Why Are People Celebrating Al Franken's Incomprehensible Speech About The Internet?

from the it-makes-no-sense dept

Note: I wrote this post last night, before the news broke this morning that Franken is yet another powerful man sexually abusing women. That story is horrific and gross and Franken deserves all the shit (and more) that he's getting for it. This story is not about that, but about a speech he gave last week. I'm guessing that (quite reasonably) more people will be focused on those revelations rather than this dumb speech, but I wanted to at least explain why the speech was dumb too.

Last week, Karl wrote a post about Senator Al Franken's keynote speech at the Open Markets Institute -- a group that has been getting plenty of attention of late for arguing that big tech companies are too big and too powerful. Karl's post focused on Franken's weird argument that "net neutrality" should apply to edge companies like Google and Facebook, which made no sense. But what's more troubling to me is that Franken's whole speech was bordering on incomprehensible. This is disappointing, as I tend to think that Franken is pretty thoughtful and careful as a Senator (even when I disagree with him at a policy level -- such as with his support of PIPA).

The speech seems to basically be Franken throwing off random quips that attack just how big internet companies are, which is certainly red meat for the Open Markets crowd. And I don't deny that there are some very serious questions to be asked about the size and power of companies like Google, Facebook, Amazon and the like... but Franken's speech was not that. But because it has a few quotable lines and is attacking everyone's favorite punching bags, it's being hailed by sites like Wired as "the speech big tech has been dreading." If this is the speech that big tech has been dreading, they've been worrying about nothing.

Much of Franken's speech can be summarized as listing off the general complaints lots of people have about Google, Facebook and Twitter. Specifically: these sites are big, they may have too much power, they track too much info and bad people abuse the sites. All of those things may actually be true -- but such arguments should be presented with actual evidence and some idea of what to do about it. Franken, on the other hand, gives a bunch of points that don't hold together and repeatedly contradict his own statements within this very speech. He careens back and forth wildly from "these sites should stop bad stuff" to "how dare these sites think they can decide what's good and what's bad online." Over and over again -- with an interlude at one point that's all about "how dare these sites not prop up my friends in Hollywood." People who hate Google and Facebook have been cheering on this speech, but it doesn't do them any favors either, because the thread of the speech is non-existent. There's no coherent message that comes out of it, other than that Franken has no clue what he's talking about here, but wanted to please the Google and Facebook haters, and so he tossed out every cliche he could think of, even when they were self-contradictory.

Let's go through the speech bit by bit:

As lawmakers grapple with the revelations regarding Russia’s manipulation of social media during the 2016 election, many are shocked to learn the outsized role that the major tech companies play in so many aspects of our lives. Not only do they guide what we see, read, and buy on a regular basis, but their dominance – specifically in the market of information – now requires that we consider their role in the integrity of our democracy.

This is actually a good start. The events of the last year should have people wondering about how these platforms can impact democracy. I think lots of people are asking that question. But it quickly goes off the rails...

Last week’s hearings demonstrated that these companies may not be up to the challenge that they’ve created for themselves. In some instances, it seems that they’ve failed to take commonsense precautions to prevent the spread of propaganda, misinformation, and hate speech.

What "challenge" have they "created for themselves"? The platforms he's talking about have focused on increasing communications among anyone -- and sometimes those communications are not good. And that's a concern, but is it the responsibility of the tools to determine which speech is good and bad? Even more to the point -- do we want internet platforms to be the ones saying that "propaganda, misinformation and hate speech" (with no clear definitions) are not allowed? That would create all sorts of problems worse than the supposed "challenge" Franken is so worried about. Also, making the platforms somehow responsible is a ridiculous idea, as it only gives them much more power -- and, as he notes in his opening paragraph, he's already upset about how dominant they are.

So even just in the first two paragraphs he's contradicted himself. They have too much power, and he's shocked that they don't use that power to silence perfectly legal speech that he doesn't like. And this is leaving aside the idea that if Facebook, Google, Twitter and such suddenly announced that they weren't allowing "propaganda or misinformation" online people would be up in arms as they took down lots of perfectly legal speech that people supported. Almost all political content is propaganda or misinformation of some kind or another. Hell, one could argue that this speech is full of misinformation. And now Franken is saying that these platforms should be forced to "prevent" such speech?

