Can Senator Leahy Actually Get Anything Done To Help With Civil Liberties And Innovation?

from the weakest-'powerful'-senator dept

Senator Patrick Leahy is often considered one of the most powerful Senators. He's the most senior Senator, third in the presidential line of succession (after the VP and the Speaker of the House) and the head of the powerful Senate Judiciary Committee. He's often presented as a "friend" to both the technology and civil liberties communities -- even though many in both of those communities still view him skeptically for his all out support for dangerous copyright legislation in the PROTECT IP Act (PIPA), which would have seriously messed with the underlying DNS structure of the internet. Even so, on a variety of other issues, including NSA reform, ECPA reform and patent reform, he's often been seen as leading the charge.

But over and over again, it seems that charge is... to go nowhere.

Politico has a story about how last week was a disaster for the tech industry in Washington DC. For all the talk about how Silicon Valley has been flexing its lobbying power, patent reform was killed, a good NSA reform bill was replaced with a bad one (leading the tech industry to pull its support) and the fight for immigration reform went the way it normally does -- nowhere beyond people yelling at each other.

But what I found even more interesting is just how powerless the "powerful" Senator seems to be on so many of these issues. Leahy has been the leading Senate voice for ECPA reform (requiring a warrant to search your electronic data) for years -- and it has pretty widespread support. And yet, he's unable to get it to move forward because the the SEC and IRS want to be able to read emails without a warrant. Really?

Similarly, for over a decade, Leahy has been the point person on patent reform in the Senate, promising to finally reform the system to stop abusive patents. The bill he finally got through in 2011 did absolutely nothing after it was watered down and watered down and watered down some more. And this year, when it looked like there might finally be a bill with at least a little (not nearly enough) progress towards stifling abusive patent practices, he got completely shut down by the trial lawyers and Harry Reid.

And, now we're basically relying on Senator Leahy to fix the NSA reform package. He introduced the companion to the USA Freedom Act in the Senate, and many in the tech and civil liberties communities are hopeful that Leahy will stand firm in actually reforming the NSA. And while he's been saying all the right things about reforming the NSA, given his track record, you have to start to wonder: can this super powerful Senator actually get this done right?

Yes, getting anything done in Congress is a pretty difficult process these days (perhaps for good reason). But we keep hearing about how Senator Leahy is so powerful and such a friend to innovation and civil liberties. But over the past few years, it's been a lot of tough talk, and nothing ever seems to actually get done. It really begins to make you wonder if he's such a "friend" to these communities after all.

Filed Under: civil liberties, ecpa, ecpa reform, patent reform, patents, patrick leahy, politics, senate judiciary committee, usa freedom

Calls For Social Media To Be Censored In Spain After Politician's Assassination Is Mocked On Twitter

from the beyond-libel dept

As Mike has noted, after starting out with some of the most reasonable copyright laws around, Spain came under some serious pressure from the US to replace them with ones that make the online environment there a far less innovative and pleasant place for users. Now it seems that recent unfortunate events could push the country even further in this direction. Global Voices explains the background:

Isabel Carrasco, a member of the People's Party, was shot near her home in León, allegedly by the mother of a fellow party member who blamed Carrasco for truncating the political career of her daughter. Carrasco became famous a few years ago for occupying 13 positions in the administration and private businesses. In 2011, it was revealed that she had increased her salary by 13 percent, but this did not prevent her from justifying budget cuts in 2012, saying that "Everything little thing can't be free".

Not surprisingly, perhaps, her assassination produced mixed reactions from people:

Shortly after learning about her death, many Internet users started to leave comments on social media, especially Twitter. Although the majority expressed their condolences to the family of the victim, there were some that took advantage of the moment to openly criticize the politician, including mocking her assassination

The Global Voices post has a selection of these, with translations, if you want the details. Suffice to say that they were enough to lead to a typical over-reaction by politicians. Here, for example, is the Spanish Minister of Interior, Jorge Fenández Díaz:

We have to combat cybercrime and promote cybersecurity, and to clean up undesirable social media.

