Petition Submitted To Require Congress To Wear The Logos Of Their Corporate Donors

from the the-esteemed-Congressman,-brought-to-you-in-part-by... dept

The idea that members of Congress should wear the logos of their corporate sponsors is as old as the internet itself, but it appears that someone's finally doing something about it. (Or at least bringing it to the attention of the current administration where it can be handed a set of talking points.) A petition at "We the People" requests that Congress members switch over to NASCAR-style representation, and wear their "affections" literally on their sleeves.

Since most politicians' campaigns are largely funded by wealthy companies and individuals, it would give voters a better sense of who the candidate they are voting for is actually representing if the company's logo, or individual's name, was prominently displayed upon the candidate's clothing at all public appearances and campaign events. Once elected, the candidate would be required to continue to wear those "sponsor's" names during all official duties and visits to constituents. The size of a logo or name would vary with the size of a donation. For example, a $1 million dollar contribution would warrant a patch of about 4" by 8" on the chest, while a free meal from a lobbyist would be represented by a quarter-sized button. Individual donations under $1000 are exempt.

This may seem as frivolous as requesting the construction of a Death Star or the immediate expulsion of Brits who criticize the NRA, but the underlying frustration with today's political world is evident. Many Americans are experiencing the sinking feeling that their future is in the hands of corporations and their purchased legislators, cutting them out of the loop. The periodic call to "throw the bums out" either goes unanswered or just results in a new set of bums

Holding legislators accountable often seems impossible, so if you can't beat 'em, shame 'em. If members of Congress are willing to capitulate to the highest bidder(s), the least they can do is display their true loyalties for all to see. The application of corporate logos would make it obvious at a glance who might be influencing elected officials' stances on various issues. As enjoyable as it would be to see this put into action, the idea itself comes wrapped in its own set of problems.

To begin with, this would place entirely too much importance on the visible logos (or lack thereof), replacing informed opinions with snap judgements. Mistaken conclusions would be drawn. A relatively logo-free Congressman would be perceived as a righteous lawmaker in a sea of purchased sinners, no matter the voting record or moral stature. The wrong conclusion could also be drawn in the opposite direction, turning a legislator's eerie resemblance to a stock car into a maze of twisty corporate conspiracy theories, all alike. Or something in between, like this hypothetical: A Congressman covered in logos of corporations that employ hundreds in his district -- sell-out or man of the people?

Another problem is that no matter what dollar amount is used as the cutoff line, donors will still find a way to get their money into the right hands while avoiding turning "their" legislator into a logoed farce. If the loophole isn't big enough to allow the (relatively) easy flow of money, the law will be amended until it is. No representative wants to look like they're corporate property and very few corporations are willing to roll on ungreased wheels.

Another issue is the distraction factor. If implemented, our already contentious partisan politics will devolve even further, resulting in pointless attacks based on who's wearing what corporate logo, or how many they're wearing. I firmly believe a legislative branch suffering from vapor lock is preferable to one that feels a day without an introduced bill is a wasted day, but sooner or later some important stuff needs to get done. It took our legislators four years to pass a "yearly" budget. Delays like this hurt actual taxpayers. I can only imagine how much longer that particular ordeal would have continued if logo-related arguments were added to the mix.

That brings us to the ultimate problem with this petition: a huge conflict of (self) interest. The very people petitioners want covered in logos are the same people who'd prefer their benefactors remain hidden. Not coincidentally, they're also the people that introduce, vote on and pass laws. It's damn near impossible to push a bill through Congress when a majority of legislators oppose it. And no matter how entertaining this would be, bypassing the legislative process to get this enacted (executive order?) screws with the underlying checks and balances, something no one should be encouraging.

All that being said, I'd still like to see the petition hit the "RESPONSE NEEDED" mark. If nothing else, it will send a message to the administration (and our lawmakers) that the American public views its representatives as little more than water carriers for big business and special interest groups. I'd also like to see the administration's response to this message. Most likely, it will point out that this information is readily available at the government's own Federal Election Commission site, not to mention informational powerhouses like OpenSecrets.org (whose site is much easier to search and navigate). It may also express concern over a loss of "decorum" should this be implemented, what with serviceable dark suits replaced with day-glo blazers covered in corporate logos.

