House To Investigate Whether DOJ's AT&T Antitrust Lawsuit Was Political

from the do-not-pass-go,-do-not-collect-$200 dept

When the Trump DOJ sued to stop AT&T's $89 billion merger with Time Warner last year, more than a few eyebrows were raised. After all, the DOJ's antitrust suit, allegedly a bid to protect consumers, came as other arms of the Trump administration were busy utterly dismantling a wide variety of popular consumer protections (like net neutrality) at the direct request of industry. It raised the question: why suddenly care about consumer protection and antitrust power when you've shown absolutely no general concern for those concepts previously?

As a result, there's always been a lingering question as to whether Trump's obvious disdain for Time Warner owned CNN was driving a petty bid for vengeance. Others wondered if the DOJ's lawsuit was a personal favor to Trump ally Rupert Murdoch, who had tried unsuccessfully to buy CNN from AT&T at least twice, and had spent much of 2017 lobbying Trump to scuttle the deal as a competitive favor to his Fox empire.

With a shakeup in the House, those questions could soon again be making headlines. Incoming House intelligence committee chairman Adam Schiff told Axios last weekend that one of the numerous things the new House leadership will investigate is whether the DOJ's antitrust lawsuit against AT&T was political:

"Schiff said Congress also needs to examine whether Trump attempted to block AT&T’s merger with Time Warner as payback to CNN.

"We don't know, for example, whether the effort to hold up the merger of the parent of CNN was a concern over antitrust or whether this was an effort merely to punish CNN," Schiff said.

To be clear, AT&T's monopoly power is clearly a problem and, regardless of the motivation, it's a good thing the DOJ tried to stop it.

AT&T's domination of both fixed broadband, wireless broadband, and its monopoly over the backhaul connections feeding everything from cellular towers to ATMs was already causing headaches. The company's expanded ownership of "must have" media properties only made things worse by causing new anti-competitive problems for competitors like Dish. Combine these with the death of net neutrality, AT&T's past behaviors, and the FCC's fresh inability to hold AT&T accountable for any of it -- and the over-arching market issues should be pretty clear.

Ultimately the DOJ lost its case for several reasons. Antitrust laws weakened after decades of lobbying left the DOJ arguing obvious outcomes (like AT&T raising rates on competitors and consumers) within narrow confines of economic theory. And because the DOJ didn't want to highlight the fact the Trump admin was harming these same consumers with its other hand (net neutrality), it simply avoided mentioning the idea at all. That's an obvious issue since AT&T's domination of both the media and its broadband monopoly will work synergistically to harm competitors and consumers alike.

Regardless, the Trump DOJ suddenly and exclusively caring about AT&T's monopoly power was always curious. And while many will be sure to suggest that any investigation of the motivation is itself political, it's a question that would be nice to have answered all the same -- since using "instruments of state power" like the DOJ to settle petty grievances with media outlets you don't like is kind of a fucking problem.

Filed Under: adam schiff, antitrust, congress, doj, mergers, politics
Companies: at&t, time warner

The Decline Of Congressional Expertise Explained In 10 Charts

from the something-worth-fixing dept

When Mark Zuckerberg was called to testify earlier this year, the world was shocked by Congress’s evident lack of basic technological literacy. For many, this performance illustrates the institution’s incompetence. After all, if our elected representatives have trouble understanding how Facebook works, how capable are they of understanding the complexities of the federal government, or crafting legislation across a range of technical subjects?

For those of us who live and work in the “swamp,” the Zuckerberg hearings were no great surprise. Just this year, we’ve seen Congress struggle with technology issues such as quantum computing, cryptocurrencies, and the governance of online platforms. Indeed, it seems effectively incapable of tackling major technology policy issues such as the debate over online privacy, election cybersecurity, or artificial intelligence.

This state of affairs is the product of decades of institutional deterioration, sometimes referred to as the “big lobotomy.” While scholars of American government may offer various books or white papers chronicling this decline, the pattern is evident from a few trends that this post will highlight.

The decline of congressional support agencies

Members of Congress typically come from professional backgrounds in business, law or finance rather than science or technology (for instance, there are currently twice as many talk radio hosts as scientists). To help them understand technical policy issues, Members of Congress and their staff rely on expert advisors in legislative branch support agencies such as the Congressional Research Service (CRS), the Government Accountability Office (GAO), and formerly the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA).

Of the congressional support agencies, CRS is the primary analytical workhorse that supports day-to-day operations, producing digestible reports and timely memos at the request of congressional offices. Unfortunately, the capacity of CRS has declined precipitously in recent decades. From 1979 to 2015, CRS’ staff has shrunk by 28% – a loss of 238 positions.

While CRS serves Congress with responsive memos and digestible reports, it also used to have an agency that conducted deep authoritative technical research. This agency was the Office of Technology Assessment, which for over two decades helped Congress understand the nuances of complex science and technology issues. In 1995, Congress eliminated funding for OTA, creating a gap that has not since been filled.

