Telecom Lobbyists Easily Weakened Language In 'Bipartisan' Broadband Infrastructure Bill

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

So we've already noted how the broadband component of the "bipartisan compromise" infrastructure bill was still helpful, but much weaker than many wanted it to be (pretty much the common theme across the infrastructure package). While there are some useful grant funds for underserved "middle mile" and other networks -- as well as the continuation of a helpful but flawed COVID broadband discount program -- the proposal itself doesn't really do much of anything about the core reason US broadband is so expensive: namely, regional telecom monopolization or the corruption that protects it.

Other aspects of the proposal started off well but were steadily eroded throughout the "negotiations" process. For example, many lawmakers wanted the country to boost its standard definition of "broadband" to symmetrical 100 Mbps to better represent modern realities. But the final package implemented a 100 Mbps down, 20 Mbps standard -- and only as it pertains to who can get funding for broadband expansion. The overall definition of broadband remains unchanged.

As Ernesto Falcon at the EFF notes, this weakened standard was courtesy of fixed wireless and cable industry lobbyists, who know that much of their infrastructure can't actually do much better than 10-20 Mbps on the upstream. So we basically lowered the bar to make them happy:

"By defining internet access as the ability to get 100/20 Mbps service, the draft language allows cable monopolies to argue that anyone with access to ancient, insufficient internet access does not need federal money to build new infrastructure. That means communities with nearly decade-old DOCSIS 3.0 broadband are shielded from federal dollars from being used to build fiber. Copper-DSL-only areas, and areas entirely without broadband, will likely take the lion’s share of the $40 billion made available. In addition to rural areas, pockets of urban markets where people are still lacking broadband will qualify. This will lead to an absurd result: people on inferior, too-expensive cable services will be seen as equally served as their neighbors who will get federally funded fiber."

Ernesto has routinely pointed out that fiber broadband is future proof (and feeds most cellular towers in the first place), so if you're going to throw billions of dollars in subsidies at companies, you probably should be encouraging fiber as often as possible. Of course, the government rarely adheres to his advice, frequently throwing countless subsidies at wireless companies for service they don't deliver, or hundreds of millions of dollars at Elon Musk to bring inferior broadband to a couple of traffic medians and airport parking lots.

There were other nonsensical sacrifices made to the broadband component of the infrastructure agreement made under the banner of "bipartisan compromise," including the elimination of any attempts to lend a hand to the popular community broadband efforts taking root across the country out of frustration. Again, not based on any hard data or factual reality, but because telecom lobbyists don't really like anything that could potentially erode regional monopoly revenues.

As noted previously, these kinds of downgrades are uniformly framed in beltway DC coverage as a "bipartisan compromise." In reality, it's really only the people who want decent baseline standards and the barest levels of sector oversight who are having to compromise. And more often than not the press helps politicians frame their decisions to pander directly to sector lobbyists as simply being principled spendthrifts.

Filed Under: broadband, definitions, infrastructure plan, lobbyists

Social Network GETTR, Which Promised To Support 'Free Speech' Now Full Of Islamic State Jihadi Propaganda

from the have-fun-with-it-folks dept

When last we checked in on GETTR, the latest in the Gab-Parler trend of very naive people setting up a new social network they hope will become the "MAGA central" social network by claiming, ridiculously, that they "won't censor," it was overrun by furry porn and My Little Pony porn. The site, that is run by former Trump spokesperson Jason Miller, has struggled to understand how content moderation actually works, and is now facing yet another new kind of content moderation challenge: jihadi propaganda from the Islamic State.

Politico has an article about how GETTR is now being flooded with such propaganda.

Islamic State “has been very quick to exploit GETTR,” said Moustafa Ayad, executive director for Africa, the Middle East and Asia at the Institute for Strategic Dialogue, a think tank that tracks online extremism, who first discovered the jihadi accounts and shared his findings with POLITICO.