Senator John Kennedy, a Republican from Louisiana, asked Google, Facebook, and Twitter some really tough questions in a judiciary committee hearing, and he captured my takeaway from recent events perfectly: the power of these companies “sometimes scares me”.

So, now we're back to them being too powerful. Paragraph 1: too powerful. Paragraph 2: why don't they use their power to censor more? Paragraph 3: they have so much power it scares me.

The platforms that big tech has designed may now be so large and unruly that we can’t trust the companies to get it right when they do start paying attention. If you have five million advertisers a month using your highly sophisticated, nearly instantaneous ad platform, can you ever really know who all of them are? Can you ever catch all the signals that would seem obvious to a pair of human eyes – for example, political ads that are paid for in rubles?

And, boom, we're right back to these platforms not actually exercising their power. And then getting confused about what's really a key point in all of this. It's true that you can't really know who all the users of these platforms are. And that's part of the reason why these sites are so useful. The fact that anyone can go and buy ads on Facebook is actually a wonderful thing for most businesses that use the platform. It has taken away the traditional gatekeepers, who made advertising difficult, expensive and poorly targeted. Now, there are other issues with the targeting of ads, related to privacy questions or just the general "creepy" factor, but complaining that these platforms can't "know" all the details of all their customers kind of misses the point about why these platforms are so useful.

Before I move on, I want to be very clear about something. In my view, the size of these companies is not – in isolation – the problem. But I am extremely concerned about these platforms’ use of Americans’ personal information to further solidify their market power and consequently extract unfair conditions from the content creators and innovators that rely on their platforms to reach consumers.

So... now it's not the size that's the problem, but the power to use that size to be unfair to "content creators and innovators that rely on their platforms to reach consumers." Okay, but you just complained in the previous paragraph that it's a problem that these sites don't "know" all of their customers, suggesting that they should be much more restrictive. But this paragraph suggests you think they're too restrictive and people who use the platform to reach "consumers" should have more ability to do so. WHICH ONE IS IT, AL?

And as has become alarmingly clear in recent months, these companies have unprecedented power to guide Americans’ access to information and potentially shape the future of journalism. It should go without saying that such power comes with great responsibility.

Yes, this is a concern, but you keep going back and forth on why it's a concern. Is it a concern because the companies aren't blocking propaganda and misinformation? Or is it a concern because they're not letting enough information through to end users?

As the founder and top Democrat on the judiciary subcommittee on privacy, technology, and the law, I’ve watched as the tech community’s collection and treatment of users’ personal information has evolved over the years. In the past, I’ve raised concerns about Facebook’s use of facial recognition technology, and I’ve pressed Google on its unauthorized collection of K-12 student data.

While I appreciate that these companies have taken steps to improve transparency of their use of Americans’ personal information in recent years, unfortunately, accumulating massive troves of information isn’t just a side project for them; it’s their whole business model. We are not their customers; we are their product.

I've already explained why I find the expression "if you're not paying, you're the product" to be a silly and meaingless statement, but there is certainly a legitimate concern about how much information these companies have and what they do with that information. Franken won't get an argument from me on that point, but given how his speech keeps swinging back and forth, it's hard to see where he's going with this.

Facebook and Google’s vast collection of our personal information has fueled their advertising business, which has now become their main source of revenue and given the companies a strong duopoly in the digital advertising market. Facebook announced that it made $9.3bn in the second quarter this year, with 98% of that coming from its advertising business.

Google made $26bn, with 87% coming from advertising. Once these companies establish dominance over our data, they can more easily erect barriers to entry for potential competitors – in the digital advertising market as well as the other markets in which they operate. Ultimately, they have even less incentive to respect our privacy going forward or more closely monitor their advertising tools for use by bad actors.

Again, this may be a legitimate concern. The two companies are behemoths in the online advertising space, and it certainly could be bad if they then leveraged that position to stamp out competition. That's something that I think is absolutely worth paying attention to and using antitrust law to prevent. But... Franken tries to tie this to a failure to "closely monitor their advertising tools for use by bad actors."

And that takes us back to the basic confusion about what Franken is concerned about here. Is it that they have too much power to silence people... or that they have no incentive anymore to silence people? Because those two things seem to be in direct conflict, and Franken seems to be arguing them both simultaneously (even going back and forth on them as if they're the same thing).

