Could A Consumer Privacy Bill Of Rights Even Work?

from the must-we-formalize-everything? dept

The White House is making a big deal over its introduction of a Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights concerning corporation's use of personal data. Unlike Europe, where there are a bunch of privacy protection laws, the US has gotten by without such laws for the most part. I can certainly understand the desire for a bill of rights like this -- and like many, I'm creeped out about how some sites make use of my data (especially in that uncanny valley of targeted advertising) -- but I'm not so creeped out that I think a law is the answer. In fact, a few things about this plan leave me concerned.

Privacy rights is one of those things that seems like a good idea, but seems very difficult to actually implement effectively, without either stifling useful services that really aren't creepy or troublesome, or just creating a set of plans so meaningless as to be a waste of time. For example, we've long argued that privacy policies are pointless, but these days for many sites, it's required that you have one. This is one of those ideas that sounds good: of course a site should have a privacy policy! Except... no one reads these privacy policies, and most people (incorrectly) assume that if a site has a privacy policy, it means their information is private. But that's not necessarily the case. You could have a "privacy policy" that says "we widely share all your info and we mock you at the same time!" and as long as the company does just that, it's likely still a legit privacy policy.

And that leads to screwed up incentives. Basically, sites have the incentive to be broad, vague and not very thorough in their privacy policies, to avoid running afoul of their own rules (which is where they start getting into trouble with the FTC). If you create a really locked down privacy policy, it just means there are more opportunities for you to break those rules and face an issue with the FTC. Thus, to protect yourself, you write a very vague and broad privacy policy just to avoid having to worry about tripping over it.

My fear is that we end up with the same screwed up incentives, but on a wider scale, with this "bill of rights." Here's what the White House is suggesting:

1. Individual Control: Consumers have a right to exercise control over what personal data companies collect from them and how they use it. Companies should provide consumers appropriate control over the personal data that consumers share with others and over how companies collect, use, or disclose personal data. Companies should enable these choices by providing consumers with easily used and accessible mechanisms that reflect the scale, scope, and sensitivity of the personal data that they collect, use, or disclose, as well as the sensitivity of the uses they make of personal data. Companies should offer consumers clear and simple choices, presented at times and in ways that enable consumers to make meaningful decisions about personal data collection, use, and disclosure. Companies should offer consumers means to withdraw or limit consent that are as accessible and easily used as the methods for granting consent in the first place.
2. Transparency: Consumers have a right to easily understandable and accessible information about privacy and security practices. At times and in places that are most useful to enabling consumers to gain a meaningful understanding of privacy risks and the ability to exercise Individual Control, companies should provide clear descriptions of what personal data they collect, why they need the data, how they will use it, when they will delete the data or de-identify it from consumers, and whether and for what purposes they may share personal data with third parties.
3. Respect for Context: Consumers have a right to expect that companies will collect, use, and disclose personal data in ways that are consistent with the context in which consumers provide the data. Companies should limit their use and disclosure of personal data to those purposes that are consistent with both the relationship that they have with consumers and the context in which consumers originally disclosed the data, unless required by law to do otherwise. If companies will use or disclose personal data for other purposes, they should provide heightened Transparency and Individual Control by disclosing these other purposes in a manner that is prominent and easily actionable by consumers at the time of data collection. If, subsequent to collection, companies decide to use or disclose personal data for purposes that are inconsistent with the context in which the data was disclosed, they must provide heightened measures of Transparency and Individual Choice. Finally, the age and familiarity with technology of consumers who engage with a company are important elements of context. Companies should fulfill the obligations under this principle in ways that are appropriate for the age and sophistication of consumers. In particular, the principles in the Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights may require greater protections for personal data obtained from children and teenagers than for adults.
4. Security: Consumers have a right to secure and responsible handling of personal data. Companies should assess the privacy and security risks associated with their personal data practices and maintain reasonable safeguards to control risks such as loss; unauthorized access, use, destruction, or modification; and improper disclosure.
5. Access and Accuracy: Consumers have a right to access and correct personal data in usable formats, in a manner that is appropriate to the sensitivity of the data and the risk of adverse consequences to consumers if the data is inaccurate. Companies should use reasonable measures to ensure they maintain accurate personal data. Companies also should provide consumers with reasonable access to personal data that they collect or maintain about them, as well as the appropriate means and opportunity to correct inaccurate data or request its deletion or use limitation. Companies that handle personal data should construe this principle in a manner consistent with freedom of expression and freedom of the press. In determining what measures they may use to maintain accuracy and to provide access, correction, deletion, or suppression capabilities to consumers, companies may also consider the scale, scope, and sensitivity of the personal data that they collect or maintain and the likelihood that its use may expose consumers to financial, physical, or other material harm.
6. Focused Collection: Consumers have a right to reasonable limits on the personal data that companies collect and retain. Companies should collect only as much personal data as they need to accomplish purposes specified under the Respect for Context principle. Companies should securely dispose of or de-identify personal data once they no longer need it, unless they are under a legal obligation to do otherwise.
7. Accountability: Consumers have a right to have personal data handled by companies with appropriate measures in place to assure they adhere to the Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights. Companies should be accountable to enforcement authorities and consumers for adhering to these principles. Companies also should hold employees responsible for adhering to these principles. To achieve this end, companies should train their employees as appropriate to handle personal data consistently with these principles and regularly evaluate their performance in this regard. Where appropriate, companies should conduct full audits. Companies that disclose personal data to third parties should at a minimum ensure that the recipients are under enforceable contractual obligations to adhere to these principles, unless they are required by law to do otherwise.

