How Congress Might Accidentally Ban US Companies From Doing Business In The US

from the double-standard? dept

A couple of years ago, we wrote about a proposal to restrict search engine companies from doing business in foreign countries whose Internet policies the United States government deems "repressive." In March, we noted that it was back. Jonathan Zittrain has written up an analysis of the latest version. It would supposedly "prevent US companies from aiding the censorship and surveillance operations of repressive foreign governments." It would target "Internet Restricting Countries," which are countries that are "directly or indirectly responsible for a systematic pattern of substantial restrictions on Internet freedom."

Now, I understand that the intent is to target truly repressive regimes like China and Cuba, but I have to wonder about how this is being defined. After all, you could argue that the United States's gambling ban is a "substantial restriction on Internet freedom." Ditto for the recent FISA bill, which allows warrantless dragnet surveillance of Americans' international calls. Likewise, some European countries restrict Internet freedom with regard to Nazi memorabilia. And of course the Australian government forces its ISPs to censor online pornography. Will American companies be prohibited from doing business in the United States, France, Germany, and Australia? Somehow I doubt it. All of which is to say that putting the US government in charge of drawing up a list of countries with bad Internet policies seems like a bad idea. The list will wind up being a political football rather than an objective assessment of countries' internet policies, and in any event it will hurt American businesses a lot more than it will promote human rights abroad.

Filed Under: censorship, companies, congress, global online freedom act, internet

Rep. Culberson Finally Admits The Problem Is The Existing House Rules

from the about-time dept

Last week, we were among the first to point out that Rep. John Culberson was wrong in trying to paint a picture of a group of nefarious Democrats trying to block him from posting to Twitter or Qik. The problem wasn't the Democrats -- but existing house rules. We pointed this out both in the blog post and in a direct Twitter to Culberson. He responded to each, but his comments continued to insist that the problem was the new proposal from a few Democrats rather than the existing rules. That made it into something of a partisan fight, with a bunch of political blogs jumping in and supporting "their side."

In a NY Times interview, Culberson still seems to be positioning this as some sort of partisan divide, but buried in the middle an interview with Tim O'Brien (that he apparently did right after the NY Times interview) Culberson finally admits that he was wrong:

"I agree and I never should have brought up Democrat or Republican.... My goal is to shine a light into the Congress and I'll keep partisan labels out of it. And I'm going to stay focused on the goal.... The two things the internet has helped me do is the community has helped me understand to keep the partisan labels out of it, that's good advice which I have taken to heart. And the other good advice I got was that I mean and actually through this debate and TechnoSailor in particular, I think his name's Aaron, had some really good posts on his blog that kind of when you walk through his and a couple of other good blogs out there, I realize that I was targeting the wrong thing, that the existing rules make it illegal for me to post on Twitter, to post on a Qik website, under existing rules I'm operating in the Twilight Zone. So they're correct and it helped me realize my focus need to be that the Congress should treat congressional access to the new social media in the same way that Congress treats our access to the old traditional media."

It's sort of buried in there, but he does admit that he was wrong -- the problem is the existing rules, not the new rules, this isn't a partisan issue and he's already in violation of the existing rules by using Twitter and posting to blogs.

And yet, we still have political bloggers pretending this is a partisan issue. Being neither a Democrat nor a Republican, one of the things I like about most technology issues is that they're non-partisan. It would be nice if they stayed that way so we could focus on the actual issues, rather than flinging mud at political opponents.

Filed Under: congress, house rules, john culberson, partisan politics, social networks

Bush Administration Admits That Telco Immunity More Important Than Increased Spying Power

from the doesn't-that-say-something? dept

While we had thought that Congress was going to easily roll over on the so-called (but not really) compromise bill on new surveillance powers that included telco immunity from potentially illegal acts committed in the past few years, there has been some pushback in the Senate, where the bill is finally about to come up for vote. Some Senators have put together an amendment stripping telco immunity from the bill, but leaving the increased surveillance powers in place. Amazingly, the Bush Administration has now said that if telco immunity is stripped from the bill, Bush will veto the bill, even if everything else is identical. In other words, all the talk you hear from politicians about how this bill is necessary to protect Americans is hogwash. If it were true, then it is simply unforgivable to veto the bill without telco immunity.