If I had my way, I'd select a third option: have the petition be submitted as a bill and watch legislators go insane trying to take it seriously ("The public has spoken!") while simultaneously finding some way to torpedo the legislation without looking completely irate ("Stupid public! Why won't it shut up?!?"). A few days or weeks of logo-related panic would possibly bump C-SPAN ratings into the single digits and warm my cold, cynical heart ever so slightly.

Filed Under: corruption, lobbying, money, patches, politics, transparency

Microsoft Releases Details Of Law Enforcement Requests

from the good-move dept

Kudos to Microsoft for joining companies like Google and Twitter in releasing transparency reports about government/law enforcement requests for information. On Thursday, Microsoft released data on law enforcement requests from 2012. The report covers requests for pretty much all of Microsoft's key online services, including Hotmail/Outlook, SkyDrive, XBox Live, Office 365 and even Skype. Microsoft has actually gone a step further than others in some areas, such as separating out which law enforcement requests involved sharing "customer content" data (such as images or email subject lines) vs. those that shared "non-content" data (such as identifying information).

Because of this distinction, Microsoft points out how rarely it ends up giving law enforcement customer content, noting it happened in only 2.1% of cases (1,558 requests). Nearly all of those requests came from the US government. The only non-US requests that resulted in the sharing of customer content were 14 disclosures given to Brazil, Ireland, Canada and New Zealand.

As for non-content information (i.e., identifying info), Microsoft disclosed that information 56,388 times (excluding Skype, which reported its data separately due to differences in the way they recorded data -- something that is being standardized). The top countries getting such info were the US, UK, Turkey, Germany and France. Turkey seems a bit surprising there. As for Skype, the top requests were from the UK, US, Germany, France and Taiwan. Microsoft also delivered no information at all 18% of the time, either because the company rejected the request or because no info was found, though they apparently don't break down the difference there.

Like Google, Microsoft also revealed how many National Security Letters it received, using a format nearly identical to the way Google released its data not too long ago: It's good to see Microsoft following in the footsteps of Google and Twitter in providing this kind of transparency. Hopefully we'll see even more companies follow as well.

Filed Under: information requests, nsls, privacy, transparency
Companies: microsoft, skype

CISPA Sponsor Tweets, Then Deletes, About How Much More Lobbying Dollars Have Come From Pro-CISPA Groups

from the read-before-you-retweet dept

Ah, transparency. The Sunlight Foundation put together Politwoops last year to highlight tweets that elected officials deleted. Mostly it's innocuous stuff, but sometimes some real gems come through. For example, the account of Rep. Mike Rogers, who is the main Representative behind CISPA, retweeted but then deleted a MapLight tweet about how the House Intelligence Committee, which Rogers chairs, "received 15 times more from pro-CISPA groups than anti-CISPA orgs." You can see MapLight's data here. Of course, we've said from the beginning that much of this "cybersecurity" stuff is really about money, and that tweet just highlighted that plenty of that money is flowing directly into Congress. Obviously, that doesn't look too good for Rep. Rogers (or whatever poor staffer runs his Twitter feed), and it took someone all of 23 minutes to realize that Rogers was more or less promoting the fact that his side had received 15x more in lobbying dollars -- and that probably doesn't look too good. Still, for those who believe in transparency, it was a nice admission, albeit a brief one.

Update: Oh, and it gets better. Rogers has been using the hashtag #CISPAalert in a bunch of his tweets in support of CISPA. But that hashtag was set up by the EFF, and every tweet that uses that hashtag helps fund the EFF in its fight against CISPA.

Rogers (R-Mich.)'s official Twitter account has, since Wednesday, been using the hashtag #CISPAalert to address criticism of his Cyber Intelligence Security Protection Act (CISPA). Activists are wrong, he says. CISPA wouldn't allow government "monitoring anyone’s email or personal information."

But the congressman—or whoever runs his Twitter account—doesn't seem to have gotten the memo. A domain name registrar called Namecheap is running a promotion: offering a dollar to Internet activists at the Electronic Frontier Foundation for each tweet with that hashtag. The EFF is actively campaigning against CISPA, calling it a “privacy-invading cybersecurity spying bill.”