Others added their support. The health spokesperson for the PSOE [Spanish Workers' Socialist Party], José Martínez Olmos, made the following comment:

It seems to me that the moment has come to regulate social media because not everything is suitable and less so when it incites violence or denigrates people or institutions.

The Federal Union of Politics went even further in its rhetoric:

It is necessary and urgent to regulate new criminal methods that go beyond libel and slander, and criminalize the violence executed en masse through the Internet.

Of course, Spain is not the only country where there's a public debate about the limits of free speech in the online world. But at a time when new laws are already restricting what can be done on the Internet in Spain, it's worrying to hear calls for even more clampdowns.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+

Filed Under: assassination, censorship, free speech, mocking, politics, spain

Looks Like Patent Trolls Have Won This Round As Even Weakened Patent Reform Likely To Die

from the history-repeats-itself dept

We suggested this was likely last month, but after two months of the Senate Judiciary Committee promising to move forward with its (increasingly weakened) patent reform bill, reports are that the bill is set to die thanks to patent trolls and patent lawyers ramping up their lobbying efforts. There has been some talk that Leahy may still bring forward a manager's amendment that has completely watered down the bill into being totally useless, but even that might not happen:

According to a tech industry source, Leahy has changed his position in part as a result of pressure from the Coalition for 21st Century Patent Reform, a lobbying group whose law firm Akin Gump recently hired Leahy’s long time chief-of-staff. The source added that Leahy is prepared to let the reform bill founder, and then draw political cover by casting blame for the failure on committee members’ inability to produce a suitable compromise. Meanwhile, the bill’s momentum has also been sputtering as a result of the trial lawyer bar pressuring other Senate Democrats to slow the bill.

This account of the Senate patent bill’s slow death is consistent with a source cited by Reuters, who said “It’s somewhere between sinking like a rock and air going out of it, like a balloon,” 

Oh, that revolving door. Helping patent trolls. Also, note that everything fell apart just as... Intellectual Ventures ramped up its political contributions. I'm sure that's just a coincidence, right?

And, of course, even if something does get squeezed out, much of the important stuff has already been wiped out of the bill. Late last year and earlier this year, most of our focus was on making sure that the covered business method provisions stayed in the bill, but we've been told they're long gone. This was the part of the bill that would allow the Patent Office to more quickly review business method and software patents to make sure they were legit. This already exists for certain financial patents, and it's been shown to be effective in tossing out bad patents. There is no reason to oppose this unless you have a bunch of bad patents... so of course, bad patent hoarders like Microsoft, IBM and Apple freaked out about it.

But even more basic ideas for stopping patent trolls are being stripped from the bill as well, according to Jeff Roberts over at GigaOm:

Staff members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, who did not want to be named, said by phone that the hold up is due to disagreements over two new points of contention: a provision that would require patent plaintiffs to provide detailed descriptions of alleged infringement in the pleadings they file, and one that would alter the legal process known as discovery (in which each side has to produce documents and witnesses). The latter reform is important because patent trolls rely on the economic asymmetries of patent litigation — especially the threat of discovery, which is extremely time-consuming and expensive — to force their victims into settlements.

These proposed pleading and discovery reforms have until now been uncontroversial.

If you've been following the patent reform space for more than a decade, you'd recognize this pattern. Back in 2004, Senator Leahy had introduced a semi-decent (not great, but not horrible) patent reform bill... and the trolls (and pharmaceutical companies) went apeshit over it, killing it. Every new session of Congress, a new version would be introduced that would be watered down to appease the pharmaceutical companies. Seven years later, the America Invents Act was finally passed... once it had been stripped of basically all useful provisions. It did absolutely nothing to deal with the problems of the patent system (and actually may have created a few new ones).

Unfortunately, it looks like we may have a few more years of this kind of crap, and no actual end in sight to patent trolling. It's pretty clear that companies that abuse the patent system are now abusing the political process to make sure they can extract more cash from those who are actually innovating. It's profitable to destroy our innovation economy, apparently, so why not spend it on buying politicians who won't stand up for what's right?

