Congressmen Not Happy About Charter's Plan To Sell Out Users To Advertisers

from the might-want-to-think-twice dept

While Charter Communications is out defending its efforts to inject ads into your surfing activities by collecting data on where you surf, it appears that some powerful Congressional Representatives are suggesting that Charter might want to think twice about implementing this. Reps. Ed Markey and Joe Barton (who both have a fair amount of power in Congress) have sent Charter a letter warning the company that doing this without letting people affirmatively opt-in may violate the Communications Act, which limits what cable companies can do with customer records. What's really surprising is that, after so much anger over similar efforts in the UK (including similar questions about legality) that Charter forged right ahead with a nearly identical plan in the US, positioning it as an "enhancement." Update And on top of this, reports are now coming out that opt-ing out of this system isn't so easy after all.

Filed Under: advertising, clickstream tracking, congress, ed markey, joe barton, opt-in, opt-out
Companies: charter communications

Congress Follows States' Lead In Trying To Ban Stores From Selling Violent Video Games To Kids

from the let's-see-how-far-this-one-gets dept

At least 10 states have tried to ban the sale of violent video games to kids, and in each and every case, the laws have been found to be unconstitutional. Yet that doesn't stop state governments from trying... and apparently the politicians at the federal level (election year!) want in on the action too. They're proposing a bill that doesn't exactly ban the sale (which is probably how they hope to get around the Constitution questions) but which requires stores to ask for an ID as well as to post details about the ESRB ratings. This seems like yet another "protect the children" political move by politicians up for re-election. But, it's becoming increasingly clear that these types of laws aren't necessary, no matter what constitutional questions they may raise. Beyond the absolute lack of evidence concerning problems from kids playing violent video games, it appears that the industry has taken care of the problem by itself. Self-regulation by stores has resulted in a significant decrease in underage kids being able to buy mature video games. But don't let facts get in the way of those pushing for these types of laws. They're applauding the new bill, just as they demonstrate that they don't even understand what they're campaigning against.

Filed Under: age limits, congress, violent video games

House Passes Pro IP Overwhelmingly

from the well-that's-no-good dept

Last week we questioned why Congress seemed to think that the White House should be playing the role of copyright cop. Yet, apparently, the House of Representatives didn't think it was a question worth asking, as it has passed the PRO IP bill by an overwhelming vote, 410 to 10. It seems like our Congressional Representatives felt that, once they got rid of one bad portion of the bill, that the rest of it must be perfectly fine. This bill has a ton of problems, expanding copyright law and the executive branch's authority in ways that are pretty clearly unnecessary. It is, in effect, a bill to prop up the obsolete business model of one particular industry, so it's rather disappointing that our Representatives have rushed through to approve it with little discussion or debate over whether it's even necessary. Either way, it seems unlikely to get much further, as the Justice Department has already come out against the bill, one would hope that even if the Senate approves a version of the bill, the President would veto it.

In the meantime, though, given just how much damage arbitrary expansions of copyright law have done, you would think that Congress would at least want to spend some time exploring the issues before rushing through new laws. Tragically, it seems that entertainment industry lobbyists still have politicians convinced that stronger copyright is naturally "good."

Filed Under: congress, copyright, copyright czar, pro ip, white house

Congressman Freaks Out About Second Life; Demands Ban In Schools

from the fear!-save-the-children!-be-afraid! dept

Just a few months after worrying about terrorists hiding in Second Life, now at least one Congressional representative is worried about how Second Life is corrupting your children. He's trying to drum up support to ban Second Life from schools and libraries, hyping up the fact that "bad stuff" happens in Second Life and, gosh, we wouldn't want kids to learn how to deal with bad stuff in an environment where they're protected from any physical harm. It'll be much better when they learn to deal with it out on the streets.

This is actually an attempt by Rep. Mark Kirk to reintroduce DOPA, the Deleting Online Predators Act. It was last introduced almost exactly two years ago (note the timing: right before Congressional election season...). Because very few politicians want to give an opening to challengers to their seats to put out an ad saying they voted against "protecting the children" last time around the law was quickly approved by the House by a massive 410 to 15 vote, at which point it moved on to the Senate to die (not having all Senators up for re-election at the same time has its benefits). Of the 15 dissenters to the original bill, Rep. John Dingell was the one who said what needed to be said (and which so few other Reps were willing to say):

"So now we are on the floor with a piece of legislation poorly thought out, with an abundance of surprises, which carries with it that curious smell of partisanship and panic, but which is not going to address the problems. This is a piece of legislation which is going to be notorious for its ineffectiveness and, of course, for its political benefits to some of the members hereabout."