In addition to needing analysis related to the nuances and tradeoffs of particular regulatory policies, Congress also needs help understanding its $4 trillion in annual federal spending and the sprawling administrative state. To help rein in waste, fraud and abuse, Congress relies on the Government Accountability Office – which is empowered to conduct audits and investigations in the federal government. GAO boasts a savings of “$112 for every dollar invested.” Yet, from 1979 to 2015, its staff has been cut by 44% – a loss of 2,314 positions.

The decline of congressional committees

A critical source of policy expertise in Congress lies within congressional committees. Yet, like support agencies, committee staffing levels have declined significantly over time. From 1979 to 2015, the number of full-time standing committee staff has shrunk by 38% – a loss of 1,361 positions.

Key committees for technology policy reflect a similar trend. For instance, from 1981 to 2015 (note: 1979 data for House committees was unavailable), the House Energy and Commerce Committee went from 151 to 83 full-time staff. From 1979 to 2015, its Senate counterpart, the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, went from 96 to 64 staff. Similarly, from 1981 to 2015, the House Judiciary Committee went from 75 to 61 full-time staff. From 1979 to 2015, its Senate counterpart went from 223 to 91 staff.

With the decline in staffing, committees and subcommittees have also spent much less time conducting hearings, deliberating on policy, and developing legislation. From the 96th Congress (1979-1980) to the 114th Congress (2015-2016), the aggregate number of committee and subcommittee meetings across both chambers decreased by 66%.

Additionally, as shown by Casey Burgat and Charles Hunt, committees are also increasingly shifting resources to communications positions over policy roles.

Personal office staff resources are shifting to constituent services

With the rise of new digital tools and a growing population, Congress has been bombarded with a torrent of new communications from constituents and advocacy groups. Per a Congressional Management Foundation study, Congress received four times as many communications in 2004 than in 1995. Responding to this influx, more staff have shifted from policy to constituent relations and communications roles. Legislative staff may also be called more often to assist with constituent work.

This trend can be seen in the percentage of personal office staff based in district and state offices. From 1979 to 2016, the percentage of personal office staff based in district offices in the House of Representatives went from 35% to 47%.

In the same period in the Senate, the percentage of personal office staff based in state offices has gone from 24% to 43%. Since overall legislative branch staffing and budgets have declined over this period, this trend means fewer resources for retaining policy experts.

From 1979 to 2015, the total number of personal office staff has gone from 10,660 to 9,947. Senate numbers have remained relatively stable, since Senate office budgets are tied to population and distance. In the House of representatives, the total number of personal office staff has declined by 15% – a loss of 1,037 positions.

The decline of legislative branch compensation

In congressional offices, legislative analysis and other policy work falls on a variety of different staff positions. While titles and roles vary by office, these include “legislative correspondent,” “legislative assistant,” “legislative director,” and “chief of staff.” To varying extents, these roles are involved in other activities, such as constituent services, administrative work, and communications.

While cost of living in DC has gone up in recent decades (making it one of the most expensive cities in the country), the overall inflation-adjusted compensation for congressional policy staff has declined.

The median salary for a lawyer in the House of Representatives in 2015 was $56,000. In the private sector in DC, lawyers can easily earn several times that (an attractive exit for many congressional staff). Congressional salaries also fall significantly short of their executive branch counterparts, contributing to an expanding compensation gap. In short, compensation for working in Congress is far below the level needed to attract top talent.

Congressional staff do not believe they have access to sufficient resources or expertise

In a Congressional Management Foundation survey, a group of senior congressional staff were asked about their perspectives on institutional capacity issues. Therein, they rated a range of different areas as either “very important”/”very satisfied” or “somewhat important”/”somewhat satisfied.”

In one question, 81 percent said that access to policy expertise was “very important,” but only 24 percent said they were “very satisfied” with the status quo – a gap of 57 percentage points.

In another question, 67 percent said having adequate time and resources for Members of Congress to consider and deliberate on policy was “very important.” However, only 6% reported that they were “very satisfied” with the status quo.

While congressional capacity has declined, the need for it has increased

The Constitution sets up Congress as the first among three equal branches of government, intending it to lead on policy and provide a check on the executive branch’s potential for waste, fraud and abuse. Unfortunately, Congress has ceded much of its policymaking power and oversight responsibility to the administrative state. As Congress has shrunk over the past few decades, the size and scope of the federal government overall has expanded significantly. For instance, between 1979 and 2014, the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations grew from 98,032 pages to 175,268. Over the same period, inflation-adjusted federal discretionary spending grew from $810 billion to $1,220 billion (in 2017 dollars).