“On Facebook, there was on one of these accounts that I follow that is known to be Islamic State, which said ‘Oh, Trump announced his new platform. Inshallah, all the mujahideen will exploit that platform,’” he added. “The next day, there were at least 15 accounts on GETTR that were Islamic State.”

As the article notes, the Islamic State quickly urged its followers to build up a big GETTR presence:

“If this app reaches the expected success, which is mostly probable, it should be adopted by followers and occupied in order to regain the glory of Twitter, may God prevail,” one Islamic State account on Facebook wrote on July 6.

And thus, we quickly learned that Jason Miller's commitment to free speech on GETTR isn't as absolute as he would have you believe:

Some of the jihadi posts on GETTR from early July were eventually taken down, highlighting that the pro-Trump platform had taken at least some steps to remove the harmful material.

You don't say? And then this statement is pretty funny as well:

“ISIS is trying to attack the MAGA movement because President Trump wiped them off the face of the earth, destroying the Caliphate in less than 18 months, and the only ISIS members still alive are keyboard warriors hiding in caves and eating dirt cookies,” Jason Miller, CEO of GETTR, said in a statement. “GETTR has a robust and proactive moderation system that removes prohibited content, maximizing both cutting-edge A.I. technology and human moderation.”

Huh. So now you're admitting that any social media site needs a combination of technology and human moderation in order to remove prohibited content? You mean, just like Facebook, Twitter, and basically every other site that has to set up policies for what's allowed and what's not and then enforce it? So very, very interesting.

I am curious, of course, whether or not our regular commenters, who still keep insisting that Twitter and Facebook must be forced to allow "all" speech on their platforms feel that GETTR is a problem as well. Or is that somehow different?

Filed Under: content moderation, donald trump, free speech, isis, islamic state, jason miller, propaganda, social media
Companies: gettr

Daily Deal: The 2021 Complete All-in-One Adobe Creative Cloud Suite Course Bundle

from the good-deals-on-cool-stuff dept

The Techdirt Deals Store is having a semi-annual sale from July 28 to August 4. Get 15% off of physical products using the code ANNUAL15. Get 30% off apps and software with the code ANNUAL30. Get 60% off of online courses with the code ANNUAL60.

The 2021 Complete All-in-One Adobe Creative Cloud Suite Course Bundle has 12 courses designed to teach you about video editing, animations, photography, design, and more. Courses cover popular Adobe products like Lightroom, After Effects, Photoshop, and Adobe XD. The bundle is on sale for $34.

Note: The Techdirt Deals Store is powered and curated by StackCommerce. A portion of all sales from Techdirt Deals helps support Techdirt. The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team.

Filed Under: daily deal

Canadian Government Continues Its War On Internet Freedom With New 'Online Harms' Legislation

from the it's-very-bad dept

A few months ago, we wrote about the Canadian government's attempt to give its broadcast regulators sweeping new powers to regulate social media via Bill C-10 — a massive piece of legislation that seemed to only get worse over time thanks to unclear, ever-shifting provisions and a rushed, secretive amendment process before being passed by the House of Commons in the middle of the night. That bill is now in limbo in the Senate, and Canadians are waiting to see if it will come back in the September session or be preempted by an early federal election. Unfortunately, the stalling-out of Bill C-10 hasn't put a stop to the ruling Liberal government's efforts to create unprecedented new powers of internet regulation, and now their ongoing campaign is continuing with a technical paper outlining plans for more new legislation to address "harmful online content".

The planned bill is supposed to address five categories of content: terrorist content, incitement of violence, hate speech, non-consensual sharing of intimate images, and child sexual exploitation material. This apparently noble goal masks a wide range of utterly disastrous plans for stringent regulation that belong in the hall of fame for bad internet policy. The effort is headed up by Heritage Minister Steven Guilbeault — the same Minister whose astonishing inability to answer questions about Bill C-10 all but confirmed that the law would do far more than its stated intent. In theory, the release of this technical paper is kicking off a public consultation, but the rushed and secretive procedure that happened with C-10 has left most observers completely unconvinced that the government will be genuinely receptive to even good-faith criticisms of the plan or its potential impact on free expression in Canada. Michael Geist describes it as:

...a process billed as a consultation, but which is better characterized as an advisory notice, since there are few questions, options or apparent interest in hearing what Canadians think of the plans.

