WebProNews

Tag: Public Knowledge

  • Privacy Advocates Want Stronger Data Rules For Mobile Providers

    Privacy Advocates Want Stronger Data Rules For Mobile Providers

    Privacy advocates are pushing for stricter rules about how mobile carriers handle users’ wireless data.

    While social media companies are often targeted for their handling of user data, wireless carriers have a treasure trove of information on their customers, including location data, internet usage, call history, texting history, and more. An FCC inquiry regarding the habits of the top 15 carriers in the US showed that data retention practices are “all over the map.”

    That was the assessment of Harold Feld, senior vice president at digital privacy group Public Knowledge, according to The Seattle Times.

    “The only ‘industry standard’ appears to be that there is no standard at all for how long carriers retain data, how they protect it, or how hard they make it for their customers to invoke their rights,” Feld added.

    According to the Times, T-Mobile stores information on its customers, including their location data, for up to two years, while AT&T and its Cricket Wireless business store data for 13 months. Meanwhile, Verizon stores data for one year, and Mint Mobile stores data for 18 months.

    The lack of standardization and accountability, not to mention the stakes involved, prompted strong words from FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel:

    “Our mobile phones know a lot about us. That means carriers know who we are, who we call, and where we are at any given moment,” said Rosenworcel. “This information and geolocation data is really sensitive. It’s a record of where we’ve been and who we are. That’s why the FCC is taking steps to ensure this data is protected.

    “Today, I’m publishing the responses I received from mobile carriers on how they handle geolocation data to help shed light on this issue for consumers. Additionally, I have asked the Enforcement Bureau to launch a new investigation into mobile carriers’ compliance with FCC rules that require carriers to fully disclose to consumers how they are using and sharing geolocation data,” continued Rosenworcel. “Finally, if you, as a consumer, have concerns or complaints about how your provider is handling your private data, the FCC is making it easier for you to file complaints and make your concerns known—so we can take action under the law.”

  • New Google Algorithm Change Immediately Raises Concerns

    As previously reported, Google announced that it will implement a new ranking signal into its search algorithm next week. The search engine will start taking the number of “valid” copyright removal notices it receives for a site, into account when ranking content.

    Are you concerned about this new addition? Let us know in the comments.

    Almost as soon as the Blogosphere was able to react to the news, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) put out its own post about it. Julie Samuels and Mitch Stoltz with the EFF write, “Earlier this summer, we applauded Google for releasing detailed stats about content removal requests from copyright holders. Now that we know how they are going to use that data, we are less enthusiastic.”

    The two go on to express concerns with how “opaque” Google is being about the process, despite Google’s claim that it will “continue to be transparent about copyright removals.”

    The EFF’s concerns are the vagueness of what Google considers to be a high number of removal notices, how Google plans to make its determinations, and how “there will be no process of recourse for sites who have been demoted.”

    Google does say that it will “continue to provide ‘counter-notice‘ tools so that those who believe their content has been wrongly removed can get it reinstated.”

    “In particular, we worry about the false positives problem,” says the EFF. “For example, we’ve seen the government wrongly target sites that actually have a right to post the allegedly infringing material in question or otherwise legally display content. In short, without details on how Google’s process works, we have no reason to believe they won’t make similar, over-inclusive mistakes, dropping lawful, relevant speech lower in its search results without recourse for the speakers.”

    “Takedown requests are nothing more than accusations of copyright infringement,” the EFF addds. “No court or other umpire confirms that the accusations are valid (although copyright owners can be liable for bad-faith accusations). Demoting search results – effectively telling the searcher that these are not the websites you’re looking for – based on accusations alone gives copyright owners one more bit of control over what we see, hear, and read.”

    The EFF concludes by saying that Google’s “opaque policies” threaten lawful sites and undermine confidence in search results.

    The EFF is not the only group to quickly speak out about the announcement. Public Knowledge, a consumer rights group, also put out a much longer response.

    We also received the following statement from Public Knowledge Senior Staff Attorney, John Bergmayer:

    “It may make good business sense for Google to take extraordinary steps, far beyond what the law requires, to help the media companies it partners with. That said, its plan to penalize sites that receive DMCA notices raises many questions.

    “Sites may not know about, or have the ability to easily challenge, notices sent to Google. And Google has set up a system that may be abused by bad faith actors who want to suppress their rivals and competitors. Sites that host a lot of content, or are very popular, may receive a disproportionate number of notices (which are mere accusations of infringement) without being disproportionately infringing. And user-generated content sites could be harmed by this change, even though the DMCA was structured to protect them.

    “Google needs to make sure this change does not harm Internet users or the Internet ecosystem.”

    It’s going to be quite interesting to see how Google’s new policy/signal holds up to abuse, and whether or not we see fair use significantly jeopardized.

    Tell us what you think about the change in the comments.