I'm sure once CISPA is in place, Rogers will figure out this Twitter stuff.

Filed Under: cispa, house intelligence committee, lobbying dollars, mike rogers, politwoops, transparency

MIT And Aaron Swartz's Lawyers Argue Over Releasing Evidence

from the who's-hiding-what? dept

Last Friday, Aaron Swartz's lawyers asked the court that had been overseeing his case to lift a protective order on material submitted during discovery, which Swartz's family and lawyers say will help show how bogus the case against him was -- and which they've hinted will show how MIT went way too far in trying to help prosecutors go after Swartz. According to exchanges between Swartz's lawyer, Elliot Peters, and MIT staff (including MIT President Rafael Reif), MIT has argued that such documents should not be revealed because (a) it might violate the privacy of MIT employees and (b) because MIT never intended the info to be public. Peters discovered this after a reporter for the Wall Street Journal forwarded him the following statement from MIT:

The decision to lift the protective order rests with the judge who put it in place. Documents provided by MIT in the Swartz case included individual names and information regarding MIT employees. It is MIT policy and practice to protect employee privacy. MIT provided the documents under the express understanding that they would be protected from disclosure, which is the purpose of the protective order. Given this, we are concerned about any public release of information about individual MIT employees: we will seek to protect their privacy. At the same time, MIT is eager to share important facts about its actions in the Aaron Swartz matter with the public: Professor Hal Abelson has been charged by President Rafael Reif with conducting an analysis that will be made public in the coming weeks.

Peters, quite reasonably, found this statement to be absurd. Especially the part about MIT claiming that it provided the documents in the belief that they would be kept secret. As Peters noted in response, this was obviously untrue.

"This statement is an insult to my intelligence. The documents were provided to the government before any protective order was entered, and directly contrary to this statement, with the express understanding that they would be used in a criminal prosecution', which would lead to a PUBLIC TRIAL, at which time the documents would be offered into evidence and the witnesses would testify, in public. MIT never could have expected these materials not to become public, and I find this statement to be shockingly misleading and insincere."

Around this same time, the Congressional investigation into Swartz's prosecution requested the same information. Given that, Swartz's legal team met with the DOJ to discuss releasing the documents currently under protective order. They agreed to redact certain personal information (phone numbers, emails, home addresses, social security numbers, birthdays), as well as the names of four people who were questioned during the investigation, but who "were not actively involved in either the Government's or any institution's investigation" into Swartz. However, where the conversations broke down was over redacting the names and info of just about everyone else: law enforcement, MIT employees and JSTOR employees.

Swartz's lawyer argues that this information should be public and if the case had gone forward would have been public:

Criminal proceedings in our nation's courts are presumptively public....

As described above, the circumstances in this case have changed dramatically. Perhaps most obviously, with Mr. Swartz's death, there is no longer a case to prosecute and thus no danger that disclosure will impede a fair trial. Mr. Swartz's tragic death has also led to an increase in public interest in both the details of the investigation and prosecution and the reasonableness of prosecutions under the CFAA generally. In its discussions with Mr. Swartz's counsel about modifying the Protective Order, the Government has not, to date, asserted any reliance interest based on the Protective Order. Even if it were to assert such an interest, any Government reliance on the Protective Order's terms is tempered by the fact that it is a blanket order and therefore inherently overinclusive. As this District explained in Bulger, modification of such a blanket order is not unusual. Id. at 54. As a result, the only interest left to be balanced against the significant public interest in access to unredacted documents is the alleged privacy interest of the government employees and third party individuals named in the discovery materials. For the reasons discussed below, those interests are minimal and are overcome by the public interest in the disclosure of these documents.