What has been made abundantly clear by this statement is that the US government does not need these extended surveillance powers at all. Its existing surveillance powers are quite sufficient. The entire purpose of this bill then, has absolutely nothing to do with security, and everything to do with making sure that the telcos (and the administration) do not have to defend their potentially illegal actions in court. If that were not the case, then the President would still be willing to approve the bill without telco immunity.

Filed Under: bush administration, congress, immunity, senate, telcos, wiretapping

Congress Close To Fixing Constitutional Loophole Over Patent Judge Appointments

from the good-for-them dept

While there was some interesting chatter around some reports back in April that the last eight years of patent appeals board judges may have been unconstitutional, as we noted at the time, the whole thing was really a very, very minor procedural point. Effectively, the constitution requires the Secretary of Commerce to make the appointments, but a change in the law in 2000 allowed the Patent Office director to make the appointments. Of course, the reality of the situation is that if the Commerce Secretary were making the appointments, he would almost certainly just rubberstamp the recommendations from the PTO director -- and it seemed silly to make a huge deal of it in court (as one company was doing to try to shake up new interest in the patent infringement case it was losing).

While some commenters here tried to make it out to be a big deal, it's good to see that Congress looks ready to apply a quick fix to the situation, making sure that the Commerce Secretary will officially make all future appointments, with the "help" of the PTO director (in other words, nothing actually changes in practice). Also, the bill in question would block lawsuits concerning the 40 judges appointed in the interim over this particular issue. Give your opinion for or against the bill here: While there are tons of problems with the patent system, finding a tiny procedural screwup and using it to send the entire system into chaos is not the answer. It doesn't help anyone -- and, in fact, would almost certainly backfire in bad ways, as it would focus everyone's attention on the wrong issues. Let Congress close the procedural loophole, and let's focus on the core issues surrounding the problems of the patent system, such as the ways its acting to hinder, rather than encourage, innovation.

Filed Under: congress, loopholes, patents

Politicians Embracing Technology To Actually Communicate With Constituents

from the warms-my-heart dept

There have been plenty of stories over the years about politicians (especially presidential candidates) embracing the internet. However, they're usually focused on bringing together communities of supporters, often for fundraising purposes. There hasn't been as much where it's really about the politician actually communicating directly with the people he or she represents. There was a period of time when politicians started using email, but most have since locked down the ability of people to contact them via email, limiting it to cumbersome forms. However, it appears that some politicians are figuring out ways to actually use technology effectively to directly communicate with the people they're supposed to represent.

There was some buzz this evening (I'm guessing kicked off by a post by Robert Scoble about politicians embracing technology in DC) with people pointing out that a Texas congressman named John Culberson has his own Twitter account. If you look at it, it's pretty clear that it's Culberson himself who's using it -- and he's actually talking and listening to what people are saying to him. He's also using the mobile phone video streaming service Qik to shine some sunlight on what actually happens in Congress -- and even tried (but wasn't allowed) to do a video with the President from the Oval Office, but was stopped by the Secret Service. There's another congressman named Tim Ryan who is also on Twitter, though he's not following anyone else or talking with anyone else -- just communicating one way.

This evening, Culberson also hosted a "Virtual Town Hall" meeting on his own website. Apparently he's been hosting town hall meetings via a phone system which dials a bunch of constituents in his district and lets them ask him questions -- but he expanded it tonight to the internet using Ustream, broadcast video and allowing text chat too. Watching the video, you see quite clearly that it's just him talking directly to people. There's no one "screening" the calls or limiting who is saying what to him -- and he's not shying away from questions at all. Whether or not you agree with him politically (and there's plenty I disagree with him on), it's fascinating to see an elected official in DC actually embracing technology to communicate directly with people in a way that isn't just him broadcasting a message to people. It's also impressive to see politicians using technology to communicate with (not to) people, rather than hide from them (or just to squeeze money out of them). Hopefully other politicians will start to do the same thing.