When most of our timeline data begins in 1979, it was just a year after the first computers were installed in the White House. It would still be several years before the introduction of 3 ½-inch floppy disks – which people today only know through the save icon. And it would still be over a decade before the launch of the World Wide Web.

Needless to say, since the late 20th century, the number and complexity of science and technology policy challenges have increased at an accelerating rate. These include issues such as infrastructure cybersecurity, election hacking, artificial intelligence, cryptocurrencies, CRISPR, data privacy, and more. If we’re to maintain America’s lead in innovation and meet the policy challenges of the 21st century, we’ll need to rebuild a capable and expert legislature.

If you’re interested in working on the solution, check out the Future Congress project. This is a new coalition and resource hub working to improve science and technology expertise in the legislative branch.

Zach Graves is head of policy at Lincoln Network. Daniel Schuman is policy director at Demand Progress.

Filed Under: congress, congressional knowledge, future congress, gao, office of technology assessment, ota

Can We Make Congress Less Dumb About Technology?

from the one-can-hope! dept

Earlier this week, a bunch of organizations -- including Techdirt's own sister organization, the Copia Institute -- announced the launch of a new project, called Future Congress. It's a coalition of organizations, some of whom rarely agree on anything with some of the other members. It is made up of organizations with a variety of political viewpoints and policy ideas. But, this coalition does agree one one thing: we need to stop Congress from being so damn clueless about technology.

For many years, we've talked about the unfortunate decision by a Newt Gingrich-led Congress back in the mid-90s to dismantle the Office of Technology Assessment (or OTA). This was the organization that was a non-partisan, careful think tank focused on providing useful technology briefings to anyone in Congress who needed it. And yet, just as technology was becoming central to our every day lives, Congress defunded it (technically, the office still exists on the books, but it has no funding and no staff). Over the years there have been many calls to bring OTA back, and every so often someone in Congress floats a bill... which always gets shot down (the latest was just a few months ago).

The goal of the Future Congress coalition is to try to convince Congress to fix this -- for its own good. For many, many, many years now, we've highlighted how every time there's a hearing related to issues regarding technology, nearly all of our elected officials come off looking totally clueless to a degree that is outright embarrassing. They could easily fix this -- in a way that will both stop making them look clueless in front of the world and likely lead to better policy outcomes. Hopefully, they realize this.

I will note that last month there were some baby steps towards this, with Congress putting some language into an appropriations bill that fund a study of reviving the OTA while also moving to let the GAO take on some of the work that OTA used to do. It's unclear if this will actually survive or do very much, and Congress should be willing to step up and do much more. Hopefully, this Future Congress coalition will help make it clear to Congress why it should stop being so ignorant on technology -- especially when it has the means to better educate itself.

Filed Under: congress, future congress, gao, office of technology assessment, ota, tech literacy, technology

AT&T Claims It Wants Meaningful Privacy Rules...After Just Lobbying To Kill Meaningful Privacy Rules

from the watch-what-I-do,-not-what-I-say dept

If you hadn't noticed, the telecom industry has been on a tear lately, completely dismantling most government oversight of its natural monopolies. From killing net neutrality to gutting FCC and state authority to rein in ISP bad behavior, companies like AT&T dream of a future where neither competiton nor even modest regulatory oversight prevent it from its god-given mission to rip off and otherwise overcharge the company's largely captive customer bases.

At the same time, AT&T is now part of a coordinated effort between the telecom sector and the Trump administration to saddle Silicon Valley giants like Facebook and Google with additional regulation while demonizing them as out of control monsters. Why? As AT&T and Comcast push deeper into the online ad industry, they're looking for any advantage they can get against entrenched search and social media giants. And, given their political power, domination of the broadband last mile, and the government's apathy to both problems, those advantages run deep.

At the heart of this little stage play sits our national conversation about what new privacy laws might look like. Last week, the Senate Commerce Committee held a hearing consumer advocates weren't even invited to. Instead, companies with utterly terrible track records of privacy abuses were given starring roles in dictating just what said privacy legislation should look like. That included Facebook but also AT&T, which for weeks has been quick to claim on multiple fronts that it just really, really, loves the idea of comprehensive privacy protections for consumers:

AT&T has long supported comprehensive federal privacy legislation to protect consumers and give businesses clear and consistent guidelines on the collection and use of consumer data... AT&T wants to be a constructive voice in finding a real and durable solution.

Which is weird, because "constructive" isn't really the best word to explain AT&T's lobbying tactics on the privacy front lately. The company was a major player in efforts last year to obliterate modest FCC privacy guidelines for broadband providers before they could even take effect. Those rules largely just mandated that ISPs be transparent about what data is collected and who it's being sold to, while requiring opt in consent for particularly sensitive consumer data like your financial background. AT&T has played a pretty major role in lying to scuttle state-level protections as well.