They further note that hiding the names of those actually responsible will make the Congressional investigation into what happened much more difficult. Second, the information was provided initially without any expectation that this info would be kept private, so to ask for it to be kept private now makes little sense. In fact, they note that most of the people named, who the government and MIT wish to redact, were likely potential witnesses had the trial been able to move forward. "Consequently, MIT and JSTOR cannot now claim any reliance interest on behalf of their employees in the continued privacy of their emails at the time they produced the emails at issue to the government." They further point out that most of the names in question are already public and highlight press accounts and previous releases of documents in the case that specifically name: "MIT employees Dave Newman, Paul Acosta, Ellen Duranceau, Ann Wolpert, Mike Halsall, and Mark Sillis and JSTOR employee Brian Larsen, identifies their positions, and quotes their email communications." Given that this is already public, it seems odd to further seek to redact their participation.

The argument in the other direction is that the attention this case has received means that names of such folks might lead to threats, but Swartz's lawyer says there has been no evidence presented of any threats to MIT or JSTOR employees -- and even if there was, that wouldn't necessitate blocking out info on all such employees.

Separately, his lawyers point out that redacting law enforcement officials names makes even less sense, given that they are public employees.

Days after this motion was filed, MIT "responded" by agreeing to release the documents itself... but with those same redactions requested by the DOJ. MIT President Reif has tried to spin this as being "in the spirit of openness, balanced with responsibility." Of course, that doesn't make much sense. The DOJ has already agreed that this same level of information should be released, so MIT isn't doing anything here other than making it appear -- falsely -- as if it is making some concession towards openness. On top of that, MIT has said it will not release this info until its overall investigation is over.

Not surprisingly, Swartz's family is not particularly impressed by all of this. In a statement provided to us, Swartz's girlfriend, Taren Stinebrickner-Kauffman, notes that this is misleading not just because MIT isn't doing anything new here, but also in that this isn't MIT's decision at all.

“I welcome President Reif's commitment to transparency. However, this announcement is misleading. MIT does not get to decide in what form the evidence is released publicly. The judge does. MIT has already given this evidence to the courts, at which point it gave up proprietary control over the evidence. President Reif's decision simply foreshadows the inevitability that the judge will release at least this much of the evidence. It sets a low bar, but it does not decide the matter. The redacted documents MIT is releasing only tell one part of the story. Huge amounts of information would still be hidden beneath the protective order -- information that MIT's investigators themselves will not have access to unless the protective order is lifted. If MIT is really committed to transparency and having a full, complete investigation, they need to join the call with Aaron’s lawyers to lift the protective order."

Similarly, Aaron's father, Robert Swartz, noted that this is not a concession by MIT, and that MIT already gave up its rights to these documents, so trying to control how they are disseminated makes little sense.

"This is not a change in MIT's position. MIT could have no expectation of privacy or security since this evidence was given to the government with the understanding that it was evidence in a public trial,” said Robert Swartz, Aaron’s father. “They understood when they gave these documents to the government that they had no rights to privacy or security. MIT should release all internal communications related to this case whether or not they were provided to the government including all internal communications they had related to how they handled it and decided not to ask the government to drop the case."

Stinebrickner-Kauffman also pointed out that "if MIT wished to protect these people's privacy, MIT should not have become involved in the criminal trial to begin with. They made a calculated decision not to nip this case in the bud. They don't get to avoid the consequences now, after Aaron’s death."

Filed Under: aaron swartz, discovery, elliot peters, evidence, mit, names, protective order, rafael reif, transparency

Nasdaq Developing Exciting New Way To Lose All Your Money On Tech Stocks

from the because-reporting-actual-financials-is-so-last-millennium dept

As everyone knows, the well-trodden path for technology startups starts in a garage, runs through angel rounds and seed rounds and other preciously named rounds of venture capital investments, and ends up with the glorious dream of listing on Nasdaq, yaaaaay. As everyone also knows, that last thing has recently become more of a boooo. The Nasdaq listing is less necessary, as modern startups tend to traffic in ethereal goods like Likes and so don’t really need to raise capital via IPOs, and it’s less pleasant, because you gotta file public documents, and your stock can go down, and something something something high-frequency robots, and David Einhorn can buy your stock and yell at you and stuff. Somehow being public has cost Facebook like forty billion dollars of market cap which is kind of amazing when you think about it.

Nasdaq is aware of this dimming of its value proposition and has come up with a new one. What if it told you you could be listed on Nasdaq but without the public documents and the David Einhorn? Would that be of interest to you?