Filed Under: communication, congress, john culberson, politicians, technology
Companies: qik, twitter, ustream

Perhaps The Senate Won't Roll Over On Telecom Immunity

from the could-it-be? dept

Maybe, just maybe, there are a few people in the Senate who actually won't just roll over and hand the President a "get out of jail free" card to give to telcos who carried out the almost certainly illegal "warrantless wiretapping" program. While last week reports suggested that the new "compromise" bill (which basically does grant immunity, as well as expand the warrantless wiretapping program) would breeze through both the House and the Senate, there may actually be a few politicians with a backbone fighting to stop it. It did cruise through the House relatively easily, but now Senators Dodd and Feingold have announced that they'll filibuster against immunity, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (who had earlier suggested he supported the faux "compromise") says he'll support the filibuster.

What's not clear is whether or not there will really be enough support to get rid of telecom immunity. Early on it seemed like there was plenty of support for the "compromise" from those who thought it was best to get past that and focus on "other battles" instead. Also, there's the issue of corruption campaign funding. Jim Harper points to an analysis of the correlation between telco immunity flip-floppers in the House and donations from telcos. Take a guess what the analysis shows. Yup, those who switched positions received nearly twice as much in contributions from the big telcos. Funny how that works. And, of course, rest assured that the same telcos donate plenty to Senate campaigns as well.

Filed Under: congress, immunity, telcos, wiretapping

Congress Trying To Make It Legal To Ignore Tax Planning Patents

from the wrong-approach dept

We've written a few times about the rush to patent various tax strategies. That, by itself, should be evidence enough of some of the problems with the patent system. However, rather than deal with those larger problems, it appears that our Congressional Representatives are trying to take the cheap way out: creating a special exemption that would exempt taxpayers and tax preparers from risking infringement should they use any of these "patented" tax strategies. While this bill may be well-intentioned, like the attempt to allow banks to ignore a questionable patent on check scanning, it's the wrong approach. Rather than dealing with the root causes of problems with the patent system, these bills look to paper over the manifestations of those problems. In the long run, such laws (if they become law) would only make the system worse. It's nice that Rep. Rick Boucher (who often is on the right side when it comes to intellectual property issues) recognizes that tax preparation patents are a problem -- but this isn't the way to solve them.

Filed Under: congress, patents, rick boucher, tax planning, tax strategies

Our Congress Has Failed Us: Gives In On Telecom Immunity

from the no-checks,-no-balances dept

We mentioned the rumored "compromise" bill concerning telecom immunity earlier this week, and now it appears that leaders of both the House and the Senate have agreed to wording in the bill which will be brought to the floor today. From the sound of it, it's exactly what we feared: Congress has effectively given in to the administration, allowing it to grant immunity to any telco. Apparently, all that talk about not allowing the worst of this bill to go through was just talk. It's difficult to know where to begin in reviewing this "deal." It's hardly a compromise -- it's a get out of jail free card.

To summarize: it appears quite likely that various telcos broke a very clear law in providing wiretaps to the government without a warrant (as required under FISA). Despite what you might hear, this has nothing to do with emergency wiretaps where there wasn't time to go the warrants. Under existing law, in such cases, it's possible to get the wiretap and get the warrant within a few days. However, in many cases, it appears no warrant was ever sought. The fact that the telcos approved these wiretaps is almost certainly against the law -- and it seems that it should obviously be tried in a court of law to determine that specifically.