Now, I see a list like this, and, as a consumer, there are parts of it to which I instinctively say, "yeah, right on!" But, from the point of view of someone who runs a popular website, I look down that list and see possible pitfalls. There are a few areas where I could be afraid of accidentally violating such a "Bill of Rights," without meaning to and certainly without intending harm. That's what happens when you have vague laws. This isn't to say there should be a free for all, but I do worry that making this "Bill of Rights" a reality may chill certain innovative businesses, while also causing some disruptions for small ongoing businesses. This doesn't mean the issue shouldn't be tackled, but as with SOPA/PIPA, I'd rather there be a much clearer statement not just on the problem or the fix being worked on -- but on the wider implications of it.

And, if we're talking about "privacy rights," shouldn't the focus really be on the government? After all, in the real Bill of Rights we already have a 4th Amendment that is a form of privacy protection... and which the federal government keeps trying to chip away at. It seems kind of ironic that the same government that is talking about how we need a privacy "bill of rights" for consumers against companies, is actively trying to take away those same kinds of privacy rights when the government is involved...

Filed Under: bill of rights, consumers, privacy, white house

MPAA Hires Four Ex-Federal Government Employees, Including One From ICE & Another From The White House

from the watch-that-revolving-door dept

It appears that the famed "revolving door" between government and the big entertainment industry lobbyists continues. The MPAA has announced four new hires -- all of whom come from roles within the government, and who raise significant questions about who they were working for when they were in their government positions.

Alex Swartsel, who has worked for several Democratic senators and campaigns, is the new director of global policy. Brian Cohen, who has worked in the Justice Department and for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, is the new director for external state government affairs.

Lauren Pastarnack, who has worked on the Senate Judiciary Committee, is the new director of government affairs. And Kate Bedingfield, who joins the MPAA from the White House Communications Office, is the new director of strategic communications.

Two of these aren't huge surprises. The Pastarnack hire hit the news a few months ago, when people noticed that she jumped from being a point person on PIPA to working directly for the MPAA. Swartsel's name may also be familiar. We tangled with her last summer, when she bizarrely took to the MPAA's blog to attack reporter Janko Roettger for accurately predicting that bad economic news might lead people to seek out unauthorized sources of movies, rather than paying through the nose for authorized versions. Now, the MPAA's former boss had said the exact same thing, but according to Swartsel it's somehow "intellectually dishonest" to point out what might happen. Swartsel also was the one who flat out mocked the concerns of tech entrepreneurs concerning SOPA and PIPA. Turns out she did all this as a "consultant" to the MPAA -- and they thought she did such a bang up job that they've hired her full time as "director of global policy."

Given her former attacks on reporting the truth and concerns of the tech industry, it seems pretty clear that the MPAA is not moving in the direction of their promised open conversation with the tech industry and internet users concerning solutions to infringement. It sounds like they're moving in the other direction.