Yes, the law would effectively ban a ton of internet sites from schools and libraries, including ones like LinkedIn, Slashdot and Amazon.com, based on its overly broad language. On top of all that, study after study after study has shown that social networks and virtual worlds (despite the FUD) are not "breeding grounds" for predators. And, of course, parents are finally coming to terms with this and are no longer freaking out about kids using these sites. So, explain why we need such unnecessary and overly broad legislation again? Oh right, it's election season...

Filed Under: congress, dopa, mark kirk, protect the children, schools, second life, social networks

Can Someone Explain Why The White House Should Be Playing The Role Of Copyright Cop?

from the thanks-congress dept

This isn't exactly a surprise, but the PRO IP bill, which is actually quite anti-IP, has been approved by the House Judiciary Committee. This is the bill that would create a "piracy czar" with a new department reporting to the White House, whose sole job it is to crack down on piracy. Basically, it's turning the White House into the entertainment industry's private police force, allowing them to prop up an obsolete business model. This is extremely problematic. There's increasing evidence that piracy is not the real problem the industry is facing. The artists who are embracing file sharing and adopting new business models are finding that there are business models that work, that help to better promote and distribute content, while creating new avenues for making money. This is something that the market is working out on its own. Creating a special anti-piracy group within the White House is simply an anti-competitive move by an industry that doesn't want to update its obsolete business model. Yet, through misleading lobbying efforts, politicians have been convinced that this business model needs to be propped up. Why the White House should be forced to involve itself in a commercial dispute that is working itself out is beyond me. Even more to the point, why should the White House be setting up a special group just for this really narrowly focused "issue" when there are so many more pressing problems in this country?

Filed Under: congress, copyright, copyright czar, pro ip, white house

Bill Would Make Tech Companies Liable For Helping Censor The Internet In Other Countries

from the what-about-censoring-in-the-US? dept

A US Congressional Representative has introduced a new bill that would make it illegal for US tech companies to assist any foreign country in attempting to censor the internet or in handing over data on users to the government except for "legitimate foreign law enforcement purposes." This is targeted at companies such as Cisco, which has supplied some of the technology used in the Great Firewall of China, as well as Yahoo! which got into some hot water for supposedly handing over information to Chinese authorities on some critics of the Chinese government.

While the goal is certainly admirable, the implementation is troublesome. First, it's putting liability on tech companies for something they may not have much knowledge about (how countries are going to use the tech or whether the info is needed for "legitimate foreign law enforcement purposes."). Furthermore, where this is really hypocritical is that the law apparently does not apply to the US as well. While certainly not as bad as some other nations, the US has certainly requested data for questionable reasons, and has also been seen trying to censor parts of the internet at times. While I'm certainly not equating the efforts of US politicians to filter the internet with massive operations such as those seen in China, implementing this type of legislation does seem a bit hypocritical.

Filed Under: censorship, congress, liability

As Expected, Republicans Push To Get Telcos Off The Hook For Illegal Activities

from the who-woulda-thunk-it dept

Back in February, we broke the story that some Republican Congressional Representatives were looking to circulate a discharge petition to force a vote on the FISA bill that would grant telcos retroactive immunity for any illegal activity having to do with wiretap activities. And, in fact, that's exactly what happened. Earlier this week, a group of Republicans started circulating just such a petition. This is an extremely rare move. A discharge petition hasn't been used successfully since 2002. However, the reasoning behind the supporters of this discharge petition is highly suspect and deserves to be examined. Rep. Roy Blunt stated:

"More than 66 days have passed since House Democrats allowed a key piece of terrorist surveillance legislation to expire--not because they had concerns with the bill, but because they were seemingly more concerned that not enough trial lawyers would be able to file enough expensive and frivolous lawsuits against U.S. telecom firms."