... The perspective on [Online Communications Services] is clear from the very outset. After a single perfunctory statement on the benefits of OCSs which says little about the benefits of freedom of expression – the document does not include a single mention of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms or net neutrality – the government proceeds to outline a series of harms.

So just what would this proposed bill do to address its list of harmful content? It would establish a huge new web of bureaucracy consisting of a Digital Safety Commission, a tribunal to rule on content takedown demands, and an advisory board to shape ongoing social media regulation. Through this framework, "Online Communications Services" (the government lists Facebook, YouTube, TikTok, Instagram, and Twitter as examples) would face expansive new requirements, such as taking down content the bureaucrats deem unsuitable within 24 hours (we discussed how unrealistic and dangerous this is when the EU had the same idea) and adhering to new pro-active monitoring and reporting requirements that will force them to turn over information on Canadian users directly to federal law enforcement. The new Digital Safety Commissioner would have the power to determine whether their monitoring efforts are sufficient, including whether or not the use of AI tools is acceptable. This could have any number of consequences, all of them bad: aggressive over-blocking of content, invasive monitoring of users even in private messages (though the government insists private communication will not be covered, this government's history of failing to uphold its promised limits on internet legislation does not inspire much confidence), and Canadians getting visits from the feds for engaging in protected speech.

If platforms fail to comply with the requirements they could face hefty penalties, and ultimately the government could play its trump card: ordering all Canadian ISPs to block access in the country, depriving all Canadians of powerful tools for free expression because the companies were unable to meet impossible requirements. That's assuming that many platforms don't just stop operating in Canada themselves in order to avoid the stifling regulatory framework, because if you're wondering where these takedown demands will come from and what the required remedies will look like, the answer is... almost anyone, and almost anything:

In order to enforce these rules, the public could file complaints with the Digital Safety Commissioner. The new commissioner would be empowered to hold hearings on any issue, including non-compliance or anything that the Commissioner believes is in the public interest. The Digital Safety Commissioner would have broad powers to order the OCSs “to do any act or thing, or refrain from doing anything necessary to ensure compliance with any obligations imposed on the OCSP by or under the Act within the time specified in the order.” Moreover, there would also be able to conduct inspections of companies at any time.

Yes, the government wants to give a new commissioner the power to basically set any rules they want about how online platforms operate, for any reason, so long as it can be framed as a matter of "public interest" — and to be able to conduct random inspections to ensure compliance. It also provides extremely wide latitude for the commissioner to hold hearings in secret if the issue can be said to impact privacy, national security, international relations, national defense or confidential commercial interests, among other things. And that's not all: the planned legislation would also grant Canada's national intelligence service, CSIS, new powers to secretly investigate online threats.

And, for the pleasure of facing all these stringent new requirements that would make operating in Canada extremely unappealing if not impossible, online platforms get to foot the bill:

The proposed legislation will create new regulatory charges for OCSs doing business in Canada to cover the costs of the regulatory structure as the companies will pay for the Digital Safety Commissioner, the Digital Recourse tribunal, and the Digital Commission. As part of the payment requirements, the Digital Safety Commissioner can demand financial disclosures from OCSs to determine ability to pay and Canadian revenues.

And once again, because it's worth reiterating: the document outlining these plans never once mentions the Charter of Rights and Freedoms or, even in general, the right of Canadians to free expression.