About the only way this makes sense is if Franken is really arguing that Google and Facebook should be legally required to show people "more good stuff" and legally required to show us "less bad stuff" but without giving any actual definition of "good stuff" or "bad stuff." And perhaps this is why some people are cheering on the speech. Who doesn't want more good stuff and less bad stuff? But by assuming that (1) it's easy to tell the good stuff from the bad stuff and (2) that everyone will agree to what's good and what's bad and (3) giving that much power over truth to a few private companies won't backfire... is bizarre.

You may not like that Facebook uses your likes, shares, and comments to decide for you which advertisements or friends’ posts are most relevant for your News Feed. And you may not like that Google can now deliver ads to you by combining its DoubleClick data on your web-browsing behavior with your personally identifiable information that it gathered through your Gmail account. But are you ever going to delete the profile and connections you’ve spent years establishing on the world’s dominant social network? Or get rid of your Gmail account?

Again, this is a valid concern, but seems contradictory to his alternating point about wanting these platforms to do more to stop "bad" stuff from happening on their platforms. To do that, wouldn't they need access to information like this?

The information that these companies collect can also be a very dangerous weapon if it falls into the wrong hands. ProPublica recently revealed that up until two months ago, Facebook allowed advertisers using the company’s self-service ad-buying platform to target more than 2,000 people who expressed interest in the topic of quote “Jew hater” and other antisemitic themes.

While these categories were apparently automatically generated by an algorithm based on users’ self-reported interests, it is Facebook’s responsibility to monitor such tools and ensure that it isn’t facilitating or – worse – making a profit on such hateful activity. Facebook ultimately removed the categories from the ad platform, but only after reporters notified the company about it.

And... we're right back to demanding that Facebook spy on people even more. What the fuck, Senator Franken? In one breath you say that Facebook is tracking too much information and in the next you complain that it's not tracking enough information to stop anti-Semites. Which is it?

Algorithms seem to be a convenient excuse. Facebook has cited its algorithms for creating hateful advertising categories and failing to catch a hostile foreign power using its platform to spread lies and sow discord. Google has previously said that its algorithms necessarily include websites dedicated to illegal activity in search results, such as pirate sites, even as in other instances it maintains that its results do reflect Google’s judgment.

Okay. So here we have Senator Franken complaining that Facebook and Google are not discriminating and blocking certain content, so stay tuned, because this will seem mighty silly in a few more paragraphs.

And at the same time, Facebook, Google, and Amazon have used their algorithms to extract unfair terms and fees from those dependent on its platform, promote their own products and services above those of competing companies, and even manipulate the emotional state of its users.

I'm curious what unfair fees he's talking about. He doesn't elaborate. But again, the message here is so muddied. He's concerned these sites have too much power, at the same time he's upset that they don't get more aggressive in abusing that power.

In 2014, Facebook published its findings from an experiment in which it altered its News Feed algorithm for a segment of its users – unbeknownst to them, of course – and filtered posts based on their emotional content. As orchestrated by the altered algorithm, some users saw predominantly positive content while others saw mostly negative content. Unsurprisingly, the big takeaway was that Facebook has the power to influence our psychological state.

That’s scary.

Yes. It is. So why, just paragraphs earlier, were you demanding that Facebook actively modify their feeds to show less bad stuff and promote more good stuff? Weren't you demanding the exact thing you now claim is "scary"?

So on the one hand, the troves of user data and automated algorithms make these companies appear almost clumsy. But on the other, they’re a sophisticated strategic tool used to maintain and strengthen their own power. As Americans have lost meaningful control over their personal information, the content creators that rely on platforms to reach consumers have lost all of their leverage.

He keeps throwing in these weird little digs about "content creators" which seems like a dog whistle on copyright issues. But this makes no sense. Most content creators pre-internet had no leverage at all. Most content creators were drummed out of the business if they had no deal with a giant gatekeeper -- record label, movie studio, book publisher -- who had all the leverage and demanded not just your copyright, but 85% of your earnings. These new platforms have opened up the ability for all those people who couldn't even get past the gatekeepers to start making money online, and other services like Kickstarter and Patreon have opened up ways for them to have tremendous leverage by going direct to their fans. What's that have to do with the fact that Facebook is big? I haven't the slightest idea. But, I will say that tons of people who make money online these days from their creations have these platforms to thank for being able to build up such a large audience to support them.

