Justice Department Decides To Break Up E-Voting Company

from the how-about-just-opening-the-source-code? dept

As was rumored at the end of last year, the US Justice Department has decided to break up Election Systems & Software (ES&S), the dominant e-voting provider in the country. You may recall that just a few months earlier, ES&S (who has a long and troubled history of inaccurate, buggy and insecure e-voting machines) had purchased the remains of Diebold's e-voting business for just $5 million. Of course, Diebold also had a long and troubled history of inaccurate, buggy and insecure e-voting machines, so the two made a perfect match. In both cases, the companies relied on security by stonewalling -- insisting that nothing was wrong, despite lots of proof to the contrary, and refusing to let third party security experts ever look at their machines. Rather than breaking up the companies, why don't the feds just require that any e-voting machine use open source software that can be tested by anyone?

Filed Under: antitrust, e-voting, justice department
Companies: diebold, es&s, premier

Stretching The FCC's Mandate: FCC Should Not Be Involved In Copyright Enforcement

from the beyond-the-mandate dept

We were a bit concerned last year when the FCC held hearings which were technically about the national broadband policy, but instead focused on copyright, something that is clearly well outside the FCC's mandate -- something the FCC already got in trouble for a few years back with its attempt to mandate a "broadcast flag." However, there are now some additional concerns that this administration is ignoring the limits of the FCC's mandate. As you may recall, a few weeks back, the Justice Department -- at the urging of the entertainment industry -- set up a special IP task force to deal with "the rise of intellectual property crime." However, some are quite worried about how this task force intends to go about this.

Copycense points us to a letter sent to the Justice Department by the Center for Democracy and Technology, which noticed that, in the announcement of this new task force, the Justice Department said it intends to work with the FCC on intellectual property enforcement. That's a problem:

What's wrong with that? It's an invitation to major mission creep. The FCC's job is to execute and enforce federal communications law. It has no authority and no role in enforcing other laws. Lots of unlawful activity -- from intellectual property infringement to racketeering to securities fraud to deceptive advertising -- may occur over or using communications networks. But that doesn't make it the FCC's job to police such activity. The FCC's focus is, and should remain, promoting the availability of high quality communications capabilities in the United States -- not policing what users do with those capabilities.

In addition, the only reason to involve the FCC would be to force the entities the FCC regulates -- communications providers, and in particular ISPs -- to start actively policing I.P. infringement. Having government force ISPs to take on this new role should raise serious red flags. The idea that ISPs don't serve as gatekeepers or content censors, and aren't themselves responsible for what users do on the network, has been a bedrock principle that underpins the Internet's open and innovative nature. Casting it aside would be a serious mistake and a radical departure from U.S. communications policy.

Filed Under: copyright, enforcement, fcc, ip task force, justice department
Companies: fcc

Unexpected, But Good: Justice Department Says FCC Should Free Up More Spectrum

from the it's-a-start dept

You don't really expect the Justice Department to be involved in the question of spectrum allocation, but it has suggested that the FCC free up more spectrum for broadband efforts. The reason is that this is coming from the antitrust division of the DoJ, and the hope is that with more spectrum, it can be allocated to upstart competitors which will increase competition in the not very competitive broadband market (and don't believe the telco lobbyists who claim otherwise).

Still, if we're talking about freeing up spectrum, shouldn't things go a bit further? We still have a situation where the FCC doesn't just allocate the spectrum, but also decides what it must be used for. We'd be much better off, and have a lot more competition, if companies were free to make use of spectrum in the way they felt could bring the best return -- and that companies who were granted spectrum rights also had the right to then resell those rights. While I'm still hopeful that new technologies will make spectrum scarcity a thing of the past, we still haven't seen enough evidence that the technology really works. So, in the meantime, the better solution is to get more spectrum on the market, and stop putting limitations on how it can be used.