It's hard to imagine a more appalling, arrogant move by this current government, even after its long history of trying to clamp down on the internet with powerful new regulations. These proposals are not new ideas: they've been floated and sometimes attempted in countries all over the world for years, and the huge problems they present have been discussed and dissected many times. But the government hasn't even paid lip service to criticisms and counterarguments, and its invitation for public comment feels perfunctory and irrelevant rather than sincere — especially with Minister Guilbeault's track-record of ignoring such criticism and failing to give clear answers to important questions.

If Bill C-10 is any indication, the House of Commons will rush this proposal through and frame opposition as bad-faith partisanship, while constantly tweaking the specifics in ways that will make it difficult for the public to even know precisely what the final bill says and does. The strongest obstacles to its passage are the Senate and the looming possibility of an early election, but Canadians can't rely too heavily on either of those things. It will take a truly massive deluge of official public comment submissions (accepted until September 25th), as well as pressure on Members of Parliament and some good old public outrage, to stand a chance of making this government pause before barreling forward with this disastrous plan.

Filed Under: canada, censorship, content moderation, digital safety commission, online harms, steven guilbeault, takedowns

Cell Phones Still Somehow Get The Entirety Of The Blame For Teen Depression

from the little-too-convenient dept

For years now a strong narrative has emerged that the increase in teen depression (and suicides) is almost single handedly being caused by social media and cell phone use. Though quite often when you look a little more deeply at the studies in question you'll find they're a bit undercooked, tend to make overly broad assumptions about trends, and are often contradicted by other studies.

For example, a 2019 study out of the UK of 12,000 adolescents found that most links between life satisfaction and social media use were "trivial," overall accounting for less than 1% of a teenager's sense of wellbeing. Another study from last year combed through 20 different studies on social media's impact on young adults and kids and found "there doesn’t seem to be an evidence base that would explain the level of panic and consternation around these issues."

There's clearly a lot going wrong in the world, and a lot of it emotionally exhausting. Yet for whatever reason cell phone social media usage continues to often get the entirety of the blame for teen depression. An opinion column in the New York Times last week, for example, points to a new study showing a dramatic spike around the world in "teenage loneliness" starting in 2012:

"In a paper we just published in The Journal of Adolescence, we report that in 36 out of 37 countries, loneliness at school has increased since 2012. We grouped the 37 countries into four geographic and cultural regions, and we found the same pattern in all regions: Teenage loneliness was relatively stable between 2000 and 2012, with fewer than 18 percent reporting high levels of loneliness. But in the six years after 2012, rates increased dramatically. They roughly doubled in Europe, Latin America and the English-speaking countries, and rose by about 50 percent in the East Asian countries."

But again that whole causation/correlation monster rears its head. The author of the piece and study even proceeds to acknowledge that they couldn't actually make the link the article itself is trying to forge:

"These analyses don’t prove that smartphones and social media are major causes of the increase in teenage loneliness, but they do show that several other causes are less plausible. If anyone has another explanation for the global increase in loneliness at school, we’d love to hear it."

I imagine that the heavy dose of shallow peer comparison on social media and ceaseless marketing likely does contribute to some teen depression. And too much social media use likely isn't the healthiest thing in the world. But blaming cell phones entirely for the problem of teen depression seems utterly too convenient. Often these platforms and technologies are just windows to cultural and environmental dysfunction, which, if you hadn't noticed, there's a hell of a lot of at the moment.

There's structural racism, the continued threat of a white nationalist movement, the collapse of a stable environment leading to countless, recurring disasters, incompetently run and financed education systems (at least here in the U.S.), substandard mental health care (at least in the US), rampant mass murder via firearm (at least in the US), and examples everywhere you look of leaders proving themselves either too corrupt or incompetent to handle the challenges of the modern age. That the biggest contributor to teen angst is the fact they now have a supercomputer in their pocket -- itself doesn't really compute.

Filed Under: blame, culture, depression, mobile phones, moral panic, teenagers

Biden's Infrastructure Bill Shouldn't Undermine Cryptocurrency Infrastructure In The Process

from the that-would-be-a-mistake dept

There was a reasonable uproar from the cryptocurrency community this weekend as it appeared that the long fought for Biden infrastructure bill would change some definitions to create a mess for the wider cryptocurrency space.