The NASDAQ OMX Group, Inc. and SharesPost, Inc. announced today a joint venture that will establish the preeminent marketplace for private growth companies. … The NASDAQ Private Market (NPM) will provide improved access to liquidity for early investors, founders and employees while enabling the efficient buying and selling of private company shares. While NASDAQ will retain a majority stake in the venture, specific terms of the joint venture were not disclosed.

“The support of entrepreneurs is a fundamental element of our DNA at NASDAQ OMX,” said Bruce Aust, EVP of NASDAQ OMX. “The NASDAQ Private Market will provide private companies additional flexibility as they plan for their future and, at the same time, bring the investment community unique opportunities. By combining our resources, expertise and reach with SharesPost’s established technology, we will bring scale, efficiency and transparency to this marketplace.”

An increasing number of companies are choosing to remain private longer, which requires an efficient means to access liquidity for employees and investors. NPM will offer a complete, end-to-end solution that will enable a private company to control the marketplace for its shares. Transactions on NPM will meet NASDAQ OMX’s industry-leading standards for security, compliance and client support.

Details are sketchy but Nasdaq Private Market will be run by SharesPost’s founder, and one shorthand way to think about it is that “it’s SharesPost, only it’s called Nasdaq.” Right? Also more money and computers and stuff, but basically the point of this JV seems to be to capitalize on the fact that telling your crazed day-trader uncle “oh we trade on the Nasdaq [any sequence of words] Market¹” is much more palatable than “we trade on SharesPost. No, with a capital P. I think.”

And what is SharesPost? Well it’s a private stock marketplace, plus various bells and whistles, though NPM will focus on the marketplace. Here are some of the advantages it advertises to issuers:

Set parameters and maintain control over who can buy, who can sell, how much, and when. SharesPost allows you to create a customized Private Investor Portal to manage your secondary transactions. … Manage shareholder transactions to minimize distraction to management.

Distractions like David Einhorn! A key advantage of trading on SharesPost instead of Nasdaq is you get to decide who can buy your stock, so you can keep out activists and raiders and HFT robots. (And, though they’re not quite in the “bad people who might buy your stock” category: you can keep out short sellers.) Another advantage has to do with public disclosure; you can’t literally get away with telling your investors nothing, but you can at least only tell it to your investors, with “permission-based access to information on prospective companies.”

So: I have no problem with this. People use phrases like “shareholder democracy” and “shareholder rights” in ways that imply that corporations are democracies or that shareholders have rights. Those are silly ideas! Shareholders have money and they give that money to companies in exchange for what they give the money to the companies in exchange for. If you gave your money to Dell, you had a set of expectations about how Dell would treat you – as a fiduciary and so forth – based on the securities laws, Delaware corporate law, Dell’s charter and bylaws, and market custom and precedent; maybe now you’re disappointed, I don’t know.

But those expectations are only binding if you actually expect them, and these days they’re loosening up. If you gave your money to Carlyle Group, you weren’t expecting fiduciary duties, because they told you not to. If you gave your money to Facebook, you weren’t expecting to have a meaningful vote on anything. If you gave your money to CommonWealth REIT, honestly, what were you thinking? There are some constants, or near-constants – you pretty much always expect to be able to sell your stock to any willing buyer – but even that isn’t in the Ten Commandments. REITS at least in theory restrict sales to foreign buyers.

The rules by which shareholders have certain rights come from mostly state corporate law – which is for the most part a flexible set of default rules that can be changed by corporate charter; from federal securities laws – which for the most part apply to public companies, not SharesPost-y companies; and from the rules of NYSE and Nasdaq. A lot of the more persnickety corporate governance rules – you need lots of independent directors, you need to let shareholders vote on whether to issue tons of stock, that sort of thing – are NYSE and Nasdaq rules, not actual laws. If you stay private, you have a ton of flexibility to structure around all of those expectations. It’s just hard to raise any money.

But Nasdaq Private Market should help with that: investors will be more likely to invest in private companies if there’s an established, Nasdaq-branded platform for them to get liquidity. And, y’know, if they’ll be allowed to sell. But that’s a matter of negotiation; you can imagine companies raising money with agreements that let the investors sell, but place limits on to whom and how much. That will presumably depress the price the company can get for its shares, versus a pure public capital raise, but maybe it’s worth it to avoid, um, management distraction. Also short-sellers.