A further indication of that, of course, is the hiring of Cohen, direct from the MPAA's private police force... better known as ICE. Remember, when ICE launched Operation In Our Sites to illegally seize and censor websites, it did so directly from Disney's headquarters. The close relationship between ICE and the MPAA should worry everyone. The fact that there's a revolving door in employment between the two should be cause for an investigation concerning possible corruption. But, of course, that won't happen... when that kind of revolving door also includes someone like Bedingfield, coming straight out of the White House.

It's stories like this that make you realize why the MPAA is so powerful. It knows that it has a strong hold on government employees, because it's offering a bunch of them high paying jobs once they leave their government positions. And, as Jack Abramoff has explained, the best trick in a lobbyist's pocket is to tell a government employee that there's a job waiting for them any time in the future -- because they're technically working for the lobbyist from that moment forward.

Filed Under: alex swartsel, brian cohen, ice, kate bedingfield, lauren pastarnack, lobbyists, politics, revolving door, white house
Companies: mpaa

White House Says It Can't Comment On Possible Chris Dodd Investigation

from the no-surprise-there dept

This isn't a huge surprise, but following the popularity of the petition asking the White House to investigate Chris Dodd (after Dodd's own statements suggesting that he expects politicians who get Hollywood money to pass Hollywood's preferred bills no questions asked), the White House has officially stated that it can't comment on the matter. As per the terms of the White House's "We the People" petition site, it can refuse to address issues that deal with law enforcement:

consistent with the We the People Terms of Participation and our responses to similar petitions in the past, the White House declines to comment on this petition because it requests a specific law enforcement action.

I'm sure the White House has no interest in getting involved in this in any way, and that if it was actually investigating any of this activity, it wouldn't want to talk about it publicly until later. Still, I think the petition -- and the publicity it got -- did serve a key purpose: to highlight the public's disgust with the MPAA's form of crony capitalism, and the hubris of folks like Chris Dodd who think that as long as they donate enough money, politicians should be working for the MPAA, rather than the public.

Filed Under: bribery, chris dodd, petition, white house
Companies: mpaa

Another Interesting White House Petition: Reduce The Term Of Copyright

from the let-them-know-that-copyright-policy-is-important dept

The White House's use of its "We The People..." petition system has been interesting to watch over the last few months since it was introduced. While they quickly raised the "threshold" necessary to get a response, lately it's been used in some interesting ways. We've highlighted a few different petitions -- specifically those related to SOPA/PIPA, Chris Dodd and ACTA. In the case of SOPA, it was in finally responding to the two related petitions that the White House finally came out against the approach in SOPA/PIPA.

The latest petition that some have mentioned is one petitioning for copyright terms to be reduced back to 56 years, like it was prior to 1978. Personally, I'd rather than before we pick an arbitrary time frame, that at least some research be done to figure out what might be the optimal time frame. But, clearly, reducing the term makes a lot of sense. Hell, even among many of the strongest copyright system defenders we hear them "admit" that perhaps copyright terms have been extended too far. Of course, if Congress ever did move to reduce the term, you can rest assured that all hell would break loose from the legacy players. They're not giving up any monopoly powers without a fight.

In the end, this petition might be a little pointless. Copyright law is left to Congress to determine, not the President. So petitioning the White House on this may come across as a little misguided. Of course, with the way politics runs these days, the White House often does set the legislative agenda, and under some weird mythical magic future where the President did take up this issue, it could potentially lead to a legislative attempt at reducing copyright term limits -- though, again, the freakout from the legacy players about how "the government is stealing from artists!!!!!@#!@#" would be deafening (of course, the flipside, that whenever Congress extends copyright they're "stealing" from the public, will never be acknowledged).

That said, even though the target here may be a bit misguided, I think it would be good to get this petition up to 25,000 signatures, pushing the White House to respond to it. Post-SOPA/PIPA, it would be nice for the White House to recognize that copyright policy is internet policy, and that the public really does care about this on a widescale basis. If copyright-related petitions keep hitting the 25,000 signature threshold, perhaps they'll realize that this never was about just the SOPA/PIPA bills...

Filed Under: copyright, petition, term, white house

New Petition Asks White House To Submit ACTA To The Senate For Ratification

from the as-required-under-the-constitution dept

As we noted in our post about people just discovering ACTA this week, some had put together an odd White House petition, asking the White House to "end ACTA." The oddity was over the fact that the President just signed ACTA a few months ago. What struck us as a more interesting question was the serious constitutional questions of whether or not Obama is even allowed to sign ACTA.