Language in the bill would require crypto brokers to report customer information to the Internal Revenue Service. More importantly, over the weekend it broadened the definition of what’s considered a “broker” to anyone “responsible for regularly providing any service effectuating transfers of digital assets on behalf of another person” which doesn’t exclude miners, software developers, stakers and other individuals in the crypto economy who don’t have customers.

“The language gives a lot of power to define what should be included in the reporting requirement,” Oppenheimer analyst Owen Lau. “It says any person who is responsible for regularly providing any service effectuating transfers of digital assets on behalf of another person – which can mean anything. If I transfer bitcoin for you, then it can mean I become a broker.”

The potential for mischief was certainly quite high:

The proposed legislation, if passed, would have a significant impact on both investors and exchanges. Exchanges will need to undertake significant efforts to comply with the reporting regime. Investors, on the other hand, won’t have to “do” anything. But under the new law, all of the information that the IRS would normally receive when an investor sells a share of Amazon stock will now be sent to the IRS when an investor sells one Bitcoin, one Ethereum, or the like. There’s a lot to be sorted out: what will happen with crypto stored in cold storage, wallets not on exchanges, so-called “self custody.” The proposed legislation does not address this “self-custody” cryptocurrency, because it is analogous to cash under a mattress. It is difficult to trace and even more difficult to devise an information reporting scheme that would encompass such an asset. Individual cryptocurrency owners and investors must still pay attention, however, because it is even more likely that the IRS will be made aware of their transactions and expect them to be reported on a tax return.

Lots of folks began to notice some problems with this, including Senator Wyden, who noted it was yet another example of politicians not understanding technology:

Others in the Senate spoke up about problems with the language as well, and it appears that some last minute changes are being made in response:

The final legislative text included some changes to alleviate concerns of the cryptocurrency industry, which expressed alarm last week about new requirements that would define most of the participants in the sector as brokers and force them to turn over information to the I.R.S. The provision was projected to raise $28 billion over a decade.

After receiving pushback from cryptocurrency lobbyists, lawmakers revised that section of the bill to “clarify” the definition of a broker rather than expand upon it.

The legislation also removed language that explicitly targeted “any decentralized exchange or peer-to-peer marketplace.” It replaced that with a broader definition that characterizes brokers as anyone “responsible for regularly providing any service effectuating transfers of digital assets on behalf of another person.”

There's an important balance here. Obviously, some aspects of cryptocurrency are used to hide money transfers, or to otherwise engage in scammy or illegal behavior. So you can understand the interest in better, more accurate reporting. But, treating cryptocurrency the same as other currencies also will have profound downstream effects, at a time when cryptocurrency still represents a key hope for bringing back the kind of internet we were once promised -- one that is more decentralized, and where more of the power is pushed out to the ends of the network, rather than controlled by a few large central players.

While I get that some people are hugely skeptical of the entirety of the cryptocurrency space, there's a real risk of destroying the vast potential to build a better internet if we focus just on the scams and the illegal uses. Thoughtful regulations around cryptocurrency have to recognize what it actually entails -- and the initial version of the infrastructure bill seemed to do the opposite. And that would be unfortunate, seeing as how getting cryptocurrency right can help reinvigorate the very important internet infrastructure.

Filed Under: cryptocurrency, infrastructure bill, joe biden

Israel, Ice Cream, Trademarks: This Year's Dumbest Controversy Results In Trademark Skullduggery

from the you-scream dept

Welcome to this year's dumbest controversy thus far. A couple of weeks ago, famed ice cream maker Ben & Jerry's announced that it would no longer be selling its products in "occupied Palestinian territory." Indicating that doing so would not align with the company's values, the idea here was that settlements that infringed on territory that was deemed to belong to the Palestinians by international law would be off the company's radar. Not all of Israel, mind you. Just the occupied territories. And that is when everyone lost their god damned minds. Ron DeSantis is seeking to have Florida put B&J and its parent company, Unilever, on a list of companies that should be scrutinized for "boycotting Israel". Jewish leaders indicated that the kosher rating of the ice cream could be altered for the same reason. Except that isn't what B&J are doing. It isn't boycotting Israel at all. It's simply refusing to sell its product in small sections of land that Israel currently occupies.