Yet here's AT&T CEO Randall Stephenson, again this week proclaiming that his company is breathlessly dedicated to real privacy protections, while lamenting the fact that states are now trying to fill the void in the wake of federal apathy on this subject:

AT&T CEO Randall Stephenson on Tuesday made a pitch for Congress to "step up" and create "rules of the road" on consumer privacy that would apply to all companies across the country.

"We think one ranger. There ought to be one regulator for everybody," the exec said at The Atlantic Festival in Washington. Without that, Stephenson said states like California will step into the breach and create their own rules.

Speaking of the media, tech and communications industries, he said, "To handcuff those sectors with 50 different rules of the road across 50 different states and different regulators is a disaster for an uncertain business model."

That takes some serious stones. Again, AT&T just got done obliterating meaningful FCC privacy rules that didprecisely what Stephenson claims he was looking for, something you'd think any press outlet writing about this would mention. Like the ISP assault on net neutrality, the attack on the FCC's privacy rules (and overall authority) created an accountability vacuum states then rushed to fill. A bunch of fractured, state-level protections isn't ideal, but it was a problem directly caused by AT&T's own lobbying. That really shouldn't be forgotten.

It's understood that people have differing opinions on what real privacy rules should look like and whether we need them at all. But whatever your position, it shouldn't be hard to see that companies like AT&T are the very last folks we want having too much input on what these rules should look like. From actively modifying user packets to covertly track them around the internet to trying to charge consumers more money to protect their privacy, AT&T's the poster child for not really giving a damn about consumer privacy. And when efforts to pass even modest rules do arrive, AT&T lobbyists work to kill them.

That's because none of the giant companies being tasked with defining our potential looming privacy law (be it Facebook or AT&T) want a law that actually accomplishes much of anything aside from "putting the debate to bed" so they can get back to tracking you around the internet without much transparency or meaningful consent. Real rules would empower, inform, and educate consumers, who'd then opt out of huge swaths of data monetization efforts, costing ad-driven companies billions. They like to talk a lot about "compromise" and "building consensus," but these companies really only want one thing: a federal privacy law that looks good on paper, but has so many loopholes to be largely useless, outside of the goal of pre-empting any tougher, state-level privacy efforts.

In AT&T's case, if those laws happen to saddle Silicon Valley ad competitors with additional burdens AT&T and its subsidiary DirecTV may not have to face (after having just effectively convinced the FCC to blow itself up from within), so much the better.

Filed Under: congress, federal rules, privacy
Companies: at&t

Ron Wyden Wants Federal Government To Do More To Protect Personal Devices/Accounts Used By Senators And Staffers

from the small-fix-with-bigger-potential-repercussions dept

Ron Wyden is writing letters again. This time he wants to know why the federal government isn't protecting the personal devices and email accounts used by federal officials. Attacks by state-sponsored hackers are never going to go away, and Wyden feels this lack of protection will make personal devices easy targets. From Wyden's letter [PDF] to Senate majority leaders:

Press reports from January of this year indicate that Fancy Bear--the notorious Russian hacking group--targeted senior congressional staff in 2015 and 2016. My office has since discovered that Fancy Bear targeted personal email accounts, not official government accounts. And the Fancy Bear attacks may be the tip of a much larger iceberg. My office has also discovered that at least one major technology company has informed a number of Senators and Senate staff members that their personal email accounts were targeted by foreign government hackers.

Given the significance of this threat, I was alarmed to learn that SAA cybersecurity personnel apparently refused to help Senators and Senate staff after these attacks The SAA informed each Senator and staff member who asked for help that it may not offer cybersecurity assistance for personal accounts. The SAA confirmed to my office that it believes it may only use appropriated funds to protect official government devices and accounts.

This seems a little odd, but there's a good reason the SAA doesn't extend coverage to personal devices. As Pwn All The Things pointed out on Twitter, personal devices can be used for personal things, and we don't want our elected officials using tax dollars for personal reasons.

This is a good example of a rule constructed for laudable reasons -- the strong firewall to stop legislators using govt money for campaigning and personal things is there for a reason -- ending up with bad consequences on edge-cases like defending high-value accounts from hackers

To protect against hacking attempts, Wyden is introducing legislation that would eliminate the SAA silos. The bill would allow the SAA to "provide cybersecurity assistance" for personal devices on an opt-in basis. We'll have to see how this plays out when implemented. It may make it more difficult to discern if any federal funds were misused by Senators or their staff.

On the other hand, it will help secure devices some government employees mistakenly believe aren't prime targets for state-sponsored hacking. It takes a certain amount of obtuseness to reach this conclusion, considering how heavily some government officials rely on their personal devices for communications with other government officials. The old FOIA dodge is still a popular one, and the difficulty of separating official work from personal work -- especially during election years -- likely means personal devices are used far more frequently than their government-issued ones.