In case you haven't been following this or don't spend your life dealing in Constitutional minutiae, the debate is over the nature of the agreement. A treaty between the US and other nations requires Senate approval. However, there's a "simpler" form of an international agreement, known as an "executive agreement," which allows the President to sign the agreement without getting approval. In theory, this also limits the ability of the agreement to bind Congress. In practice... however, international agreements are international agreements. Some legal scholars have suggested that the only real difference between a treaty and an executive agreement is the fact that... the president calls any treaty an "executive agreement" if he's unsure if the Senate would approve it. In other words, the difference is basically in how the President presents it.

That said, even if Obama has declared ACTA an executive agreement (while those in Europe insist that it's a binding treaty), there is a very real Constitutional question here: can it actually be an executive agreement? The law is clear that the only things that can be covered by executive agreements are things that involve items that are solely under the President's mandate. That is, you can't sign an executive agreement that impacts the things Congress has control over. But here's the thing: intellectual property, in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, is an issue given to Congress, not the President. Thus, there's a pretty strong argument that the president legally cannot sign any intellectual property agreements as an executive agreement and, instead, must submit them to the Senate.

This is why Senator Wyden has asked the President to explain why Congress has been cut out. Scholars have noted their concern that if allowed, this will open the door to allowing the president to regularly route around Congress on international agreements. Even more amusing, Vice President Joe Biden, back when he was just Senator Joe Biden, was one of the most outspoken critics of an attempt by President Bush to use an executive agreement on a weapons treaty -- forcing Bush to take the agreement to the Senate. Yet here, he stays quiet.

Either way, it looks like folks have figured this out, and there's now a new White House petition, demanding that ACTA be brought to the Senate before it can be ratified/signed by the US. This petition should be a lot more interesting than the other one if it gets enough signatures (so encourage people to sign, please!).

Filed Under: acta, constitution, executive agreement, petition, ratification, treaty, white house

Tim O'Reilly Explains Where The Federal Gov't Has Gone Wrong On SOPA/PIPA: Solving The Wrong Problem

from the indeed dept

A few months back, in going into great detail on everything wrong with PIPA & SOPA, I started it off by explaining that the whole effort was attacking the wrong problem. Here's what I wrote at the time:

That main issue, we're told over and over again, is "piracy" and specifically "rogue" websites. And, let's be clear: infringement is a problem. But the question is what kind of problem is it? Much of the evidence suggests that it's not an enforcement problem and it's not a legal problem. Decades of evidence from around the globe all show the same thing: making copyright law or enforcement stricter does not work. It does not decrease infringement at all -- and, quite frequently, leads to more infringement. That's because the reason that there's infringement in the first place is that consumers are being under-served. Historically, infringement has never been about "free," but about indicating where the business models have not kept up with the technology.

Thus, the real issue is that this is a business model problem. As we've seen over and over and over again, those who embrace what the internet enables, have found themselves to be much better off than they were before. They're able to build up larger fanbases, and to rely on various new platforms and services to make more money.

And, as we've seen with near perfect consistency, the best way, by far, to decrease infringement is to offer awesome new services that are convenient and useful. This doesn't mean just offering any old service -- and it certainly doesn't mean trying to limit what users can do with those services. And, most importantly, it doesn't mean treating consumers like they were criminals and "pirates." It means constantly improving the consumer experience. When that consumer experience is great, then people switch in droves. You can, absolutely, compete with free, and many do so. If more were able to without restriction, infringement would decrease. If you look at the two largest contributors to holding back "piracy" lately, it's been Netflix and Spotify. Those two services alone have been orders of magnitude more successful in decreasing infringement than any new copyright law. Because they compete by being more convenient and a better experience than infringement.

Tim O'Reilly (who you should know already), who makes his living in the content business, but has always been against these kinds of ridiculous laws, has come out with a great, detailed discussion of the same issue, concerning how the federal government still has mis-defined the problem. He's doing this in response to the White House's statement on Saturday, and makes some important points:

I found myself profoundly disturbed by something that seems to me to go to the root of the problem in Washington: the failure to correctly diagnose the problem we are trying to solve, but instead to accept, seemingly uncritically, the claims of various interest groups. The offending paragraph is as follows:

"Let us be clear—online piracy is a real problem that harms the American economy, and threatens jobs for significant numbers of middle class workers and hurts some of our nation's most creative and innovative companies and entrepreneurs. It harms everyone from struggling artists to production crews, and from startup social media companies to large movie studios. While we are strongly committed to the vigorous enforcement of intellectual property rights, existing tools are not strong enough to root out the worst online pirates beyond our borders."