  • Advocates to FCC: Forbid Cell Phone Jamming

    Advocates to FCC: Forbid Cell Phone Jamming

    The Electronic Frontier Foundation, Public Knowledge, and the Center for Democracy and Technology have implored the Federal Communications Commission to prohibit federal, state, and local governments from resorting to cell phone shutdowns. The request stems an FCC inquiry from 2011 regarding the incident where the Bay Area Transit Authority shut down cell phone activity in order to hopefully suppress protests related to the killing of Charles Hill.

    BART allegedly had information from a “credible” source that protesters had planned to disrupt transit on August 11, 2011, to demonstrate against the killing of Hill. BART believed that the protesters had planned to organize via cell phone communication, so between 4PM and 8PM, the time that protesters had planned to gather, BART shutdown cell phone service throughout parts of its system.

    The attempt to disrupt the protesters was widely condemned and it’s been said that the move may even have been illegal. Pro-democracy groups have decried BART’s decision to jam cell phones, saying it’s a violation of rights protected by the First Amendment. Sherwin Siy, of Public Knowledge, detailed the ways in which such an action by a government entity violates the Federal Communications Act. The EFF has submitted comments to the FCC about the cell phone jamming, comparing the act to similar practices in countries with oppressive governments, Egypt and Syria, and saying that it violates the public’s First Amendment rights.

    Yesterday, BART defended its actions in a letter to the FCC, saying that the temporary interruption of cell phone service was “a necessary tool to protect passengers and response to potential acts of terrorism or other acts of violence.” The letter, written by BART General Manager Grace Crunican, goes on to enumerate fantastic scenarios including cell phones disguised as bombs used to kill passengers and flood the transit tunnels.

    As much as that is a truly spectacular fantasy, the act of protest is much, much older than cell phone technology and so, even though protesters may have been relying on the devices as a means to organize, shutting down cell phone service is no way to prevent protesters from causing disruptions in the transit system. Further, the shutdown hindered the ability of transit passengers who probably need that service, too.

    Although BART has since ratified a new policy that states the organization will not turn off cell phone service in circumstances like that of the August 2011 shutdown, the actions of BART set a dangerous precedent for other governments to use similar tactics. It is with this caution that the advocacy groups have requested that the FCC expressly forbid any body of government from resorting to a cell phone shutdown in the future. Hopefully, the FCC will take their words to heart.

  • FCC Asked to Investigate Data Caps.

    FCC Asked to Investigate Data Caps.

    Public Knowledge, a Washington D.C.-based non-profit promoting openness on the web, recently demanded that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) begin an investigation into how wireless companies have been capping data usage on wireless devices. Specifically, the group said wireless devices such as the new iPad are designed for the consumption of streaming video, which uses data at a high rate.

    “Millions of consumers and at least two major publications have now discovered that the new iPads which went on sale come with a hidden cost – the caps on data usage which wireless carriers put on consumers.” said Public Knowledge President and CEO Gigi B. Sohn. “It’s a ridiculous situation that the carriers sell millions of these devices specifically designed to view video on one hand, while they restrict the usage of their networks for video on the other.”

    With consumers demanding more video-on-demand, some may be hit with a surprisingly large data bill if they are not careful, or if they don’t know how quickly streaming video can drain their data. With faster 4G wireless access beginning to proliferate around the U.S., this issue may come to a head sooner rather than later.

    This is not the first time Public Knowledge has asked the FCC to look at the data-cap issue. Twice last year, the non-profit sent letters to the FCC, both after wireless companies, including AT&T, had announced plans for data-caps. Public Knowledge also issued a report last August that warned of how quickly even an average user would run up against his or her data cap when introduced to 4G speeds.

    “It is simply inexcusable that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has not even seen fit to ask wireless and landline carriers to explain why those caps are necessary, how they are set and how consumers are affected by them.” said Sohn. “If the Commission is truly interested in consumer protection, it will ask the crucial questions and come up with some answers before consumers start getting hit with ever-increasing bills just for using the devices they bought in good faith.”

  • Verizon’s $4 Billion Spectrum Deal: Public Knowledge On How It Hurts Consumers, Competition

    Last year ,Verizon announced it would purchase mobile spectrum licenses from several cable companies for about $4 billion. Competitors think this will give Verizon too much power and hurt competition.

    Complaints from T-Mobile USA, Sprint Nextel, Public Knowledge, and the National Consumer Law Center have been filed with the FCC, trying to get Verizon’s efforts blocked.

    WebProNews interviewed Public Knowledge staff attorney Jodie Griffin about the situation. She says it could be “to the detriment of smaller wireless carriers and to the detriment of consumers”.

    Watch the interview above for more on the Public Knowledge side of the story. Griffin also addresses the spectrum auctions that are part of the payroll tax cut bill.

    For more on the auctions, check out our exclusive interview with Bruce Mehlman, the former Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Tech Policy and the Co-Chair of the Internet Innovation Alliance.

    Verizon’s deal is under review from both the FCC and the DoJ.