And where this gets into Techdirt territory is that one law firm in Israel is going to so far as to try to screw with Ben & Jerry's trademark rights, arguing now that it can use the B&J trademarks in those territories because the company isn't selling products there any longer.

Ben & Jerry’s is on its way to losing ownership of its brand in the settlements. The law association Shurat HaDin has submitted a request to the Registrar of Companies to register a company called “Ben & Jerry’s Ice Cream of Judea and Samaria.” This would be in keeping with US law under which a company loses the right to trademark protection in areas in which it has stopped selling its product.

The law firm informed food giant Unilever that since it had given up selling Ben & Jerry’s ice creams in the “West Bank,” under US law, it had lost the right to protect the Ben & Jerry’s trademark in those areas. Shurat HaDin has already submitted an application to the Israeli Registrar of Companies to register the new brand “Ben and Jerry’s Ice Cream of Judea and Samaria,” which will receive legal protection to sell the exact same ice cream, with the same trade name, and actually compete with the original company.

It should be obvious that this is absolutely not what trademark law is for. What is happening here is some combination of extortion and punishment simply because a private company has taken a very small stance on an international issue. This is typical of the maximal response that tends to be trotted out when Israel encounters these types of scenarios. I've heard this described by foreign policy experts as a form of "diplomatic deterrence", where a minor issue generates a response that's dialed to eleven simply to deter any like-minded companies or actors from taking the same actions.

But that, again, is not what trademark law is designed to do. It's designed to keep the public from being confused as to what they're buying. And it's hard to imagine a more perfect scenario for creating public confusion than a fraction of territory being sold B&J branded ice cream that isn't legit while the rest of the country gets the legit stuff. And the idea that US law is being used to do all of this makes this all the more infuriating.

Shurat HaDin examined and found that under US law, in order to preserve the protection of a trademarked brand against use by other parties, there must be full intention to conduct business in a particular area. That is, in cases where a commercial brand is intended only to prevent another party from using the same label, without having any intention of operating in the same area, its request will not be approved. Therefore, once that person announces that he does not intend to operate in the same area, it means that he has no intention of using his trademark and his right to trademark will no longer stand.

It's not that simple, obviously. And hopefully the Trademark Office and any courts that might get involved will see this for the skullduggery that it absolutely is. Whatever stances you might want to take on political issues related to this, this simply isn't what trademark laws are for.

Filed Under: ben & jerry's, ice cream, israel, palestine, trademark
Companies: ben and jerry's, unilever

New York Congresswoman Thinks It's Too Hard To Be A Good Cop, Offers Up Bill That Would Codify Qualified Immunity

from the soon-to-be-perennial-bad-ida dept

Last summer, following the George Floyd killing, members of Congress introduced the Justice in Policing Act of 2020. Among other reforms, the bill (since renamed the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act) attempted to bring an end to qualified immunity, the Supreme Court-created legal doctrine that allows officers to escape civil rights lawsuits if the court decides no existing precedent would have put them on notice that the violation of rights they committed was actually a violation of rights.

This doctrine has made it extremely easy for officers to escape accountability for their actions. If there's no case pretty much on point, the cop walks. While the Supreme Court has recently reconsidered its demands for cases on point, the prevailing rule pretty much still stands: as long as rights are violated in new ways, the rights violation must be suffered by the victim with no hope of compensation. In most cases, this also means the courts never get around to deciding this new violation of rights is a rights violation, so officers remain free to pretend they don't know any better.