However, under this new law, Congress has basically given the President (who ordered the wiretaps in the first place, and doesn't want these trials to go forward since they may reveal that he broke the law too) "get out of jail free" cards he can hand to each telco, saying that since he told them that the wiretaps were legal, the lawsuits no longer can proceed. Basically, this puts the President above the law, lets him avoid trials that might prove that his activities broke the law and to reward telcos who broke the law at his command.

Even worse, the bill basically grants the administration the right to keep on spying without getting warrants. Intelligence agencies will be able to demand various communications providers hand over communications without court approval and without naming the target, so long as they claim that the communications are "reasonably believed to involve a non-American who is outside the country." Seems rather wide open for abuse doesn't it?

This whole thing is fairly stunning, considering that it's an opposition Congress facing off against a weak administration. Yet Congress basically gave the President exactly what he wanted, and made a mockery of the checks and balances our government was supposed to include. This is allowing a President to say the law is whatever he says is the law, while destroying basic due process and civil liberties along the way.

Filed Under: congress, immunity, telcos, wiretapping

New Anti-Spyware Bill Won't Stop Spyware; But Will Bring Back Questionable Anti-Piracy Measures

from the that-doesn't-sound-good dept

Politicians have been pushing for an anti-spyware law for quite some time -- mostly because it's the sort of thing likely to draw headlines that make the politicians look good. However, it's widely acknowledged that such laws aren't at all necessary. Anti-fraud laws can mostly take care of the problem cases out there -- and the market itself seems to have actually taken care of the worst offenders in the space. Plus, with such laws (witness CAN-SPAM's failure), they tend to do little to actually stop the activity, but more to define the rules by which companies can continue to do bad things without breaking the law.

However, with the law coming up yet again, Broadband Reports points to an even scarier part of the law currently up for consideration, the Counter Spy Act, as noted by Ed Foster's Gripe Line. Basically, in the fine print, it appears to create a nice little "exception" for software companies that spy on users for the sake of checking whether they're using an authorized copy -- including the ability to let the software provider remotely shut off the computer or internet connection of those found to be using unauthorized copies. This has many folks worried that this is an attempt to backdoor in UCITA, the awful law from a while back that would allow software companies to remotely shut down computers of those found with unauthorized software.

So we've got a law that is unnecessary and wouldn't even stop the problem of spyware if it were a problem -- and opens up a backdoor to allow software companies to spy on users and remotely shut down their computers. But it may pass anyway because politicians want voters to think they voted against spyware.

Filed Under: anti-piracy, anti-spyware, congress, counter spy act, politics, ucita

Congress Thinking About 'Compromise' That Would Move Telco Immunity Questions To Secret Court

from the what's-so-secret-here? dept

There's been an ongoing battle in Congress over whether or not telcos that helped the gov't with warrantless wiretaps should get retroactive immunity for their actions. No one has given any good reason why companies should be granted immunity for any sort of illegal actions, and there are plenty of reasons why they should not. The fact that the administration "asked" them to administer the wiretaps is no excuse. The president is not above the law. Basically, the only reason to demand immunity is because it's clear that someone (or, more likely, multiple people and companies) broke the law.

The latest move in this process is a so-called "compromise" bill that would move these disputes into a secret court, who could then dismiss the lawsuits without giving any explanation whatsoever. And, yet, no one has explained why these trials should happen in secret either. Either the companies followed the procedures that are clearly stated in the law, or they did not. You can determine if they followed the procedure without giving up state secrets. This whole thing seems to be involving an awful lot of smoke and mirrors coming out of DC, with people making all sorts of ridiculous statements about "security" and "terrorism." Those statements are all meaningless distractions. There is a clear legal procedure for wiretapping that even allows for going back after the fact to get approval. There is no excuse that the process was too cumbersome or slow, because of that ability to go back. The question here has nothing to do with security and safety. It has to do with whether or not the legal process was followed -- and it's hard to see why that should remain secret.

Filed Under: congress, immunity, telcos, wiretapping