Filed Under: competition, fcc, justice department, spectrum, wireless

Former RIAA Lawyer At DOJ Will Only Avoid RIAA Issues For A Year

from the ethics? dept

Plenty of folks have noted that the Justice Department has been the landing place for a number of RIAA lawyers. Some have suggested not to get too worked up about this, given that the Obama administration's ethics rules supposedly forbade those lawyers from being involved in issues related to their former work. However, it looks like the limit on these guys is actually quite narrow and for a very short period of time. We'd already noted that the highest ranking former RIAA lawyer, Thomas Perrelli, in his Senate confirmation hearings, said he hoped to use his position to increase intellectual property enforcement from within the Justice Department.

Now, Pro Publica, an online investigative reporting operation, has published the ethics agreements signed by Obama administration appointees, including Tom Perrelli's agreement, which appears to only preclude him from working on issues that impact his former clients for one year. Also, it seems pretty narrowly focused on the specific clients he worked for, but not other aspects of the same industry. In other words, in less than a year, he can certainly start helping the RIAA from within the Justice Department -- and his Senate testimony suggests he's interested in doing so. That's not quite the ethical separation we were led to believe would exist in the administration.

Filed Under: ethics, justice department, thomas perrelli
Companies: jenner & block, riaa

Will The RIAA's New Friends In Justice Get Involved Over Constitutionality Of RIAA Damage Awards?

from the we're-about-to-find-out dept

In one of the many cases out there challenging the constitutionality of statutory fines for copyright infringement, there's some indication that the Justice Department is considering intervening on the side of the record labels to defend fines that range from $750 to $150,000 for sharing a single song that can be purchased for $1. There are numerous arguments (both legal and common sense) for why the punishment here goes way beyond the crime. But, with the Justice Department hiring a bunch of the entertainment industry's favorite lawyers into high level positions, this seems like a pretty clear conflict of interest. Many people are now suggesting contacting the administration and requesting that it not intervene in the case given the conflicts of interest.

Filed Under: copyright, justice department, obama

Justice Department Increasingly Looking Like The RIAA/MPAA's Legal Team

from the change-the-riaa-can-believe-in dept

It seems that the Obama administration is basically hiring the entire RIAA/MPAA/BSA legal team these days. It started off with the RIAA's favorite lawyer, then it hired the BSA's antipiracy enforcer, and now it's brought on two more of the entertainment industry's favorite lawyers, including Don Verrilli, who was one of the main guys arguing the entertainment industry's side in the infamous (and terribly decided) Grokster case. He also was the guy who argued the RIAA's case that the Jammie Thomas verdict shouldn't be thrown out (on that one, he lost, thankfully). Of course, if you're thinking things would have been any better had McCain won, just note that one of his legal advisors is gleefully cheering on these appointments. Still, as Ray Beckerman notes, Obama's own rules should preclude these guys working on issues related to those they used to represent. We'll see if that actually happens, though.

Filed Under: don verrilli, justice department, obama
Companies: mpaa, riaa

DOJ Gets Another Copyright Cop

from the not-looking-good dept

Among the tech community, there was some belief that the Obama administration understood some of the key issues, such as the damage done by draconian copyright laws -- and they had shown that with the way they went about running their campaign. However, there's an increasing realization that the techies on the campaign are entirely separate from the policy people now involved in the administration. First there was the appointment of one of the RIAA's top lawyers as associate attorney general, and now comes news that Neil MacBride, the BSA's antipiracy enforcer, has also been appointed to a high level role in the Justice Department.

You may recall MacBride, because last year, right before the BSA released its usual entirely bogus stats on the impact of piracy, he was kind enough to call me and walk through why he stood by those numbers. In that post, you can see some of how MacBride approached these issues -- insisting that piracy represents a real loss, not a business model issue, and even suggesting that it's all a generational thing. This is somewhat worrisome, as I believe it's the wrong approach to understanding what an impact copyright issues have on business, society and culture. That two such individuals are now in high level positions in the Justice Department does not bode well at all for the idea that we may have more reasonable copyright policy and enforcement coming out of the Justice Department any time soon.