I understand what it means to dedicate your life to writing, creating, and praying that someone somewhere will eventually get to appreciate your work.

In more ways than not, the internet, along with all the companies we’re discussing here today, has made it possible for every American – no matter their corner of the country – to express themselves to their friends – and to people all over the world.

Okay, so now we're saying that these platforms have been amazingly beneficial right after saying they've wiped out all leverage. Hmm.

But as the wealth of information available on the internet has grown, big tech has taken it upon itself to sort through all the viewpoints, news, and entertainment, and decide for us what we should read, watch, buy, or even how we should engage in civil society.

What the hell, Al? You keep going back and forth. First you want them to delete bad stuff online, and now you're back again complaining when they do exactly what you were asking a few paragraphs ago?

As far as I can tell, Al Franken's big complaint here is "why do Facebook and Google sometimes show stuff that I, Al Franken, dislike, and why doesn't it do more to promote the content that I, Al Franken, really like?" That's the only way in which this speech makes any sense at all.

And they’re doing it all under the shadow of complicated algorithms that make little sense to either the content creators whose livelihood depends on them or the users whose everyday decisions they’re controlling.

Hmm. Did the decision-making that Universal Music used to fuck over musicians decades ago make any sense to musicians back then? No, it didn't. And, back then, musicians were fucked if a giant label like that did them wrong. Today, artists can strike out on their own, build fan bases on their own and use a variety of services to make it work. Not everyone will succeed, but any content creator relying on Facebook or Google to be a success these days made a bad decision. A US Senator should not be telling companies that they have to make certain content creators succeed. That's scary.

It doesn’t require an antitrust lawyer to understand that these companies’ dominance in the market of information gives them tremendous power to dictate terms with journalists, publishers, and authors and to control the information available to consumers.

Once again, I don't know what point Franken is making. The companies are bad because they have the power to censor content and the companies are bad because they don't censor content. Which is it?

As it stands now, Google and Facebook control 75% of all internet news traffic referrals, meaning that three out of four times an internet user accesses a news story online, they get there via Google or Facebook. The numbers are even more alarming by topic. According to Parsely analytics, almost 60% of “US Presidential Politics” traffic comes through Facebook, nearly 25% comes through Google, and less than 16% comes through other sources.

With this unprecedented power, platforms have both the incentive and the ability to redirect into their own pockets the advertising dollars that once fueled the newspaper business. And news publishers fighting for eyes are forced to navigate Facebook and Google’s optimization policies, which have previously prevented news organizations from using paywalls or offering subscription services and have driven journalists to write stories that they know will be promoted in Google Search, on News Feeds, and in the “trending” section of Facebook.

This is a concern. But it's because news publications fucked up. They got sucked into this. Some of us (like, literally, us), focused on creating good content and building up a solid audience who would return directly. Some of us (like, literally, us) chose not to play the games of SEO and social media tricks, because that's a waste of time and get you sucked into this vortex. Yes, some news orgs went the other direction and that was dumb of them. But is Franken really arguing that we should prop up news organizations that made a dumb decision and handed more power over to Google and Facebook?

While I appreciate the companies’ recent efforts to ensure that publishers and journalists are more adequately compensated, the end result may be the same: journalism for the masses and the never-ending search for the next viral story.

Wait. So... now the complaint is one about human nature?

In his book World Without Mind, Franklin Foer describes newsrooms’ reliance on Chartbeat – a site that allows them to track in real time the readership of each and every article, which of course fuels advertising, and ultimately puts pressure on journalists and editors to create the most click-worthy story.

To quote Foer: “The site’s needle made us feel as if our magazine were a car, showing us either sputtering up the hill of a poor traffic day or cruising to a satisfying number.” During the 2016 election, then presidential candidate Donald Trump, with his truly unpredictable outbursts on Twitter, was the perfect focus for newsrooms seeking as much traffic as possible.