While it's good the government as a whole is continually working towards more robust security, the fact is the private sector offers plenty of options for government officials to better secure their personal devices. Personal responsibility is still underutilized at the federal level, which makes them no better (or worse) than much of the general public.

Filed Under: congress, cybersecurity, federal government, nation state attackers, ron wyden, senate

Congress Fails To Include A Single Consumer Advocate In Upcoming Privacy Hearing

from the ill-communication dept

As the U.S. ponders what meaningful privacy protections should look like in the Comcast & Cambridge Analytica era, it should probably go without saying that consumers should be part of that conversation. Unsurprisingly, that hasn't really been the case so far. That was exemplified, in part, by the GOP's decision to neuter FCC broadband privacy rules much the same way they dismantled net neutrality: by ignoring any consumer-oriented input that didn't gel with their pre-existing beliefs: namely that all regulation is always bad and a nuanced conversation on the merits of each instance of regulation simply isn't necessary.

When a "conversation" does occur, it tends to be superficial at best, and consumers pretty consistently aren't invited to the table. Case in point: on September 26, the Senate Commerce Committee will be holding a hearing entitled "Examining Safeguards for Consumer Data Privacy." One of the motivating reasons for this hearing, at least according to Senator John Thune, was because "consumers deserve clear answers" on privacy:

"Consumers deserve clear answers and standards on data privacy protection,” said Thune. “This hearing will provide leading technology companies and internet service providers an opportunity to explain their approaches to privacy, how they plan to address new requirements from the European Union and California, and what Congress can do to promote clear privacy expectations without hurting innovation."

It's odd then, that not a single consumer or consumer advocacy group was invited to appear at said hearing, according to the EFF:

"...the Committee is seeking only the testimony of big tech and Internet access corporations: Amazon, Apple, AT&T, Charter Communications, Google, and Twitter. Some of these companies have spent heavily to oppose consumer privacy legislation and have never supported consumer privacy laws. They know policymakers are considering new privacy protections, and are likely to view this hearing as a chance to encourage Congress to adopt the weakest privacy protections possible—and eviscerate stronger state protections at the same time."

Regardless of whether you think new privacy rules are necessary, it goes without saying that consumers should have some voice in the process. Instead, Congress pretty clearly prefers a round table where companies that have spent the better part of the last decade trying to avoid meaningful privacy protections get to dictate the course and cadence of the conversation. AT&T thinks it's a good idea to charge consumers more to protect their own privacy. Google and Facebook, meanwhile, have been working in concert with the telecom sector to scuttle state-level efforts on privacy, no matter what they look like.

Like net neutrality, the Trump era attack on federal consumer protections (like the GOP's dismantling of modest FCC broadband privacy rules last year) has opened the door to numerous states rushing to fill the oversight vacuum. The end result, as we've seen in California, tends to be rushed bills that over-reach (as opposed to the FCC's broadband privacy rules, which took years to craft). All the while, the tech press adores tap dancing around the fact that this current administration and Congressional majority couldn't care less about meaningful consumer protections.

Yes, some of these state efforts are terrible. And yes, it would be easy for federal rules to be equally bad. Especially when the crafting process is largely being driven by cross-industry gamesmanship (the telecom industry, for example, has covertly undermined its alliance with Silicon Valley and is pushing for rules that screw over their video ad competitors like Google, but leave giant ISPs free to do as they wish). That said, it shouldn't be assumed that meaningful privacy protections are impossible, especially given the Congressional status quo shake up that may be just over the horizon.

Another truth the tech press enjoys tap dancing around is the fact that none of the companies invited to this round table want serious privacy rules impacting them, even if they're well-crafted. Informed, educated, empowered consumers are more likely to opt-out of data collection and monetization, and you'd be hard pressed to find any major company that's eager to lose billions as these consumers dodge being tracked and sold to.

Without consumer groups at the table, these are the kind of facts that tend to get lost in the shuffle, and the entire conversation tends to shift to why privacy rules kill innovation and aren't necessary, and not what real privacy consumer protections might look like. Again, because as it stands now, none of the folks at this hearing are actually interested in real rules that protect consumers. They're interested in either no rules at all, or flimsy federal rules that pre-empt more meaningful state-level protections. And many of the politicians at this hearing aren't interested in privacy at all, they're simply eager to hammer Silicon Valley over perceived, frequently hallucinated, partisan censhorship claims that have nothing to do with privacy.

Sure, maybe meaningful privacy protections are impossible, either due to government's failure to adapt to quickly changing markets, or outright corruption. But by omitting consumer groups from the conversation, it's being made abundantly clear that this isn't a serious effort one way or another, with the end result being more of an echo chamber than any meaningful policy discussion.