That's both incorrect and misleading at the same time. First of all, there were concerns with the bill: the concerns about giving telcos immunity for potentially illegal activities. As we've pointed out, there are really only three potential reasons for wanting immunity, and they certainly have nothing to do with filing frivolous lawsuits. If this was about frivolous lawsuits, immunity wouldn't be needed -- because the cases would get thrown out. The only real reason to push for immunity is because it's known that the telcos and/or the administration acted illegally. In such a case, immunity obviously shouldn't be allowed. No one has yet given a decent reason for immunity, and the statement here to back up the discharge petition is incredibly disingenuous. Hopefully, a majority of Congressional representatives will realize that and reject the petition.

Filed Under: congress, immunity, telcos, wiretapping

FBI Wants More Power To Monitor Internet Activity

from the because-they're-so-trustworthy dept

The FBI, which still can't even get its own computer network working properly, would rather just have more widespread access to spy on the computer network everyone else uses: the internet. Talking to Congress today, the FBI proposed a few different things, including the right to more widely spy on internet activity as well as legislation to force ISPs to retain log file data for an extended period of time. While the Congressional reps in attendance seemed to respond by saying "sure, sounds great" to both of these suggestion, both should actually be looked at much more closely.

More freedom to spy on internet usage potentially violates the 4th Amendment as well as federal wiretap laws. Given the evidence that the FBI has widely abused its ability to wiretap, this should be a major concern. As for data retention, problems with such an idea have been chronicled for years. It tends to put a tremendous expense on ISPs for no real reason -- and it tends to make it even harder to find the type of data authorities actually need to deal with criminal activities. If you're in the FBI, it's no surprise that you'd want both things in place, but that hardly means Congress should roll over and give them to the FBI.

Filed Under: congress, data retention, fbi, internet, monitoring, wiretap
Companies: congress, fbi

Congress Won't Fund Paper Backups For E-Voting Machines

from the we-broke-it...-but-don't-expect-us-to-pay-you-to-fix-it dept

It was Congress that first mandated that polling places needed to start using e-voting machines a few years back, which has led to the ridiculously long trail of stories concerning buggy machines with questionable results and no way to go back and check to see how accurate the results are. It appears that politicians have finally been realizing that the lack of a paper trail (even if just to confirm the results) is problematic. So they're pushing states to make sure they use e-voting machines that also include a paper trail. But, when it comes to paying to make those changes, the states are apparently on their own. Congress has rejected a plan to fund the states in making sure a paper backup was available. Why? Well, as Rep. Vernon Ehlers says: "I think there are other methods of achieving redundancy" though he conveniently leaves those out. He then notes: "hand counting is not as accurate as almost any machine counting that I have seen." It's true that hand counting has its problems too. No one denies that. But the point isn't that hand counting is perfect, but that there's a way to go back and compare the results to make sure they're correct and accurate. Without that in place, we're simply relying on the machines to work perfectly, and we know that doesn't work.

Filed Under: congress, e-voting, paper trail

Politicians Want To Ban Already Banned Mobile Phone Use While Flying

from the department-of-redundant-redundancies dept

Politicians just love to grandstand in the hopes of getting some publicity for their next election campaign -- and that includes passing laws against things that are already illegal. The latest is that some politicians are looking to pass a law banning the use of mobile phones while flying in an airplane. As you probably know, such things are already banned by rules from both the FAA and the FCC. And, while there's some effort underway to lift such bans, the two government agencies have suggested they have no plans to modify theirs. But, that won't stop Congress from stepping up to tell people it's protecting them from chatty flightmates. It even came up with a cute name for the law: the Halting Airplane Noise to Give Us Peace (HANG UP) Act. Honestly, if politicians spent a little less time coming up with catchy acronyms for unnecessary laws, they might actually do something useful.

But, more to the point, even without the FCC/FAA ban, it's not at all clear why this is needed. Yes, there are many, many people who have made it clear that they don't want to sit next to a chatty person on a mobile phone while stuck in a tin can hurtling through the skies. But can't people vote with their wallets on that? If it's something that really upsets people, then that's an opportunity for an airline to declare mobile phones off-limits, or to create "quiet sections" where mobile phones can't be used. There's no reason for the government to get involved at all. Besides, it's still unclear how they're going to ban "voice" calls once they allow internet data to flow on-board. After all, on the internet, voice is just another form of data.

Filed Under: bans, congress, politics, talking while flying