Again, it was always dumb for news orgs to focus on clicks rather than building up a loyal audience. We use Chartbeat here, but I'm the only one who looks at it and none of our writers get to see it because we've never wanted our writers to focus on clicks or traffic. We want them writing great stories so that all of you keep coming back. A flash in the pan from some other site sending traffic is nice, and maybe a few people stick around, but that's not a strategy. That's chasing the wind. Lots of news publishers made mistakes, but why should that be Franken's concern? And why would he blame Google and Facebook for it?

Tragically, the need to find the next viral story may soon hit the book-selling business as well.

In 2007, Amazon revolutionized reading when it unveiled the Kindle. With the introduction of the e-reader, Americans could instantly access almost any book they desired – from the comfort of their home and at an all-time low price.

It is widely reported that Amazon strategically set their prices below cost in an effort to capture the market. Indeed, for years, American consumers benefited from the company’s ultra-low prices and slowly shifted their business away from brick-and-mortar stores and other online retailers. Currently, Amazon controls over 83% of e-book sales, nearly 90% of online print sales, and almost 99% of digital audio sales.

Amazon has since used its unprecedented monopsony power to force publishers to agree to contract terms and conditions that the publishers say have stalled price competition among book distributors, ultimately resulting in higher e-book prices for consumers.

How do you set ebook prices "below cost"? The "cost" of another copy is zero. Amazon's original ebook pricing was a $9.99 flat rate for every book. It was only after Apple colluded with other publishers to change that pricing and push for higher prices that Amazon was pressured (not the other way...) into variable pricing. This is a bizarre rewriting of history by Franken.

Amazon has also used its power to demand additional payments for critical items like warehousing and inclusion in its personalized user recommendations – an algorithm that I’m sure most users assume is based purely on their personal preferences. And now that Amazon is a publisher itself, it has every incentive and ability to promote its own books over those of others in user recommendations, price promotions, and bestseller lists.

Reasonable point. But is it happening? If it is, that's worth exploring. Just saying it has the incentive to do so is meaningless if there's no evidence of this abuse of power.

As a recent article by Lina Khan so neatly lays out, in many ways, Amazon’s evolution in the book business is the perfect illustration of how an entity can use anticompetitive tactics to not only capture a market, but also maintain it, and ultimately use its platform to enter and dominate entirely new markets. Like diapers.

And as we’ve seen in the book business, once Amazon captures a market, it then has the ability to eliminate competition on consumer prices. So while Amazon’s prices on any given item may be low for now, it’s only a matter of time before the company starts squeezing consumers. Like we’ve seen with diapers.

If Amazon provides a better diaper buying experience than others, what's the problem, exactly? Yes, Amazon is big, but if it really starts abusing that position, doesn't that seem like an opening for others to jump in? I mean, diapers are an odd example, since Amazon did, in fact, buy Diapers.com because it was an upstart that did a damn good job of competing with Amazon. And then after Amazon bought the site, Diapers.com's founder went off and founded a new site that also competes with Amazon.

Unsurprisingly, as a result of Amazon’s tactics in the book business, publishers say they’re selling fewer books than they otherwise would.

Who exactly determines what "they otherwise would" here? Because that phrase is doing a lot of work for a claim made with no basis at all.

And they fear the day that they’ll be unable to invest in new authors or less popular genres, instead focusing all of their diminishing resources on the “blockbusters” of the book business. These are the some of the long-term effects that I find truly disturbing.

This is the same bullshit line that the music and movie industries have given for decades. And it's always turned out to be wrong. It's based on what the giant gatekeepers (record labels, movie studios, book publishers) are saying, ignoring that the internet has enabled tons of musicians, filmmakers and authors to create, distribute, promote and monetize. The idea that there will suddenly be less investment in books is ludicrous if you look at how many books are being published today vs. two decades ago. And much of that is because of Amazon and the ability for people to avoid the publishers altogether.

Now, I have spent much of my time in the Senate advocating for strong net neutrality rules to preserve the longstanding principle that all lawful content on the internet should receive equal treatment from internet service providers regardless of who owns the content or how much money he or she has in the bank.

And in 2015, millions of American consumers and businesses celebrated the FCC’s landmark vote to preserve a free and open internet under Title II of the Communications Act. Ensuring those strong rules are maintained – and enforced – remains my top priority.