It's a terrible system and it needs to be changed. Legislation could do it. This legislation apparently can't, though. After being passed by the House on June 25th of last year, it went to the Senate to die. The bill has not moved forward since being placed on the Senate's legislative calendar more than a year ago.

Some Congressional reps, however, think qualified immunity is a good thing. They believe police officers just don't have enough protections, even with their unions, large number of powerful political backers, their own set of rights, and the ability to just walk away from the job rather than be punished for their misconduct.

Representative Claudia Tenney (New York) is one of those people. Despite facing no serious threat to the doctrine of qualified immunity, Tenney is seeking to have the Supreme Court's doctrine codified into law, preventing the court from walking it back at a future date. It also would punish any local governments that fail to "respect" law enforcement with the same fervor Tenney does.

Congresswoman Claudia Tenney (NY-22) today unveiled details of her legislation, the Local Law Enforcement Protection Act, that protects qualified immunity for police officers serving at the state and local level.

Tenney's bill would prevent state and local governments that remove qualified immunity protections for police from applying for certain federal grants.

Still not sold? Here's more from Tenney, who appears ready to elevate each and every law enforcement officer into sainthood.

"Our Law Enforcement Officers put their lives on the line every day at great personal risk. In the last year alone, police have faced unprecedented challenges like the pandemic and increasing crime. Accountability and transparency are vital, but removing qualified immunity achieves neither. It opens police officers to unfair and frivolous attacks simply for doing their jobs. At a time when activists and politicians in Washington are demonizing and defunding our police, I'm honored to stand with them to deliver the resources and support to keep our communities safe," said Congresswoman Tenney.

One can almost imagine the red, white, but mostly blue flag flying behind her as Tenney boldly stands up for people with an immense amount of power that have, for years, barely been reined in by almost nonexistent accountability. No one's saying law enforcement isn't a difficult job. We just want law enforcement officers to do this job better and be accountable for their actions when they do it wrong. A litigation ejection seat only government employees can use hasn't done anything for accountability or transparency, so if these concepts are actually important to Rep. Tenney, maybe it's time to strip away the barrier to accountability erected by the Supreme Court.

But there's more. Tenney also drops this truth bomb:

The past two years have marked the deadliest period for law enforcement in decades. In 2020 alone, 264 police officers died in the line of duty. So far this year, at least 148 officers have tragically died.

What's deliberately left unsaid here is that the past two years were the deadliest period for pretty much all of humanity in decades. Law enforcement couldn't escape COVID either. Here's what's left out of this selective statement:

Of the 264 officers who have died in the line of duty, there were 145 confirmed Covid-19 cases.

COVID-related deaths are 55% of that total. Tenney's effort to spin a narrative that it's more dangerous out there for cops than it's been in decades also ignores this factoid:

Forty-eight officers were shot and killed during the year compared to 51 during the same period in 2019, resulting in a 6% decrease.

It's not getting worse, in terms of the normal dangers of the job. It's still about the same as it's been for several years, which have seen historic lows in both the killing of officers by suspected criminals and crime rates in general. To read this in the context of Tenney's heated comments, it would appear officers actually need a little less protection than they've needed historically. Why not start with the end of qualified immunity?

As is to be expected, a long line of law enforcement officials have offered their support for the bill, which directly caters to their interests. That's a natural reaction, albeit one that does nothing to bridge the gap between them and the people they're supposed to be serving. Rep. Tenney would prefer to serve the interests of other government employees, and that's not going to bridge any gaps either. This redundant bill is a yet-to-be-drafted sermon that aims to only engage with the already-converted. Hopefully, it will be ignored in the order it is received.

UPDATE: via Techdirt reader Thad comes this correction. The bill is alive but it in its original form, originating in the House this time:

HR7120 hasn't been sitting on the Senate calendar since June 2020; it sat on the Senate calendar from June 2020 until it died in January 2021.

