Both bills would set federal guidelines to add some certainty to the patchwork of at least 45 state laws governing data breaches, and both enjoy the support of the Business Software Alliance (BSA), the leading lobbying arm of the software industry and many hardware firms.
"BSA commends Chairman Leahy, Sen. Hatch and Sen. Feinstein for their leadership on data security and data breach notification," Robert Holleyman, the group's CEO, said in a statement.
The group said that both laws would be "manageable for business."
Leahy's bill would also entail some changes in the shape of the federal government, directing the Federal Trade Commission to establish an Office of Federal Identity Protection, and requiring the Department of Justice to create an agency-wide chief privacy officer.
Both Leahy and Feinstein have introduced versions of the bills in previous Congresses, only to see them stall.
"The loss of data privacy is not just a grave concern for American consumers; it is also a serious and growing threat to the economic security of American businesses, and is a growing threat to our national security," Leahy said in a statement. "The time for Congress to enact comprehensive data privacy legislation has come. I hope that the Senate will consider this legislation promptly."
]]>Anyone who remembers the tooth-and-nail (and ultimately unsuccessful) [fight the National Association of Broadcaster (NAB) waged against last year's campaign to open the white spaces knows that the lobby won't take this lying down. And, true to form, the NAB lashed back this week, calling CEA's study "primarily an academic exercise."
As it moves to develop a national broadband plan, the FCC has asked interested parties to submit comments on how to tackle the spectrum shortage, which the chairman has made it plain he intends to address.
Legislation is working its way through the House and Senate that would require the FCC and National Telecommunications Information Administration to take a thorough inventory of the current public- and private-sector spectrum allocations with an eye toward reshuffling the nation's policy to support things like mobile broadband and public safety.
Stifel Nicolaus analyst Rebecca Arbogast said that wresting spectrum away from broadcasters, as the FCC is understood to be considering, could take an act of Congress.
In any case, should the FCC advance such a recommendation in February, when it presents its national broadband plan to lawmakers, the opposition is likely to be swift and vocal. Whether the decision falls to Congress or the FCC, the NAB will wage a vigorous campaign to hold onto the spectrum it currently controls.
At the FCC's meeting next month, the commission is set to consider another top priority for the wireless industry, which is to streamline the process of securing authorization to erect new cell towers.
]]>Talks are described as preliminary, but in essence they seem aimed at bringing MySpace's music content, which is vast and available through licensing agreements the site has struck with entertainment companies and artists, to MSN Music, in exchange for some form of compensation.
The second rumor, which actually has named executives offering confirmation, sees MySpace in talks with its direct rival, Facebook. This comes courtesy of London's Telegraph, which quotes Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg:
"Facebook is focusing on building the best technology which helps people share content, while at MySpace they are focusing on more a content-led strategy. We would like to have their content, as we already do with many other sites, shared across our network because it is good for our users."
So, using Facebook Connect, users could port their content from MySpace into their Facebook profiles.
Sandberg describes the relationship between the two companies as warm, particularly given that MySpace CEO Owen Van Natta previously served as Facebook's chief revenue officer.
]]>Ranked at the bottom, with 143 down votes, was this, submitted by user "RFP" under the headline, "Net Neutrality, Another Government Bad Idea":
"With the current downturn in the economy- we need to encourage investment and job creation whenever we can. If the FCC adopts net neutrality rules it will burden an industry that is investing and creating new jobs. Net neutrality is the wrong idea at the wrong time."
The Ideascale tie-up follows earlier efforts to modernize the FCC's Web presence through a new blog, RSS feeds and accounts on Twitter, Facebook and YouTube.
]]>The judge accepted Craigslist's defense that, like newspaper classified ads, the people who post the listings are responsible for the content, and that Craigslist has implemented explicit rules prohibiting unlawful activity.
"Intermediaries are not culpable for 'aiding and abetting' their customers who misuse their services to commit unlawful acts," Grady wrote.
"While we accept as true for the purposes of this motion [the] plaintiff's allegation that users routinely flout Craigslist's guidelines, it is not because Craigslist has caused them to do so."
He concluded:
"Sheriff Dart may continue to use Craigslist's Web site to identify and pursue individuals who post allegedly unlawful content. But he cannot sue Craigslist for their conduct."
