appropriate transition plan.”

    Although the announcement was a relatively quiet, low-key one, it didn’t take long for conservatives to start questioning it.

    Republican lawmakers John Shimkus (Illinois), Todd Rokita (Indiana), and Marsha Blackburn (Tennessee) rushed to introduce the Domain Openness Through Continued Oversight Matters (DOTCOM) Act in the House of Representatives.

    The trio said they created the DOTCOM Act “in response the recent Department of Commerce announcement that the U.S. would relinquish its remaining oversight of the Internet’s domain name system to an ill-defined ‘global Internet community.’”

    “In the month of March alone we’ve seen Russia block opposition websites, Turkey ban Twitter, China place new restrictions on online video, and a top Malaysian politician pledge to censor the Internet if he’s given the chance,” Shimkus said. “This isn’t a theoretical debate. There are real authoritarian governments in the world today who have no tolerance for the free flow of information and ideas. What possible benefit could come from giving the Vladimir Putins of the world a new venue to push their anti-freedom agendas?”

    Even former President Bill Clinton has weighed in with doubts about the multi-stakeholder model: “I understand in theory why we would like to have a multi-stakeholder process. I favor that … I just know that a lot of these so-called multi-stakeholders are really governments that want to gag people and restrict access to the internet.”

    On Wednesday ICANN president and CEO Fadi Chehadé, who has long pushed for globalization of the Internet oversight process, defended the NTIA’s plans.

    “Everyone is focused on these three, four countries … but in between we have 150 other countries that value the same values we do.”

    Chehadé conceded that individuals or governments might indeed attempt to seize control of the Internet, but insisted that the “multi-stakeholder model, it stops them. I agree that people will talk about capturing (control of ICANN), but they haven’t. For 15 years ICANN has operated without one government or any government capturing the decision making.”

    Politico calls the announcement a “smart, strategic move by Commerce to formalize, on its own terms, a process of increased globalization that has been going on for some time. It’s actually the opposite of what the critics claim: The Obama administration is trying to head off rising global pressure to give other countries, including China and Russia, more of a say in how the Internet is governed, not bow to it.”

    Image via Wikimedia Commons

  • Bill Nye Argues Global Warming With Congresswoman

    Bill Nye (The Science Guy) has been stirring up all kinds of trouble lately. Not only did he defend the theory of evolution against Ken Ham, in early February, now he is in a battle with Republican Representative and vice chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee Marsha Blackburn over the concept of global warming.

    The two argued over the most appropriate response to the increasing climate changes during NBC’s Meet the Press. Blackburn’s argument surrounded the views of Richard Lindzen of MIT and Judith Curry of Georgia Tech, who believe that humans are not the reason for the climate changing.

    “Neither Bill Nye nor I are a climate scientist,” Blackburn stated. “He is an engineer and actor, I am a member of Congress. And what we have to do is look at the information that we get from climate scientists. There is not agreement around the fact of exactly what is causing this.”

    According to NASA, 97 percent of climate scientists believe that there is a link between humans and the climate changes. Although human activity may not be the cause of extreme weather disturbances, most scientists believe that humans do contribute to the effects on global warming.

    Nye debated Blackburn’s statement by saying: “We have overwhelming evidence that the climate is changing. That you cannot tie any one event to that is not the same as doubt about the whole thing. There is no debate in the scientific community. I encourage the Congresswoman to really look at the facts. You are our leader. We need you to change things, not deny what’s happening.”

    Blackburn then commented on the costs of implementing new laws and regulations, regarding climate change. “One of the things that we have to remember is cost-benefit analysis has to take place,” said Blackburn. “And it is unfortunate that some of the federal agencies are not conducting that cost-benefit analysis.”

    Nye stood firm in his belief that the United States needs to invest in new technologies to counteract the changes to our current climate. “For me, as a guy who grew up in the U.S., I want the U.S. to lead the world in this,” Nye said. “These are huge opportunities, and the more we mess around with this denial, the less we’re going to get done.”

    Watch the full debate below:

    Who do you think is right? Leave your comments below.

    Image via Wikimedia Commons