As tech giants become a new kind of internet gatekeeper, I believe the same basic principles of net neutrality should apply here: no one company should have the power to pick and choose which content reaches consumers and which doesn’t. And Facebook, Google, and Amazon – like ISPs – should be “neutral” in their treatment of the flow of lawful information and commerce on their platforms.

And yet in this screed you keep insisting that Google and Facebook need to block bad content. And now you're back to saying they should be neutral. Do you even realize how directly in conflict your own speech is with your own speech?

Following years of hard work and dedication, we found in the Open Internet Order a strong and time-tested framework to protect net neutrality. While we fight to preserve the Order, we must now begin a thorough examination of big tech’s practices in order to secure the free flow of information on the internet.

The free flow of information on the internet is incredibly important. I've been fighting it for probably longer than Franken knew the internet existed. But that's not what Franken is saying here. In this speech, he's arguing for the exact opposite of what he thinks he's arguing for.

Everyone is rightfully focused on Russian manipulation of social media, but as lawmakers, it is incumbent upon us to ask the broader questions. How did big tech come to control so many aspects of our lives? How is it using our personal information to strengthen its reach and its bottom line? Are these companies engaging in anticompetitive behavior that restricts the free flow of information and commerce? Are they failing to take simple precautions to respect our privacy and protect our democracy? And finally, what role should these companies play in our lives, and how do we ensure transparency and accountability from them going forward?

This I agree with. These are all good questions. But, you can't dig into these issues if you don't actually have a clue about what's going on, and the rest of Franken's speech suggests he has no clue. And that's unfortunate.

We need to talk about data in digital advertising and how it influences competition and encourages a disregard for Americans’ privacy. We need to better understand how past deals – Google’s purchases of DoubleClick and Waze or Facebook’s acquisitions of WhatsApp and Instagram, for example – have impacted consumers’ privacy and big tech’s ability to establish barriers to entry for emerging rivals.

And finally, we desperately need to conduct vigorous oversight – in the form of investigations and hearings – to fully understand current practices and the potential for harm. We must work together to make this happen.

Sure. We should talk about these things. I have my concerns about those acquisitions as well, but again, Franken's speech is all over the place. There's no consistent message at all. It's just "how dare the platforms not take more responsibility in blocking content... but also how dare they block any content?" Also, "how dare they become so useful that people use them... and how dare they not prop up news organizations that didn't innovate?" It's "how dare these platforms become successful for content creators... but also how dare they not magically make all content creators successful?"

I'm sure that the haters of the internet have lapped this talk up and are all excited about it. I've seen tweets from people cheering it on, because it slams Google and Facebook and Amazon. And there are reasons to be worried about all of those companies. But this speech makes no sense at all. As a thought experiment: if you worked at one of those companies and sincerely wanted to change things to make Senator Franken happy after hearing this speech, what would you do? You should not block or favor any content, but you should not allow misinformation or propaganda. How do you do both of those things? Perhaps Senator Franken can explain.

Filed Under: al franken, antitrust, big companies, content regulation, hipster anti-trust, monopoly, net neutrality, privacy, regulation
Companies: amazon, facebook, google, twitter

Dear Al Franken: Net Neutrality Is Not A Magic Wand You Can Wave At Any Company

from the apples-and-oranges dept

By now, most Techdirt readers are well aware that net neutrality violations are just a symptom of the lack of competition specifically in the broadband industry. If we had lawmakers that were genuinely interested in policies that improve competition, we wouldn't need net neutrality rules protecting consumers from often-unchecked duopoly power. In the absence of said competition -- or lawmakers willing to stand up to AT&T, Verizon and Comcast -- the FCC's current net neutrality rules, however imperfect, are the next best thing.

And to be clear, net neutrality is something specific to the uncompetitive telecom industry. Yet we've watched for years as people have tried to take the concept and apply it to other, competitive sectors. AT&T, for example, has tried to foist regulations on Google by insisting the company violates "search neutrality." Other folks, like Blackberry CEO John Chen, have similarly tried to push regulation on Google and Apple by trying to insist we need protections for "app neutrality." Usually, these folks are only interested in saddling their own competitors with additional regulation, not actually improving the internet.