]]>It's worth noting that the two Republican commissioners on the five-person FCC cast votes of partial dissent to the order, questioning whether the factual record supported government action and whether the commission had the legal authority to intervene. But they also cast votes of partial support, saying that the notice of public rule-making (which only initiates a fact-finding process) was worthwhile because the market is in need of further study.
But not for McCain. His "Internet Freedom Act of 2009" was introduced with the warning against a "government takeover of the Internet," a point toward which the FCC seems inexorably driving with this morning's action.
Interestingly enough, seven House Democrats earlier this year signed onto the "Internet Freedom and Preservation Act," which would write Net neutrality principles into law.
So both sides claim they're safeguarding Internet freedom. That pretty well encapsulates the funhouse-mirror rhetoric that sadly attends this debate.
Still, here's where I'm swayed from my centrist view. If we were living in normal times, when government actions would be judged by level-headed people who were satisfied with a reasoned and civil debate (ahistorical optimism, I realize), I might go along for the ride.
But at a time when so many of us have given over to the hysterical paranoia that the Dems are wolves in sheep's clothing, that they're hell-bent on toppling the republic and replacing it with a socialist, statist, collectivist -- whatever -- regime, I lose interest.
In an op-ed published in today's Washington Times, McCain wrote: "Regulation kills innovation. Let's not kill the Internet. An open and unfettered Internet may be the real stimulus during these difficult economic times."
That is despite the vehement assurances of FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski that his interest is not to impose the heavy hand of the government on the Internet, but rather to continue a light-touch approach that will only ensure that applications and services compete on equal footing.
But, if you're in the Glenn Beck camp, you're more inclined to see it as yet another shady visit from the man who introduces himself, "Hi, we're the government and we're here to help."
Marsha Blackburn, a Republican representative from Tennessee, took it a step further.
"Net neutrality, as I see it, is the fairness doctrine for the Internet," she said at a recent event in Washington, according to The Hill.
And with that, she invoked a favorite avatar of those inclined to see the Democratic executive branch moving to reinstate a policy that would pose a threat to ideological media on both sides of the political spectrum, a policy that each of the five FCC commissioners have declared is a dead letter.
But, it's a talking point, just like the death of Internet freedom. Never mind that Net neutrality advocates believe that their way is essential to protecting free speech, a goal shared by opponents of the fairness doctrine. Any by god does it resonate with the conspiracy theorists.
Fox News picked up The Hill's piece on Blackburn's fairness doctrine comments.
Said commenter "American Sharecropper":
"I always found it curios (sic) how collectivists name bills the exact opposite of what they represent. The 'Fairness Doctrine' is hardly fair, 'Net Neutrality' is anything but neutral. My favorite is 'Public Option', the 'option' to pay a fine or go to prison for non-compliance. Modern collectivists take their cues straight out of an Orwell novel, creating a dystopian arena of non-debate."
Many well-reasoned arguments have been presented against Net neutrality. They come from people who understand both how networks and Washington work. These arguments have nothing to do with Internet freedom or freedom of speech, so they aren't present in the talking points of the ideologues.
Here's hoping the FCC will flout precedent as it proceeds on this one and stay above the political fight, because boy, is it ugly down there.
]]>"Your promulgating network neutrality rules seems to emanate from a fear that there may be some problems related to openness in 'the future,'" they wrote, arguing that he had provided scant evidence of actual instances of ISPs acting in way that harmed consumers. "Our view is that it is harmful for the commission to impose industry-wide rules based upon speculation about what may occur in the future."
For his part, Genachowski has pledged that the rulemaking process will be data-driven and does not assume an outcome.
The letter's signatories included John McCain, as well as several members of the Commerce Committee, the most likely venue to consider Net neutrality legislation.
Past efforts by committee members Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., and Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, to move Net neutrality legislation through the Senate have come up short, largely due to Republican opposition.
The FCC is due to consider the Net neutrality rulemaking procedure at its meeting next week.
]]>Valleywag also worries about news organizations getting a little too dependent on the government officials whose feet they are supposed to be holding to the fire, while pointing out the inconsistencies inherent to any policy framework to oversee the news media, a shape-shifting term that would be impossible to define at a time of profound technological transformation.