Filed Under: bsa, copyright, justice department, neil macbride, obama

DOJ Was Three Hours From Suing Google For Antitrust Violations

from the pick-your-fights dept

It was pretty clear back in September, when the Justice Department hired well-known antitrust litigator Sandy Litvack, that it had decided that it was going to file an antitrust lawsuit against Google, even if there were serious questions about what harm its ad deal with Yahoo would actually cause. Despite plenty of negotiation and totally rewriting the deal, the Justice Department was set on opposing it, leading Google to give up.

Now, that litigator, Sandy Litvack has admitted that the Justice Department was three hours away from filing its antitrust suit, which he was "looking forward to" and he's apparently disappointed he didn't get to go to court over it. That seems troublesome. If the purpose of antitrust activity is to protect consumers, then its litigators should be pretty happy that it avoided a (taxpayer-funded) legal battle.

Filed Under: antitrust, justice department
Companies: google, justice department, yahoo

Justice Department May Have Just Killed Yahoo; Google Drops Partnership

from the you-wanted-less-competition,-you-got-it dept

Well, apparently even the greatly scaled back version of their ad partnership wasn't enough to appease a Justice Department intent on suing Google for antitrust no matter what the real issues are. Google had previously threatened to kill the deal if the Justice Department didn't ease up on its position, so it really shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone that Google has now dropped out of the deal entirely.

The government is still insisting that it would have represented a monopoly, as around 90% of the "relevant market" would have been managed by one company. First of all, they were only looking at the search ad market, which is hardly the relevant market. Advertising budgets pay for much more than search ads, and if search ads really became more expensive, it would only open up opportunities for alternative means of advertising. Besides, there was still little to no indication that any such deal would increase advertising fees. Given Google's auction based system, and the fact that this would increase inventory, there's plenty of reason to believe it would actually decrease advertising costs.

In the end, killing off this deal may represent a pretty big blow to Yahoo's chances of moving forward as an independent concern. The company was very much relying on the Google deal to stabilize its financial condition. Without that, Yahoo is in trouble -- meaning there's probably a good chance that Microsoft takes another look at acquiring the company for much, much less than before. That means, Yahoo as we know it, disappears. Considering the Justice Department wanted more competition rather than less, it's unfortunate that it's misguided decision is effectively killing off one of the competitors.

Filed Under: antitrust, justice department
Companies: google, yahoo

Justice Department Says It Doesn't Want To Be Hollywood's Police Force; Senate Removes That Provision

from the good-for-them dept

This doesn't come as a total surprise, because the Bush Administration had said something similar last year about the House's ProIP bill, but the Justice Department has come out very strongly against Senator Leahy's proposed bill that would let the Justice Department take on civil copyright lawsuits, effectively becoming Hollywood's private enforcement agency. What's impressive is how much of the argument seems to mimic the EFF's concerns:

We strongly oppose Title I of the bill, which not only authorizes the Attorney General to pursue civil remedies for copyright infringement, but to secure "restitution" damages and remit them to the private owners of infringed copyrights. First, civil copyright enforcement has always been the responsibility and prerogative of private copyright holders, and U.S. law already provides them with effective legal tools to protect their rights....

Second, Title 1's departure from the settled framework above could result in Department of Justice prosecutors serving as pro bono lawyers for private copyright holders regardless of their resources. In effect, taxpayer-supported Department lawyers would pursue lawsuits for copyright holders, with monetary recovery going to industry.

Third, the Department of Justice has limited resources to dedicate to particular issues, and civil enforcement actions would occur at the expense of criminal actions, which only the Department of Justice may bring. In an era of fiscal responsibility, the resources of the Department of Justice should be used for the public benefit, not on behalf of particular industries that can avail themselves of the existing civil enforcement provisions.

The "good" news is that this statement has apparently convinced the Senate to remove that part of the bill. Senator Ron Wyden introduced an amendment that took out the part where the White House gets to handle civil cases, but the rest of the bill still moves forward (and don't be surprised to see future efforts push to get the Justice Department back in on private enforcement).

Filed Under: copyright cops, justice department, patrick leahy, ron wyden, white house