In the entire discussion, I've seen no discussion of credible evidence of this economic harm. There's no question in my mind that piracy exists, that people around the world are enjoying creative content without paying for it, and even that some criminals are profiting by redistributing it. But is there actual economic harm?

From there, he talks about his own experience running a content business, and how he's learned that any actual infringement tends to benefit him in the long run. That's because, like I explained above, if you put in place a smart business model (something Tim is good at) piracy is no problem at all. O'Reilly is fond of the phrase that "obscurity is a bigger problem than piracy" and he's completely right:

In my experience at O'Reilly, the losses due to piracy are far outweighed by the benefits of the free flow of information, which makes the world richer, and develops new markets for legitimate content. Most of the people who are downloading unauthorized copies of O'Reilly books would never have paid us for them anyway; meanwhile, hundreds of thousands of others are buying content from us, many of them in countries that we were never able to do business with when our products were not available in digital form.

History shows us, again and again, that frontiers are lawless places, but that as they get richer and more settled, they join in the rule of law. American publishing, now the largest publishing industry in the world, began with piracy. (I have a post coming on that subject on Monday.)

From there, he starts talking about what the White House should be doing, and it's simple: look for ways to allow innovation to flourish -- not create protectionist plans for industries who aren't keeping up with the times:

Congress (and the White House) need to spend time thinking hard about how best to grow our economy - and that means being careful not to close off the frontier, or to harm those trying to settle it, in order to protect those who want to remain safe at home. British publishers could have come to America in the 19th century; they chose not to, and as a result, we grew our own indigenous publishing industry, which relied at first, in no small part, on pirating British and European works.

If the goal is really to support jobs and the American economy, internet "protectionism" is not the way to do it.

It is said (though I've not found the source) that Einstein once remarked that if given 60 minutes to save the world, he would spend 55 of them defining the problem. And defining the problem means collecting and studying real evidence, not the overblown claims of an industry that has fought the introduction of every new technology that has turned out, in the end, to grow their business rather than threaten it.

He also has a final suggestion that may seem unrelated, but is actually directly at issue:

If Congress and the White House really want to fight pirates who are hurting the economy, they should be working to rein in patent trolls. There, the evidence of economic harm is clear, in multi-billion dollar transfers of wealth from companies building real products to those who have learned how to work the patent system while producing no value for consumers.

But, of course, that will never happen. That's because a totally useless "patent reform bill" passed a few months ago, and Congress and the President now consider that problem "done." And that's even though nothing in the bill actually addressed the issue of patent trolls, which has been a huge problem, and has hit many of the new businesses that are needed to build the innovations that will help the old guard in the content industry adapt. Hell, just look at Spotify. Days after being introduced in the US... it was sued for infringement.

So, the real response to the White House should be that it's time to stop making this a faith-based debate. Let's focus on the actual evidence, and define what the actual problem is. Because if it's (as all the evidence shows) a business model problem, not a legal or enforcement problem, pushing forth new regulation is not going to be the answer.

Filed Under: business models, copyright, economics, internet, laws, legislation, pipa, protect ip, protectionism, regulation, sopa, tim o'reilly, white house

SOPA/PIPA Supporters Pretend White House Statement Means We Can Rush Through SOPA/PIPA

from the wow,-that's-chutzpah dept

Following the White House's surprise move to effectively tell SOPA/PIPA supporters to go back to the drawing board and come back with bills that don't censor the internet, don't break basic online security tools and that don't create unjustified litigation -- SOPA and PIPA supporters are going full press spin to try to pretend this is "good news." I'm not joking. The MPAA came out with a pretty laughable statement that appears to suggest that the White House's statement means it's time to "stop the obstruction" and just pass the bills:

So now it is time to stop the obstruction and move forward on legislation.