Which brings us back to the FTC's workshops, which the agency has chosen to call, "From Town Criers to Bloggers: How Will Journalism Survive the Internet Age?"
Critics object to the very idea. After TARP, the travails of the auto industry and the February stimulus, the word "bailout" has found its way into common parlance. This is to be expected, and there are very good reasons to worry about excessive government intervention in the private sector and runaway federal spending.
Unfortunately, this has also led to the reflexive tendency to apply the term to any government consideration of an imperiled industry, or simply one whose rules may not have kept up with the realities of the market.
Journalism, and the newspapers that create it, are no exception. From a policy perspective, the concern is that a robust news-gathering operation does not fit into the economic models born from the Internet and cable news. If one accepts the premise that quality local and investigative journalism is a civic good, this is a problem.
If you're one who believes that the bloggers, Becks, Olbermanns and others who are coming to dominate the discussion are enough, then there is no reason to fret over the decline of the legacy models.
By statute, the Federal Trade Commission is a consumer-protection agency. Its proper role in the journalism debate then would be to explore whether, in fact, a market failure has occurred, or if one is coming if no action taken.
The soberer voices in the debate agree that the model of the future is not clear, but they also leave out the loaded term "bailout" from their arguments.
That's because a bailout -- a large infusion of government money to save a failing industry -- is not on the table.
A limited antitrust exemption, a clarification of the tax code and reforms to copyright law are under consideration. They may not be good ideas, but they're also not bailouts.
Greater funding for public media is perhaps the closest we get to a bailout, but the term doesn't apply there, either. Boosting public funding for news organizations that are increasingly expected to do what the commercial market no longer can would be an incredibly political fight, much like the funding and oversight of the NEA. But that doesn't mean it's not worth having.
The FTC workshops, if anything, should be a forum for those ideas to be debated, as well as a showcase for all of the vibrant new media efforts that have sprung up without the aid of the federal government.
Just don't call it a bailout.
]]>Google counters that it is all in favor of reforming the intercarrier compensation regime, but that the differences between Google Voice and AT&T are more than superficial.
In its inquiry, the chief of the FCC's wireline bureau, Sharon Gillett, asked Google to provide a legal analysis of how its voice application fits into the statutory categories laid out in the Communications Act, and to explain what existing services it competes with.
Gillett asked Google to submit its responses by Oct. 28.
]]>In a widely cited study released in June, the Pew Internet and American Life Project reported that among Americans who do not currently subscribe to high-speed Internet service, 19 percent said that price was the primary deterrent.
Of course, the USF is only available to lower-income Americans, so Matsui's bill wouldn't help the moderate to well-heeled households who still can't see the value to justify the expense.
Nonetheless, USF reform is long overdue. The issue has been kicking around the FCC for years, but a crowded agenda and shortage of political will has kept it on the back burner.
Matsui's bill is an expansion of the existing program to deliver so-called "lifeline" phone service to lower-income Americans. With nearly one in five U.S. households no longer subscribing to landline service, it could well be that it's time to divert some of that funding to broadband, rather than expanding the overall pie as Matsui's bill seems to endorse.
That would be a nifty, if improbable, political compromise that could give this bill a chance to move. That would entail an exhaustive study of the USF as it's currently implemented to trim the fat from the program. Otherwise, the political dilemma becomes one of either cutting benefits the government already offers or expanding the deficit further still. If that's the choice, in this political climate, I'm betting the bill doesn't move (and certainly not before February, when the FCC is due to deliver its broadband strategy to Congress).
Still, Matsui has the right idea.
]]>Espinel's appointment also drew predictable plaudits from some of the high-profile warriors in the intellectual property war, such as the Business Software Alliance. BSA President and CEO Robert Holleyman said of Espinel: "She will bring considerable firepower to the administration's efforts to promote IP policies that are modern, comprehensive and enforceable."
In 2005, Espinel was named to serve as the first Assistant U.S. Trade Representative for Intellectual Property and Innovation.
The new position will be organized under the Office of Management and Budget.
Espinel now awaits confirmation by the Senate.
]]>