Filed Under: congress, consumer advocates, data, data protection, privacy, senate commerce committee

Congress Adds A Bunch Of Non-Violent Crimes To The Violent Crimes List

from the FOR-THE-BORDER dept

The Supreme Court said Congress needed to fix a law. So it's trying to. And it's not going to improve anything.

The "crime of violence" needed to necessitate the removal of a lawful permanent alien was too vague. The Court wasn't being needlessly pedantic. All the law states at the moment is this:

The term “crime of violence” means—

(a) an offense that has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or prop­erty of another, or

(b) any other offense that is a felony and that, by its nature, involves a substantial risk that physical force against the person or property of another may be used in the course of committing the offense.

"Involves a substantial risk" of physical force use. The justices said the law was unconstitutionally vague because it could potentially sweep up crimes that aren't inherently violent, but could escalate if everything went Murphy's Law.

Before holding a lawful permanent resident alien . . . subject to removal for having committed a crime, the Immigration and Nationality Act requires a judge to determine that the ordinary case of the alien's crime of conviction involves a substantial risk that physical force may be used. But what does that mean? Just take the crime at issue in this case, California burglary, which applies to everyone from armed home intruders to door-to-door salesmen peddling shady products. How, on that vast spectrum, is anyone supposed to locate the ordinary case and say whether it includes a substantial risk of physical force? The truth is, no one knows.

The fix is in. And it's almost worse than doing nothing. As C.J. Ciaramella reports for Reason, the proposed fix would add a bunch of crimes not normally thought of as "crimes of violence" to the list of crimes of violence.

Republicans in the House passed a bill this morning that would reclassify dozens of federal crimes as "crimes of violence," making them deportable offenses under immigration law. Criminal justice advocacy groups say the bill, rushed to the floor without a single hearing, is unnecessary, is overbroad, and will intensify the problem of overcriminalization.

The Community Safety and Security Act of 2018, H.R. 6691, passed the House by a largely party-line vote of 247–152. Among the crimes that it would make violent offenses are burglary, fleeing, and coercion through fraud.

Burglary is normally committed when no one's around, separating it from robbery, in which stuff is taken directly from victims, often requiring the use or threat of force. It also adds stalking, arson, "interference with flight crew members and attendants," and "firearms use" [?] to the mix.

But the weirdest addition appears to be a bone tossed to law enforcement. From the bill [PDF]:

The term ‘fleeing’ means knowingly operating a motor vehicle and, following a law enforcement officer’s signal to bring the motor vehicle to a stop—

(A) failing or refusing to comply; or

(B) fleeing or attempting to elude a law enforcement officer.

Car chases are now crimes of violence. Suspects are better off ditching the vehicle and running like they sell drugs in the school zone. Pull over immediately or get evicted from the country. It's a weird thing to throw into a list of crimes known for their inherent violence. Then again, the list of "violent" crimes is already weird -- a seeming overcorrection by Congress to expel as many "permanent" residents from the country as possible. Then there's insertion of "conspiracy," which makes thinking or talking about the "violent" criminal acts listed a violent crime itself.

The law was unconstitutionally vague prior to this. If this bill is passed, the problem shifts from vagueness to overbreadth. And it very likely will pass. It was rushed through the House on a party line vote, and the party controlling the House will be passing it on to a president (assuming the Senate likes the House's idea) aligned with the controlling party -- one who's partial to legislation that makes it easier to kick out non-Americans while also rubbing the belly of the nation's law enforcement agencies.

Filed Under: congress, crimes, fleeing, non-violent crimes, supreme court, violent crimes

On Thursday, Ajit Pai Has To Explain Why His FCC Made Up A DDOS Attack And Lied To Congress

from the getcha-popcorn-ready dept

So FCC boss Ajit Pai will need to don some tap-dancing shoes this Thursday, when he'll be forced to explain to a Senate oversight committee why his agency not only made up a DDOS attack, but lied repeatedly to the press and Congress about it.

As we recently noted, e-mails obtained by FOIA request have proven that the FCC completely made up a DDOS attack in a bizarre bid to downplay the fact that John Oliver's bit on net neutrality crashed the agency website last year. A subsequent investigation by the FCC Inspector General confirmed those findings, showing not only that no attack took place, but that numerous FCC staffers misled both Congress and the media when asked about it.

Pai initially tried to get out ahead of the scandal and IG report by issuing a statement that threw his employees under the bus while playing dumb. According to Pai's pre-emptive statement, the entire scandal was the fault of the FCC's since-departed CIO and other employees who mysteriously failed to alert him that this entire shitshow was occurring (you can just smell the ethical leadership here):

"I am deeply disappointed that the FCC’s former Chief Information Officer (CIO), who was hired by the prior Administration and is no longer with the Commission, provided inaccurate information about this incident to me, my office, Congress, and the American people. This is completely unacceptable. I’m also disappointed that some working under the former CIO apparently either disagreed with the information that he was presenting or had questions about it, yet didn’t feel comfortable communicating their concerns to me or my office."