Our industry not only fully supports free expression, our livelihood is built upon a vibrant First Amendment - it is the foundation of our industry and we would never support any legislation that would limit this fundamental American right. As had been made clear throughout the legislative consideration of SOPA and the PROTECT-IP Act, neither of these bills implicate free expression but focus solely on illegal conduct, which is not free speech. We agree with Secretary Clinton's recent statement that "There is no contradiction between intellectual property rights protection and enforcement and ensuring freedom of expression on the Internet."

Similarly, the MPAA, together with the RIAA and the US Chamber of Commerce, stunningly claimed that the White House's statement:

"clears the way for action on these important bills."

Talk about being in denial. This is laughable in a variety of ways. First, what the MPAA calls "obstruction" was actually the voicing of significant concerns that echo exactly what the White House claimed. For example, many of us spoke about the DNS provisions, and the White House clearly states: "Our analysis of the DNS filtering provisions in some proposed legislation suggests that they pose a real risk to cybersecurity and yet leave contraband goods and services accessible online." Yes, both Leahy and Smith have promised to delay (not completely remove) the implementation of those provisions, but that would not have happened if so many people hadn't spoken out vocally about those provisions.

That's not obstruction. Those were legitimate concerns -- which the MPAA fought, tooth and nail, even to the point of denying that DNS blocking was any problem at all. And the concerns that remain are legitimate as well. It's insulting, and all too indicative of how the MPAA has managed the push for this legislation, that its response to the White House telling them to go back to the drawing board and to "work together with all sides," is to respond by saying, "just pass the bill already!"

Perhaps not too surprisingly -- since he's basically been the MPAA's mouthpiece in Congress on this bill -- Rep. Lamar Smith echoed the same claims when asked about the White House's statements:

"I welcome today's announcement that the White House will support legislation to combat online piracy that protects free speech, the Internet and America's intellectual property," Smith said in a statement. "That's precisely what the Stop Online Piracy Act does."

No, actually, it's not. The current bill has tons of problems -- even if we leave aside the DNS provisions. It is very much likely to censor legitimate sites -- as pointed out by over a hundred legal scholars -- and it has a private right of action that is likely to lead to unnecessary litigation. These are exactly the things the White House just told Smith to fix. And his response is to ignore them? Stunning. But... this is Lamar Smith, who still can't hear any criticism of his bill. Perhaps he just thinks the White House wants to "pirate" more things.

Filed Under: copyright, pipa, protect ip, sopa, white house
Companies: mpaa, riaa, us chamber of commerce

White House Comes Out Against The Approach In SOPA/PIPA In Response To Online Petition

from the boom dept

Remember that big first petition to the White House against SOPA? As you may recall, that got enough signatures that it required a response from the White House... and that response has come out. It rejects the approaches found in both SOPA and PIPA. They say that "online piracy by foreign websites is a serious problem that requires a serious legislative response" but that there are many things they will not support.

They will not support a bill that has the potential to censor lawful activity or inhibit innovation:

To minimize this risk, new legislation must be narrowly targeted only at sites beyond the reach of current U.S. law, cover activity clearly prohibited under existing U.S. laws, and be effectively tailored, with strong due process and focused on criminal activity. Any provision covering Internet intermediaries such as online advertising networks, payment processors, or search engines must be transparent and designed to prevent overly broad private rights of action that could encourage unjustified litigation that could discourage startup businesses and innovative firms from growing.

They flat out reject anything that involves DNS blocking:

We must avoid creating new cybersecurity risks or disrupting the underlying architecture of the Internet. Proposed laws must not tamper with the technical architecture of the Internet through manipulation of the Domain Name System (DNS), a foundation of Internet security. Our analysis of the DNS filtering provisions in some proposed legislation suggests that they pose a real risk to cybersecurity and yet leave contraband goods and services accessible online. We must avoid legislation that drives users to dangerous, unreliable DNS servers and puts next-generation security policies, such as the deployment of DNSSEC, at risk.

They do still say that new legislation is needed, but they want something where every stakeholder is actually involved:

So, rather than just look at how legislation can be stopped, ask yourself: Where do we go from here? Don’t limit your opinion to what’s the wrong thing to do, ask yourself what’s right. Already, many of members of Congress are asking for public input around the issue. We are paying close attention to those opportunities, as well as to public input to the Administration. The organizer of this petition and a random sample of the signers will be invited to a conference call to discuss this issue further with Administration officials and soon after that, we will host an online event to get more input and answer your questions. Details on that will follow in the coming days.