There’s some reason to think that the set of liquidity, voting, fiduciary, etc. rights that public-company shareholders (usually) have is the “right” set, the set that maximizes the value of public companies. Remember, some of those rights come not from laws but from voluntary NYSE/Nasdaq listing rules: they’re rules that profit-seeking enterprises, somewhere in the hazy past, thought were necessary to attract capital to their marketplace. But that hypothesis isn’t tested a whole lot. It’s not easy for NYSE and Nasdaq to change their rules. When companies like Facebook come to market with horrible governance, their IPOs still do pretty well. (I mean, until they price, whatever.)

Who knows, maybe Nasdaq Private Market will end up with its own rigid set of listing rules, but my guess is not. My guess is that it will offer companies a lot of flexibility in striking their own balance between shareholder-friendly policies that attract investment² and shareholder-restrictive policies that make management happy and undistracted. That’s good for managements, and not all bad for investors: instead of one-size-fits-all rights, they can in effect get paid to trade off liquidity and governance rights that they don’t care much about. Some investors may get value out of that. Probably not David Einhorn though.

Nasdaq to Launch Private-Share Exchange in JV With SharesPost [WSJ]
NASDAQ OMX and SharesPost to Form Private Market [Nasdaq OMX]

1. Did you know that there are both a Nasdaq Global Market and a Nasdaq Global Select market and that they’re different things?

2. And employees. A main point for private-company marketplaces is to allow early employees to get liquidity in their equity compensation. You could imagine a theory in which those employees care a lot about the details of their liquidity opportunity, though that might be a stretch.

Other posts from Dealbreaker:

• Even So, Mark Cuban Is Probably Glad He Got Rid Of His Mamma.com Stock
• Billionaire No Longer Using Dial-Up
• Fed Kicks Off Awkward Week For Banks

Filed Under: financial reports, private markets, private trading, transparency
Companies: nasdaq, sharespost

Google Reveals Some Data About National Security Letters, May Have Exposed DOJ Duplicity

from the transparency... dept

We've talked for years about the government's use of "national security letters" or NSLs, which are effectively a way for law enforcement types to seek information with less oversight than a subpoena, and which usually come with a very, very extreme gag order attached. Despite the fact that, by their own admission, law enforcement has regularly and systematically abused this tool, they are still widely used and there has been little effort to block the abuses. Google's latest transparency report is seeking to reveal some data about the NSLs it has received, but without revealing too much. Rather than directly revealing how many NSLs it has received, it is posting ranges (in bunches of 1,000) -- and apparently the company got at least some level of approval from the government to do this ("We're thankful to U.S. government officials for working with us").

By itself, the data doesn't seem that enlightening. However, there is some useful information you can pick out of there, and who better to pick out that info that Julian Sanchez, who has followed this issue closely. He's found that you can actually tease out some useful info even with those broad ranges.

It's illuminating to compare the minimum number of users affected by NSLs each year to the numbers we find in the government's official annual reports. In 2011—the last year for which we have a tally—the Justice Department acknowledged issuing 16,511 NSLs seeking information about U.S. persons, with a total of 7,201 Americans' information thus obtained. That's actually down from a staggering 14,212 Americans whose information DOJ reported obtaining via NSL the previous year. Remember, this total includes National Security Letters issued not just to all telecommunications providers—including online services like Google, broadband Internet companies, and cell phone carriers—but also "financial institutions," which are defined broadly to include a vast array of businesses beyond such obvious candidates as banks and credit card companies.

What ought to leap out at you here is the magnitude of Google's tally relative to that total: They got requests affecting at least 1,000 users in a year when DOJ reports just over 7,000 Americans affected by all NSLs—and it seems impossible that Google could account for anywhere remotely near a seventh of all NSL requests. Google, of course, is not limiting their tally to requests for information about Americans, which may explain part of the gap—but we know that, at least of a few years ago, the substantial majority of NSLs targeted Americans, and the proportion of the total targeting Americans was increasing year after year. As of 2006, for instance, 57 percent of NSL requests were for information about U.S. persons. So even if we reduce Google's minimum proportionately, that seems awfully high.