Filed Under: discovery, lobbying, patent reform, patent trolls, patents, patrick leahy, politics
Companies: intellectual ventures

TV Networks Sued For Hiding Who's Buying Political Ads

from the a-little-sunlight,-please dept

The money in politics issue is one that gets a lot of attention and the good folks over at the Sunlight Foundation have been trying to help provide much more transparency for years. And now they're bringing out the lawyers. Teaming up with the Campaign Legal Center and represented by Georgetown University's Institute for Public Representation, the Sunlight Foundation has filed complaints against 11 TV stations for blatantly violating the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, which requires networks disclose who is actually buying political ads on TV.

Political nonprofits, which often come with singularly uninformative names like "American Action Network" or "Patriot Majority USA," are not required to disclose much of their spending — or any of their donors — to the FEC. But there is one place where they do have to leave a paper trail: the TV stations where they buy ads. That's why we put our focus there.

Just one problem: a bunch of TV networks have basically done everything possible to avoid complying. Even though courts have said that the major TV stations need to post very specific information online, many simply don't include the necessary (and required) information.

Why is it important? Because "Americans for Better Apple Pie" might be your local slag heap operator. "Citizens for a Conservative GOP" might be Democrats trying to sabotage the primary contender that they think has the best chance of beating their candidate in the general. These are not far-fetched scenarios. Take a look at this ad, which doesn't anywhere mention toxic materials, but which paint an indubitably positive picture of the chairman of the House committee that's now working on a rewrite of the government law on toxic waste. Unless you are looking carefully at your TV screen at just the right time, you'd miss the fact that these ads are brought to you by the American Chemistry Council — an organization that is lobbying on the bill in question. Without the online TV ad files, you'd never know that the American Chemistry Council spent some $250,000 airing the ad.

Hopefully the FCC actually does something and makes these networks obey the law.

Filed Under: pacs, politics, transparency, tv ads
Companies: sunlight foundation

Larry Lessig Launches Crowdfunded SuperPAC To Try To End SuperPACs

from the fighting-superpacs-with-superpacs dept

Larry Lessig is thinking big (as per usual) and taking a "moonshot." Today he announced the launch of the MAYDAY Citizens' SuperPAC, in which he's hoping to crowdfund $1 million to help elect people to Congress who will help reform the political system to try to take money out of politics -- basically a SuperPAC to end all SuperPACs. This project has an interesting twist on traditional crowdfunding: nothing will happen if the goal isn't met, but if it is, then two interesting things will happen: a matching donation and a second round, seeking $5 million:

We’ve structured this as a series of matched-contingent goals. We’ve got to raise $1 million in 30 days; if we do, we’ll get that $1 million matched. Then we’ve got to raise $5 million in 30 days; if we do, we’ll get that $5 million matched as well. If both challenges are successful, then we’ll have the money we need to compete in 5 races in 2014. Based on those results, we’ll launch a (much much) bigger effort in 2016 — big enough to win.

The ultimate aim is to spend enough to win a majority in Congress committed to fundamental reform by 2016. We’ve spent the last year gaming out how much that would cost. I think it is feasible and possible — if we can take these first steps successfully now.

Lessig has put together a video explaining all this as well: This whole thing is wildly ambitious, which means it has a high likelihood of failure -- but if it succeeds, think of the impact it could have. If you're an American citizen, you can contribute here and help see if this moonshot is possible.

Filed Under: corruption, crowdfunding, larry lessig, mayday, money and politics, politics, superpac

Chamber Of Commerce, Main Lobbyists Behind SOPA, Suddenly Wooing Silicon Valley

from the good-luck-with-that dept

The US Chamber of Commerce doesn't have a particularly good reputation among innovators for a very good reason. It's the epitome of protecting legacy players from innovation, using backroom lobbying and dealmaking, and representing the interests of the highest bidder. While it trades off its name -- and the fact that some people think it's actually a part of the US government, rather than an extremist lobbying group -- its positions are generally considered problematic to actual innovators that are driving the "commerce" of tomorrow. The US Chamber was the main outside lobbying group (beyond the MPAA) that was behind SOPA and PIPA, and was a major voice pushing completely ridiculously bogus "facts" about the evils of "IP theft" and "rogue sites."