However, the House passed a new version of the bill, HR1280. And it's been sitting on the Senate calendar since March.

Filed Under: accountability, claudia tenney, police, qualified immunity

Judge Shoots Down ViaSat's Quest To Stall Starlink Launches

from the star-wars dept

For a few years, scientific researchers have warned that Elon Musk's Starlink low orbit satellite broadband constellations are harming scientific research. Simply, the light pollution Musk claimed would never happen in the first place is making it far more difficult to study the night sky, a problem researchers say can be mitigated somewhat but not eliminated. Another problem is there are simply so many low orbit satellites being launched, the resulting space junk is creating navigation hazards. US regulators, so far, have done little to nothing about either problem.

Enter ViaSat, which clearly isn't keen on having its captive business market disrupted by new competition. Back in January, the company urged the FCC to conduct an environmental review of SpaceX’s low-orbit Starlink constellation, arguing that the fledgling system poses environmental hazards in space and on Earth. Since the 80s, satellite systems have had a baked in exemption from the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), excluding their businesses from environmental review. But the sheer scale of what Starlink and Amazon are doing (more than 50,000 low orbit satellites in orbit) should change that equation, ViaSat argues:

"...given the sheer quantity of satellites at issue here, as well as the unprecedented nature of SpaceX’s treatment of them as effectively expendable, the potential environmental harms associated with SpaceX’s proposed modification are significant,” the company stated.

“Relying on the Commission’s decades-old categorical exemption to avoid even inquiring into the environmental consequences of SpaceX’s modification proposal would not only violate NEPA, but also would needlessly jeopardize the environmental, aesthetic, health, safety, and economic interests that it seeks to protect, and harm the public interest,” Viasat continued."

The thing is, ViaSat is most certainly only really interested in its own revenues here, even if the concerns it's pushing are legitimate ones. But after petitioning for change saw no reaction at the FCC, ViaSat sued the agency last May, demanding a pause of Starlink satellite broadband deployments. This week, judges made it clear that wasn't going to happen. Though the court's order (pdf) did grant a motion to expedite the appeal, which should speed up the legal feud somewhat.

The FCC and Space X have largely been aligned on this issue, insistent that any environmental harms can be mitigated. Space X, meanwhile, quite correctly notes that ViaSat's environmental concerns are likely performative and its arguments not entirely consistent:

"Viasat's newfound environmentalism is belied by its actions at every turn. Viasat failed to raise any environmental concerns in connection with any other satellite authorization, including SpaceX's authorization to operate Starlink satellites at a different altitude and its prior request (nearly identical to the one at issue here) to lower many of those satellites. To the contrary, Viasat—a non-US licensee that has previously sought to escape Commission regulation altogether—ultimately relies on "competitive harm" to support its stay request. But stifling competition and protecting profits is not what NEPA is about."

But again, ViaSat is correct that the concerns about space junk and light pollution are legitimate ones that aren't being taken particularly seriously at the FCC. But the solution to that problem likely isn't going to come at the hands of a company predominately and transparently only looking out for its own best interests.

The FCC under both Trump and Biden has been very eager to give Musk's Starlink pretty much anything it wants, including some extremely dubious subsidies. All of this favorable treatment and subsidization comes despite the fact Starlink isn't going to have quite the innovative impact many assume. As noted previously, the service will only have the capacity to reach 400 to 800,000 subscribers in its first few years (a max of 6 million several years from now), a small drop in the bucket when you consider upwards of 42 million Americans lack broadband access, and another 83 million live under a broadband monopoly.

So there are still legitimate questions here about whether Starlink will really be worth the cost(s), and whether Starlink will be able to remain financially viable (the majority of past efforts on this front have not). And while a self-interested competitor like ViaSat may have been the wrong messenger for worries about space junk and light pollution, the concerns themselves likely aren't going anywhere.

Filed Under: broadband, competition, fcc, light pollution, satellite broadband, space pollution, starlink
Companies: spacex, starlink, viasat