Sanchez wonders if the DOJ is effectively under-counting how many NSLs it uses by pretending that some of the NSLs they issue shouldn't count towards its official tally of NSLs.

There's a simple enough explanation for this apparent discrepancy: The numbers DOJ reports each year explicitly exclude NSL requests for “basic subscriber information,” meaning the “name, address, and length of service” associated with an account, and only count more expansive requests that also demand more detailed “electronic communications transactional records” that are “parallel to” the “toll billing records” maintained by traditional phone companies.

That would mean that the NSL number that the DOJ reports is not particularly accurate, and that the FBI really issues a hell of a lot more NSLs (not so). Shocking reveal of the day: the DOJ may not be entirely forthright about how often it's spying on Americans using a widely abused process with little oversight.

Filed Under: doj, fbi, national security letters, nsls, privacy, transparency
Companies: google

Over 400 Groups, Representing 15 Million People, Demand 'New Direction' From USTR In TPP Negotiations

from the time-for-a-change dept

We were just talking about the insanity of the latest round of TPP negotiations happening under the continued cloak of secrecy. It appears that more and more people are beginning to question why this is allowed. A letter has been sent to Congress by over 400 groups representing over 15 million people demanding a "new direction" in the TPP negotiations. In particular, they say that the secrecy needs to go away and that the public needs to be able to comment on what is being negotiated in our name.

We find it troubling that, even as the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Free Trade Agreement enters its 16th major round of negotiations this March in Singapore, U.S. negotiators still refuse to inform the American public what they have been proposing in our names. Shielding not only proposals, but agreed-upon texts from public view until after negotiations have concluded and the pact is finalized is not consistent with democratic principles. In this regard, the TPP appears to be even less transparent than some past trade negotiations. For example, in 2001, the United States joined with 33 other countries in releasing draft text of the Free Trade Area of the Americans, and draft texts within the World Trade Organization are frequently made available.

In terms of specifics, the letter asks Congress to reject the "Fast Track" authority that the USTR has been requesting. Congress, technically, is supposed to be in charge of regulating commerce with foreign nations. The USTR is seeking fast track authority because, without it, these negotiations and the resulting agreement have no basis in law.

Instead, the letter argues that Congress needs to rein in the USTR, to require them to be more open and public, to actually consult with the public, and to make sure that Congress will review the final agreement to ensure it is in the public's interest, rather than in the interest of a few select "industry advisory committees" whom the USTR relies on. Frankly, the letter could have been a lot stronger, but I'm guessing it needed to be slightly watered down to get all those groups to sign. Still, this letter isn't just from "the usual" public interest groups who have been complaining about TPP all along, and suggests that if the USTR continues on this secretive path, there is likely to be strong opposition from the public. We've suggested in the past that the USTR's failure to recognize why ACTA failed in Europe may come back to haunt them with the TPP, and this letter is yet another warning sign. Unfortunately, given the USTR's past behavior, it's likely to be a warning sign that is, once again, ignored.

Filed Under: congress, negotiations, tpp, trade agreements, transparency, ustr

Copyright Maximalism Never Rests: TPP Talks Continue In Singapore

from the unfortunate dept

Despite growing protests and concerns about the next big US trade agreement (with Europe), the discussions on the Trans Pacific Partnership continue to move forward, with the latest round taking place in Singapore this week. And... once again, it's a story of near complete secrecy, and a total lack of transparency. Of key concern, of course, are the sections of the agreement on patents and copyrights, which the public has not seen. There was a leak from over two years ago, but nothing since then. The USTR and others say that they want the agreement completed by this fall, and it is a complete travesty that they have not been willing to share the details publicly. Negotiating a treaty in complete secrecy -- especially when the "input" on the IP chapter is driven by industry stakeholders, rather than the public -- means that the treaty almost certainly is going to be a disaster that is harmful to the public.