While some big tech companies were members, the relationships have frayed over the past few years. Apple dumped the Chamber over its anti-science position on climate change. Yahoo dumped its membership because of the US Chamber's position on SOPA and PIPA. While some other big players, including Google have made noises about dropping out, they haven't yet done so. But, smaller startups and innovators know the Chamber's reputation, and are staying away for good reason.

Perhaps realizing that relying on Hollywood to keep paying for lobbying powers going forward isn't the best idea, the Chamber has apparently decided to start wooing Silicon Valley, opening an office here and sending one of its top execs to try to convince entrepreneurs and venture capitalists that they need to join the Chamber. As the WSJ article notes, this is a long shot at best. The US Chamber of Commerce's position on a whole lot of things is antithetical to nearly everything entrepreneurs in Silicon Valley stand for. The USCoC is about using politics to kill off competition and let a few top businesses collect more of the pie. Silicon Valley is about trying to innovate and expand the pie, even if there's lots of competition.

And, really, just the fact that the Chamber of Commerce still runs its laughably bogus propagandist Global IP Center, which does nothing but push for greater and greater intellectual property maximalism, shows how out of touch it is with the innovation community. I'm sure they realize that they backed the wrong horse on SOPA, but it's not like everyone in Silicon Valley is going to be fooled by their name.

Filed Under: copyright, crony capitalism, lobbying, politics, silicon valley, sopa, tech
Companies: us chamber of commerce

Senate Republicans, Trying To Score Political Points, Claim Democrats Revealing Spying Scandal Puts Lives At Risk

from the insanity dept

The Senate/CIA spying scandal continues to get more and more ridiculous. The latest is that it's turning into a political fight between Democrats and Republicans in the Senate, rather than what it really is: a Constitutional crisis concerning the separation of powers and the ability of Congress to oversee the executive branch's intelligence community. You would think that other Senators would line up behind Senator Feinstein's anger over the CIA directly spying on Senate Intelligence Committee staffers who were compiling a detailed report into the CIA's use of torture.

But, they're not. This first became clear when the top two Republicans on the Committee more or less spoke out against Feinstein:

Many of the Republicans on the intelligence committee didn't share her position. The panel's top Republican, Sen. Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, said he and Ms. Feinstein "have some disagreements as to what the actual facts are."

Others criticized her for airing her concerns so openly. "I personally don't believe that anything that goes on in the intelligence committee should ever be discussed publicly," said Sen. Richard Burr (R., N.C.).

Burr's comments are particularly chilling, as he's actually likely to replace Chambliss as the top Republican -- meaning that if the Republicans recapture the Senate, he's likely to take over Feinstein's job as the chair of the Intelligence Committee. Think about all the stonewalling the Committee currently does. Then picture the guy who said that quote above in charge.

And, in the last day it's gone even more haywire, as Burr and other Republicans are now trying to use this as a political gambit to claim that Senator Mark Udall (a Democrat and the one who really called attention to the CIA's actions) somehow leaked classified info in revealing the CIA's actions. According to Politico, even though Republicans have leaked far more info, they see this as a chance to attack Udall, a first term Democrat known for actually standing up for civil liberties and the rights of the public (how dare he):

Republicans say that not only has the committee’s chairwoman, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), provided selective information to the public about improper CIA conduct, but they are also now pointing the finger at Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colo.).

The Colorado Democrat, Republicans say, shouldn’t have disclosed internal Senate proceedings over the CIA investigation — something that some Republicans privately say should warrant an ethics committee review.