There's several problems with Pai's statement. One, while FCC CIO David Bray was hired by the Obama-era FCC, he remained employed (and spreading the false DDOS attack) well through last year under Pai's "leadership." Two, the FCC IG found that Bray and several other employees had not only been circulating the false DDOS report to reporters, but had repeatedly misled Congress (again under Pai's watch). The lies of three FCC employees to Congress were deemed severe enough that they were reported to the DOJ, which refused to prosecute anybody (I'm sure you and I would have been granted the same benefit of the doubt).

That Pai had no idea that any of this was happening is a pretty big stretch, especially considering that the FCC continues to block FOIA requests for certain e-mail exchanges related to the stupid affair. As such, when Pai appears before a Senate oversight committee on Thursday, the big question is going to be: just how long did Pai know that his staff was actively misleading Congress in numerous back and forth letter exchanges on the subject?

The other major problem, and it's one you'd hope lawmakers at the hearing address, is that Pai's claim that this was all the fault of rogue employees doesn't gel with the fact that Pai's press shop was actively misleading and denigrating reporters throughout this whole affair. For example, when the press began digging into the agency's shaky claims, Pai's FCC thought it would be a good idea to send a prickly statement to numerous media outlets. That statement not only tried to claim reporters were "irresponsible" simply for trying to clear up the matter, but that the FCC had "voluminous documentation" proving the DDOS attack occurred:

"The FCC has never stated that it lacks any documentation of this DDoS attack itself," the agency states. "And news reports claiming that the Commission has said this are without any basis and completely irresponsible. In fact, we have voluminous documentation of this attack in the form of logs collected by our commercial cloud partners."

Outside of the first sentence, nothing in that official FCC statement is true. So again, the idea that Pai knew nothing at all about this mess is hard to believe. Especially given that his own press shop and numerous employees were busy lying to Congress and denigrating reporters simply for getting to the truth. Pai's explanation for this should make for good television, whether or not Congress grows a spine and actually holds Pai's feet to the fire.

If you've watched Pai's FCC work, it seems pretty clear at this point that the nonexistent DDOS attack, much like the FCC's refusal to address bogus comments during the net neutrality public comment period, are all part of the same effort: doing everything possible try and downplay the scope and importance of the massive, unprecedented public opposition to Pai's historically unpopular policies.

You'd like to think there's something vaguely resembling accountability at the end of this story. At the very least, it's likely that the bogus DDOS attack and fake comments will be playing starring roles during the upcoming net neutrality hearings, where all of this can be used to add context to the FCC's rushed, facts-optional efforts to repeal net neutrality exclusively at broadband monopolies' behest.

Filed Under: ajit pai, congress, david bray, ddos, fcc, john oliver, lies

TSA Admits 'Quiet Skies' Surveillance Program Is Useless, Promises To Continue Engaging In Useless Surveillance

from the 'no-terrorists-yet-but-you-know,-we'll-just-keep-up-the-spying-because-r dept

More news comes from the Boston Globe about the TSA's "Quiet Skies" program. Having decided the skies were too quiet, the TSA started nominating people for surveillance based on god knows what and sent air marshals all over the US to tail "suspects" as they unsuspectingly went about their travels. Some of the targets included flight attendants and law enforcement officers. To those tasked with this futile (and likely unconstitutional) surveillance, the program is a waste of time and resources, if not a full-blown civil liberties catastrophe.

To the TSA, this previously-hidden bullshit is just some more discretion-flexing on behalf of the American public to save them from terrorists it inadvertently admitted aren't even targeting aircraft anymore. Why go through the hassle of the boarding process, smuggling precursors past half-inept, half-asleep TSA agents when you can just rent a van from Home Depot and drive it into a crowd?

The TSA insists the program has value and that it will continue to send air marshals out to tail flagged randos. It also insists better education of air marshals will shut complaining marshals the hell up. But what it failed to do in a Congressional hearing, called after the Globe's expose, is actually present any evidence the program works.

On Wednesday and Thursday, TSA officials shared details of the program with congressional staffers from four committees and fielded questions in closed-door briefings.

The officials said about 5,000 US citizens had been closely monitored since March and none of them were deemed suspicious or merited further scrutiny, according to people with direct knowledge of the Thursday meeting.

THIS JUST IN:

CARTS, HORSES IN EMBARRASSING MIXUP, SAY TSA OFFICIALS
Cart-horse confusion expected to continue for the foreseeable future

The TSA had to tail 5,000 people just to determine they weren't suspicious. That's the wrong way around, constitutionally-speaking. The government isn't allowed to snoop on people until it can find a reason to snoop on people. That's not how the Fourth Amendment works. The TSA's inept comparison to cops on the beat is worse than apples in regards to oranges. Cops don't tail people to see if they're going to do something suspicious. Suspicions are in place before the surveillance starts since, most of the time, law enforcement agencies don't have the manpower/funding to tail people all over town to see if they might be up to something.