Washington needs to hear your best ideas about how to clamp down on rogue websites and other criminals who make money off the creative efforts of American artists and rights holders. We should all be committed to working with all interested constituencies to develop new legal tools to protect global intellectual property rights without jeopardizing the openness of the Internet. Our hope is that you will bring enthusiasm and know-how to this important challenge.

Moving forward, we will continue to work with Congress on a bipartisan basis on legislation that provides new tools needed in the global fight against piracy and counterfeiting, while vigorously defending an open Internet based on the values of free expression, privacy, security and innovation. Again, thank you for taking the time to participate in this important process. We hope you’ll continue to be part of it.

Make no mistake about this: this is the White House asking for a hard reset of SOPA/PIPA and saying start again from scratch. This is an astounding turn of events, and a much stronger statement from the White House than anyone honestly expected. This is almost entirely because of the outcry that came out of the internet over the last few months. Without that, it is unlikely that the White House ever would have come out with such a strong position that questions the key provisions of these bills.

It will be important to continue to be engaged and to make sure that what happens next really is reasonable. Let's hope that Congress actually recognizes the importance of what the White House is saying, and that any future process really is open. Congress has a way of ignoring things like this, and until Harry Reid agrees to put PIPA on the shelf and take part in this hard reset, people need to keep the pressure on the Senate. But, in the short term, this is a rather historic moment, in that it is a case where a loud public outcry really has had a major impact on this process. When the Senate introduced PIPA early last year, it was seen as almost assured that it would pass in something close to its initial form. Now that seems impossible.

Filed Under: aneesh chopra, censorship, dns blocking, free speech, howard schmidt, pipa, protect ip, sopa, victoria espinel, white house

Would Obama Veto SOPA? Extremely Doubtful

from the too-much-money dept

I usually like the work of Arik Hesseldahl, who's pretty sharp in his reporting, but it appears he may have waded into a subject where he doesn't have much knowledge, in arguing that Obama would likely veto SOPA should it pass out of Congress and land on his desk. Arik's summary is that Obama "likes the internet," so he'd probably veto such an anti-internet bill. No offense to Arik, who perhaps just wanted a quick holiday post on the subject, but that shows little understanding of the history of Obama on intellectual property issues, or the many, many signals that the administration has been giving over the bill. In fact, the signals suggest pretty strongly that if the bill landed on his desk today, President Obama would sign it into law with little hesitation -- and declare it a victory for the economy and American jobs.

No doubt: there is a significant split inside the administration from everything we've heard. Much of the State Department is strenuously opposed to the bill, knowing darn well that it would do significant harm to their efforts to push internet freedom and openness around the globe. SOPA supporters love to point to the letter that Hillary Clinton sent to Rep. Howard Berman about how there's no conflict about protecting intellectual property and working for internet freedom. But they're significantly overplaying the letter, which was written before SOPA came out and didn't mention SOPA at all. In fact, it would be a hilariously bad breach of standard protocol for Clinton to take a position on a bill before the White House made its official position clear, and everyone involved in the debate knows that, even if they pretend otherwise. Either way, multiple sources within the State Department have made it abundantly clear that State has been putting tremendous pressure on people to either fix SOPA or kill it altogether. They're not happy. Ditto for many in the Commerce Department, who see how bad it would be for the economy to have a bill like SOPA in place. The feelings there aren't quite as strong as at State, but they definitely appear to lean towards opposed (or, at the very least, neutral).

There are also voices in both Homeland Security and the Defense Department who are worried about the online security aspects as a part of the DNS blocking features of the bill. Of course, those voices are likely outweighed by those who like the ability to shut down domains -- such as ICE, who would gladly support SOPA. The Justice Department, also, appears to be a huge, huge, huge supporter of SOPA, seeing as it would give them much greater powers to shut down websites.