Democrats counter that Republicans are now engaging in a partisan witch hunt aimed at hurting Udall politically and providing cover to the CIA and the George W. Bush’s administration’s handling of the controversial interrogation and detention program.

I've made it clear before few things annoy me more than partisan bickering in Congress (which is why we rarely even mention which party politicians belong to -- unless, as here, it's a part of the story). And this is a particularly stupid issue to have partisan bickering over. Senate Republicans really think that bashing Udall is a better strategy than making sure that they can have real oversight of the CIA without having the CIA spy on their own staff?

Besides even the arguments that Udall revealed sensitive information, or that it deserves an "ethics" review are incredibly weak. The concern stems from the letter Udall sent the President last week concerning the nomination of a new CIA General Counsel. In it, he mentioned the following:

As you are aware, the CIA has recently taken unprecedented action against the Committee in relation to the internal CIA review, and I find these actions to be incredibly troubling for the Committee's oversight responsibilities and for our democracy. It is essential that the Committee be able to do its oversight work -- consistent with our constitutional principle of the separation of powers -- without the CIA posing impediments or obstacles as it is today.

That reveals nothing that appears to be particularly sensitive or classified. Instead, it actually was general enough that it left many people scratching their heads. But to hear Senator Burr talk about it, he acts as if this information puts the lives of people at danger:

“I think Mark did make some public releases that were committee sensitive information, but that’s for the committee internally to handle,” said Burr. “That’s being reviewed right now.”

Burr added: “If you look historically, the committee has cleaned up any mistakes that members have made. Members can do whatever they want to. My concern is that the release of information could potentially causes the losses of life to Americans. That to me, is a threshold that should be addressed.”

Oh come on. Seriously? By mentioning the fact that the CIA searched the network of the Senate Intelligence Committee staffers, it means people will die? Who does he think he's kidding? We know that there are always ridiculous claims whenever there are intelligence community leaks about "lives in danger" (which almost never pan out to be true). But at least in those cases, there's an argument that could be made how the revelations might tie back to national security issues. There is no such thread here at all. This is not about the CIA spying on potential terrorists. It's about them spying on their overseers, and rather than recognize what this means for their own interests Senate Republicans are pretending that its putting people's lives at risk?

Filed Under: democrats, dianne feinstein, mark udall, politics, republicans, richard burr, saxby chambliss, senate intelligence committee, spying scandal

St. Louis Police Officers Caught Running Possibly Politically-Motivated Background Checks On Police Board Members

from the access-denied dept

The problem with access to other people's personal data is that the potential for misuse is ever present. This is inherent in any system, whether it's the NSA's or a local politician's -- simply because humans are humans. The solution is accountability, not layers of bureaucratic control. That's what appears to be the focus in this story of alleged background check abuse by St. Louis County police officers, which is a good start.

Two St. Louis county police officers who were assigned to the detail of County Executive Charles Dooley have had their access to a criminal database suspended while an investigation over whether they were running unauthorized background checks, according to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. The officers are specifically accused of running such a check on a former candidate for the police board, a body that’s theoretically supposed to supervise officers.

Internal affairs is now investigating the two officers in order to determine why it was accessed and if there was any additional abuse. County police chief Tom Fitch found himself questioning the motivations and actions of these two officers after they were inadvertently "outed" by a member of Dooley's office.

Questions first arose in October when Dooley’s chief of staff, Garry Earls, announced to the county council that a criminal background check into former police board candidate David Spence had come back clean, County Chief Tim Fitch said.

Fitch said he had questioned how the county administration would know that information because he didn’t believe it was his officers’ place to run the checks.

Officers running background checks on their own supervisors isn't a good idea, especially when it gives the unauthorized access the appearance of being politically motivated -- and possibly ordered by a county official. (This has been denied, of course.) Simply running a check for any other reason than "criminal justice" is itself illegal. And now Fitch is trying to figure out who else these officers have "checked out" in violation of policy.