Get a load of this talking point, delivered by someone who doesn't appear to care it's directly contradicted by statements made to Congress by TSA officials.

“The program analyzes information on a passenger’s travel patterns, and through a system of checks and balances, to include robust oversight, effectively adds an additional line of defense to aviation security,” TSA spokesman James Gregory said Monday.

Bullshit. All of this is bullshit. The "robust oversight" is especially bullshit since Congress was first introduced to this program by the Globe's reporting. The TSA claimed it had informed Congressional oversight about the program but oversight members pushed back, stating they'd never heard of it.

The "line of defense" is more bullshit. A program that has, to date, surveilled 5,000 people only to discover the TSA had no reason to surveill these 5,000 people is not a "line of defense." What it actually is is what the union representing the air marshals says it is: a waste of resources.

The air marshals union, which represents many of the 2,000 to 3,000 so-called flying FAMS, criticized Quiet Skies last week, saying that the criteria of the program were unacceptable and that the public would be better served to have air marshals assigned elsewhere.

Now, the TSA is being told it will need to answer questions about its no-longer-secret surveillance program -- one it instituted without input from its oversight and without informing anyone it was putting it in place. And the program has wasted resources 5,000 times to achieve zero wins on the national security front.

Filed Under: 4th amendment, congress, oversight, quiet skies, surveillance, tsa, useless

Congress Members Demand Answers From, Investigation Of Federal Facial Rec Tech Users

from the software-terrible-with-names,-worse-with-faces dept

The ACLU's test of Amazon's facial recognition software went off without a hitch. On default settings, the software declared 28 Congressional members to be criminals after being "matched" with publicly-available mugshots. This number seemed suspiciously low to cynics critical of all things government. The number was also alarmingly high, as in an incredible amount of false positives for such a small data set (members of the House and Senate).

Amazon argued the test run by the ACLU using the company's "Rekognition" software was unfair because it used the default settings -- 80% "confidence." The ACLU argued the test was fair because it used the default settings -- 80% confidence. Amazon noted it recommended law enforcement bump that up to 95% before performing searches but nothing in the software prompts users to select a higher setting for more accurate results.

This upset members of Congress who weren't used to be called criminals… at least not by a piece of software. More disturbing than the false positives was the software's tendency to falsely match African-American Congressional reps to criminal mugshots, suggesting the act of governing while black might be a criminal activity.

Congressional members sent a letter to Amazon the same day the ACLU released its report, demanding answers from the company for this abysmal performance. Ron Wyden has already stepped up to demand answers from the other beneficiaries of this tech: federal law enforcement agencies. His letter [PDF] reads like an expansive FOIA request, only one less likely to be arrive with redactions and/or demands the scope of the request be narrowed.

Wyden is asking lots of questions that need answers. Law enforcement has rushed to embrace this technology even as multiple pilot programs have generated thousands of bogus matches while returning a very small number of legitimate hits. Wyden wants to know what fed agencies are using the software, what they're using it for, and what they hope to achieve by using it. He also wants to know who's supplying the software, what policies are governing its use, and where it's being deployed. Perhaps most importantly, Wyden asks if agencies using facial recognition tech are performing regular audits to quantify the software's accuracy.

That isn't the only facial recognition letter-writing Wyden has signed his name to. The Hill reports Congressional reps have also sent one to the Government Accountability Office, asking it to open an investigation into facial recognition software use by federal agencies.

"Given the recent advances in commercial facial recognition technology - and its expanded use by state, local, and federal law enforcement, particularly the FBI and Immigration and Customs Enforcement - we ask that you investigate and evaluate the facial recognition industry and its government use," the lawmakers wrote.

The letter, signed by Rep. Jerrold Nadler and Sens. Ron Wyden, Cory Booker, Christopher Coons (D-Del.) and Ed Markey (D-Mass.), asks the GAO to examine "whether commercial entities selling facial recognition adequately audit use of their technology to ensure that use is not unlawful, inconsistent with terms of service, or otherwise raise privacy, civil rights, and civil liberties concerns."

The public has a right to know what public surveillance methods are being deployed against it and how accurate or useful these tools are in achieving agencies' stated goals. Privacy expectations all but vanish when the public goes out in public, but that doesn't mean their daily movements can automatically be considered grist for a government surveillance mill. Whatever privacy implications there are likely have not been addressed pre-deployment if recent surveillance tech history is any indication. Before the government wholeheartedly embraces tech with unproven track results, federal agencies need to spend some quality time with the people they serve and their overseers that act as a proxy for direct supervision.

Filed Under: congress, criminals, face recognition, matching, rekognition, ron wyden
Companies: amazon