Then, of course, there's the White House itself. And, again, there appears to be a bit of a mix of feelings there, but the leaning definitely appears to be towards supporting the bill. Throughout his administration, the President has left almost all intellectual property issues up to Vice President Joe Biden, who has been about as big a copyright maximalist as can be. He's the guy who claimed that the heads of the biggest entertainment companies represented "all the stake holders" (public be damned) in a roundtable about intellectual property that he convened two years ago -- from which the ideas behind SOPA and PIPA came. It's safe to assume that he's totally on board with the bills, and since Obama defers to him on these issues, you can expect this issue is pretty much decided. There are a few others in the White House who may weigh in on the subject, including IP Czar Victoria Espinel. Again, the likely guess is that she's in favor, having supported the plan to seize domains which is related to SOPA & PIPA. Others in the White House include the CTO, Aneesh Chopra, who hasn't given much of an indication of where he'd fall on the issue, but has supported open internet initiatives in the past. If I had to guess, I'd say he's mildly against the plans, but not enough to make a big deal about it. If anything, he'd probably prefer that the bill be adjusted to make it slightly more palatable and then have it pass and be signed.

Finally, there's Obama himself. Heading into what may be a difficult election year, and dependent on money from Hollywood and unions (the big Democratic funders), this is an easy call. He'd sign it in a heartbeat. Any bill that has the support of the MPAA and the AFL-CIO is red meat for him when it comes to fundraising. The whole "loves the internet" thing is great... if the internet donates. The internet was certainly useful to Obama in the primaries last time around, but when it comes to the big fight, he needs the big guns. So he's looking for the big cats, and those still support the bill in a big, bad way. If you want a blueprint for how this works, just look at how he signed the patent reform bill a few months ago, despite widespread complaints among the tech industry about how the patent system was totally broken and the bill didn't help at all. He still signed it and declared (incorrectly) that it would stimulate new jobs. He'd do the exact same thing here. Sign it, point to the AFL-CIO and US Chamber of Commerce support and talk about how this was a "jobs bill" that would "help the economy" by "protecting American jobs." The internet? Meh. No one cares about the internet when Hollywood and the unions have checkbooks open.

The only way that changes is if SOPA and PIPA become so toxic that any support is seen as career suicide -- and if that's the case, then the bill itself probably doesn't get out of Congress to get on his desk in the first place. Getting GoDaddy to switch positions is one thing. Getting these bills to the toxic level is a whole different ballgame, and we're certainly not there yet. For those celebrating the "victory" over GoDaddy last week, this fight is far, far, far from over, and the MPAA and the other supporters of SOPA don't give up easily. Both SOPA and PIPA are dangerous in the extreme, and still have a decent chance of passing, if people don't speak up directly to the politicians who continue to support these bills.

Filed Under: joe biden, pipa, president obama, protect ip, sopa, veto, white house

Public Opposition Accelerates As Latest Anti-SOPA Petition Hits Goal In Two Days

from the that-was-fast dept

One of the tactics deployed by supporters of SOPA is that there is no real concern from the public regarding the legislation. They like to claim that only those who profit from piracy really want to block this bill. Yet, we see time and time again this is not true. With letter writing campaigns from groups such as the EFF, Public Knowledge and Demand Progress having generated hundreds of thousands of letters, emails and phone calls from concerned citizens, the pro-SOPA groups have had to resort to drastic inflation to defend their side. We now have further evidence that such widespread opposition to SOPA is not only growing but accelerating as well. This evidence comes in the form of two We The People petitions on the White House website.

The first of these petitions, titled "Stop the E-PARASITE Act", was created back on October 31 when SOPA was known as E-PARASITES. This petition slowly gained signatures for about two weeks and then had a surge of support when the House Judiciary Committee held its stacked hearing on the legislation. On November 16, the petition hit its 25,000 signature goal, a full 14 days before its deadline.

Fast forward to December 18. Only a few days after the House Judiciary Committee held its SOPA markup, a new petition surfaced, "VETO the SOPA bill and any other future bills that threaten to diminish the free flow of information". With the markup fresh in the minds of those opposed to SOPA, this petition reached its target of 25,000 signatures on December 19, the second day after going public. That is quite the feat.

If there is no real public concern over SOPA, as supporters of the bill claim, who are these people? Why are they so mobilized to sign and complete far ahead of the deadline not one but two White House petitions in opposition to the legislation? Regardless of who these people are or what their motivations for opposition to SOPA are, one thing is clear, these people want action and answers. While there is no time frame for when the Obama Administration will respond, one thing is clear, SOPA is a hot button issue and those trying to force its way through Congress will not be able to ignore the public for much longer.

Filed Under: copyright, petitions, pipa, president obama, protect ip, public awareness, sopa, white house