At this point, the two officers must ask a supervisor to run names for them and have no access to the REGIS database. Until further details emerge, this at least prevents misuse by the two accused of unauthorized access. Whether there's evidence of more abuse remains to be seen. On the downside, Chief Fitch is being rather cagey with details on how much abuse has been uncovered.

Fitch would not say how many names the officers ran during their time assigned to Dooley’s detail, citing the ongoing internal investigation.

“The number (of names) isn’t important,” he said. “What’s important is why it was done and who asked them to do it.”

Understandably, some details need to be withheld during an ongoing investigation, but Fitch is a bit off when he says the total number isn't important. Checks that complied with department policy obviously don't matter, so it's only the total number that fall outside compliance that anyone's worried about. That number matters just as much as the "why." The "who" behind it matters as well, although the accused officers still had the option to say "no" if they were indeed asked to break the rules.

While it's refreshing to see a police chief unwilling to downplay his officers' misconduct, the intensity must be maintained not only through this investigation, but going forward to ensure incidents like these become rarer and rarer. And if it turns out that the database was frequently misused, the consequences need to be as severe as the abuse.

Filed Under: abuse, background checks, police, politics, st. louis

Congressional Candidates From Both Major Parties Find Opposing The NSA Is A Worthwhile Campaign Platform

from the it's-not-a-partisan-issue dept

People running for Congress this year, no matter what political party they're associated with have apparently found something they can agree on. It appears that both Republican and Democratic candidates are running on an anti-NSA platform. Of course, it's unclear how successful any of these campaigns will be, and whether or not those running, if elected, would actually do anything. It may just be a form of grandstanding, but at the very least it seems like a good sign. We've been pointing out that opposition to the NSA shouldn't be a a partisan issue at all, but one of doing what's right. Hopefully more politicians will realize this is the case, rather than worrying about whether this or that party supports the position.

Filed Under: candidates, nsa, politics, surveillance

Rooting For The Laundry: The Absolute Insanity Of Decisions About The NSA Being Made Based On 'Liberal' Or 'Conservative' Ideology

from the up-is-down,-left-is-right dept

Geoffrey Stone, one of the members of the White House task force which suggested that the President needed to end the Section 215 bulk collection of phone records, has said that he was told that the White House rejected that plan because they viewed the report as "liberal."

“And instead of our report being truly understood as a middle ground, based upon taking into account all of those perspectives on both sides of the spectrum, I think the White House got moved by thinking of our report as a liberal report,” Stone said.

God forbid a supposedly "liberal" President actually do something he considers "liberal." And, indeed, it seemed that his non-proposal in which he pretends to reform NSA surveillance was predicated on not pissing off the hawkish conservatives who tend to support the surveillance state.

So... what happens now that the supposedly conservative, hawkish, surveillance state-loving Republican Party has agreed that the program is unconstitutional and should be shut down?

To some extent, it really does seem to go back to the corruption of power. Those in power always seem to trust themselves not to abuse that power -- and unthinking automaton partisan hacks seem to flip their position based on whether their guy or the other guy is power.

There's been an insanely stupid debate over the past few weeks as to whether or not folks like Ed Snowden, Glenn Greenwald and Julian Assange were somehow "ideologically pure" enough to be supported by liberals -- which highlights the monumentally asinine level of political discourse in the country these days, further highlighted by President Obama rejecting the task force's opinions as being "too liberal."

As can be seen by the flip-flopping of "liberals" and "conservatives" over the surveillance state, the entire concept of those labels is really no different than if you're rooting for the orange team or the yellow team. It's like the old joke about how if you root for a sports team, you're really rooting for the laundry. People focused on whether something is "liberal enough" or "conservative enough" are wasting everyone's time. These issues are not about being "liberal" or "conservative." They're about doing what's right. It's not about partisan politics or which team you play for or root for. It should be about what is best for the country and the wider world in which we live.

It's incredibly disheartening that we seem to live in a world where that aspect is barely considered but what color your team is matters the most.

Filed Under: conservatives, democrats, ideology, liberals, nsa, politics, republicans, surveillance