What's most amazing is that the USTR doesn't seem to recognize that the playing field has changed since the last time they did this. The rejection of SOPA, followed by the widespread rejection of ACTA (even if the USTR is in total denial about this) shows that the public is not at all willing to accept backroom deals that fundamentally expand bad patent and copyright policies around the globe and (worse) lock us in to things that the public does not believe are legitimate.

The USTR's continued insistence on secrecy, combined with the few leaks of information showing just how extreme a position they're setting out for themselves on patents and copyrights, suggests an organization so totally out of touch that it is destroying its own credibility. Any reasonable organization would recognize that the old backroom negotiations method of creating these kinds of deals is no longer acceptable. That the USTR refuses to admit this only increases awareness of just how out of touch the organization and its leadership remain.

Filed Under: copyright, ip, negotiations, patents, secrecy, singapore, tpp, transparency

Google Explains How It Handles Government Requests For Data; Why Don't More Companies Do This?

from the be-transparent dept

Just recently, we pointed to Google latest Transparency Report, which showed a massive increase in requests for info on users from government agencies. However, it also showed that a much lower percentage of such requests were being honored, raising some questions about how Google handled such requests. Well, wonder no more (or, at least, wonder a little less) as Google has now explained the process by which it handles such requests, going into a fair bit of detail (you have to click through) in terms of the legal requirements and how Google handles different types of requests, and what data Google may be compelled to reveal. However, in an accompanying blog post, Google makes clear that it often pushes back:

When government agencies ask for our users’ personal information—like what you provide when you sign up for a Google Account, or the contents of an email—our team does several things:

• We scrutinize the request carefully to make sure it satisfies the law and our policies. For us to consider complying, it generally must be made in writing, signed by an authorized official of the requesting agency and issued under an appropriate law.
• We evaluate the scope of the request. If it’s overly broad, we may refuse to provide the information or seek to narrow the request. We do this frequently.
• We notify users about legal demands when appropriate so that they can contact the entity requesting it or consult a lawyer. Sometimes we can’t, either because we’re legally prohibited (in which case we sometimes seek to lift gag orders or unseal search warrants) or we don’t have their verified contact information.
• We require that government agencies conducting criminal investigations use a search warrant to compel us to provide a user’s search query information and private content stored in a Google Account—such as Gmail messages, documents, photos and YouTube videos. We believe a warrant is required by the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits unreasonable search and seizure and overrides conflicting provisions in ECPA.

This is definitely good to see -- and lots of other companies should do the same thing. However, it still remains an issue that governments can, and do, get lots of information with limited oversight -- even when companies push back.

Speaking of which, Twitter also came out with its latest transparency report, which highlights the information requests it gets as well. Both companies are really leading the way on transparency here, but it's a shame that these stories are even newsworthy, rather than the way most large companies act.

Filed Under: data, government, information, privacy, transparency
Companies: google, twitter

Government Demanding More And More Info On Google Users Without Any Oversight

from the ecpa-reform-now dept

Google's latest transparency report, once again, highlights why we need ECPA reform in the US as soon as possible. ECPA -- the Electronic Communications Privacy Act -- is an outdated law that was supposed to be about protecting user privacy, but was written nearly three decades ago and now does exactly the opposite. Beyond being complex in ridiculous and unnecessary ways, things that were true decades ago are no longer the case. For example, the idea that emails left for 180 days on a server no longer need a warrant because under ECPA they are considered "abandoned." Whereas in the real world, where all email lives on servers for quite some time, that idea makes no sense.

Either way, the report makes clear that US government agencies are well aware that they can go trolling through Google to get information on people with little oversight. Requests -- especially requests that are purely a subpoena (with no judicial oversight) appear to continue to rise: The largest part of that chart is the government subpoenas, meaning no judge had to look them over first:

68 percent of the requests Google received from government entities in the U.S. were through subpoenas. These are requests for user-identifying information, issued under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (“ECPA”), and are the easiest to get because they typically don't involve judges.

Unfortunately, Congress had a chance to reform ECPA last year, and the Senate Judiciary Committee even approved it. But, right at the end of the year, Congress passed a separate bill that had been attached to ECPA reform by itself... and left ECPA reform to rot.

Filed Under: data, ecpa, government, privacy, subpoenas, transparency
Companies: google