These folks consistently ignore the fact that this is an apples to oranges comparison. You don't need search or app store neutrality rules because those markets are actually competitive. While there are certainly some exceptions, users offended by Google or Apple's app store policies, privacy practices, or search engine behaviors have the choice of using a myriad of other services. The same can't be said of the broadband industry, where 75% of the public technically only has one choice for broadband (as defined by the FCC at 25 Mbps). These problems aren't directly comparable.

And while Al Franken has been a welcome and outspoken defender of net neutrality, he too fell into this trap this week during a speech given at the Open Markets Institute, a think tank devoted to fighting monopoly power. While engaged in a well-intentioned rant warning of the perils of unchecked social media power at the likes of Facebook, Franken conflated net neutrality with, well, something else entirely:

As tech giants become a new kind of internet gatekeeper, I believe the same basic principles of net neutrality should apply here: no one company should have the power to pick and choose which content reaches consumers and which doesn’t. And Facebook, Google, and Amazon – like ISPs – should be “neutral” in their treatment of the flow of lawful information and commerce on their platforms.

Following years of hard work and dedication, we found in the Open Internet Order a strong and time-tested framework to protect net neutrality. While we fight to preserve the Order, we must now begin a thorough examination of big tech’s practices in order to secure the free flow of information on the internet.

Again though, net neutrality isn't this universal concept you can just pick up and apply to other markets to try and make a point. And conflating the uncompetitive duopoly shitshow that is the telecom market with more competitive social media markets just doesn't work. Users can and should choose to not visit Facebook if they find the company's ethics troubling. You can use Duck Duck Go if you're understandably wary about Google's schnoz up in your business. There are options. There is competition in these markets.

Net neutrality is about ensuring duopolists can't interfere in the free flow of information. What Franken's proposing here is the advocation of interference, and urging government to dictate "search neutrality" or "website neutrality" could prove to be a muddy free speech rabbit hole, as Wired was quick to point out:

As with much of the backlash against big tech, Franken’s suggestions contain their own contradictions. Applying net neutrality rules to Google or Facebook, for example, could make them obligated to distribute content from political extremists and even foreign propaganda under some circumstances. Unfortunately for Silicon Valley, lack of solutions never stopped a congressional hearing.

Again, it's fine to want to pressure Facebook, Twitter, and Google to better handle disinformation and propaganda (though it's hard to "legislate away" a problem we don't fully understand yet). It's also perfectly reasonable to be concerned about the growing power these companies hold, particularly as it pertains to privacy. But these are very complicated and very different problems that require different solutions and different conversations. Conflating net neutrality here only aids companies like AT&T, which have long wanted to distort the concept of net neutrality to heavily regulate their Silicon Valley nemeses to ill effect.

We went down said rabbit hole once with the fairness doctrine, believing government was competent and incorruptible enough to be trusted to dictate "acceptable" speech. It would be a shame if we used the entirely different fight for net neutrality to justify making that mistake again.

Filed Under: al franken, net neutrality, platform neutrality, search neutrality
Companies: amazon, facebook, google

Senate Rejects All CISA Amendments Designed To Protect Privacy, Reiterating That It's A Surveillance Bill

from the the-exclamation-point dept

In case you weren't already convinced that CISA is a surveillance bill masquerading as a cybersecurity bill, today the Senate rejected four separate amendments to the bill that attempted to better protect the privacy of Americans. Senator Wyden had an amendment to require the removal of personal information before information could be shared, which was voted down 55 to 41. Senator Heller had an amendment that was basically a backstop against the Wyden amendment, saying that if the Wyden amendment didn't pass, Homeland Security would be responsible for removing such personal information. That amendment also failed by a 49 to 47 vote. Senator Leahy had an amendment that would have removed FOIA exemptions in the bill (making it much less transparent how CISA was used). That amendment was voted down 59 to 37. Senator Franken then had an amendment that would have "tightened" the definition of cybersecurity threats, so that the shared information needed to be "reasonably likely" to cause damage, as opposed to the current "may" cause damage. And (you guess it, because you're good at this), it was also voted down by a 60 to 35 vote.

Meanwhile, Marcy Wheeler notes that the revised version of the bill by Senators Burr and Feinstein, which claimed to incorporate greater transparency requirements proposed by Senator Tester, actually takes away a lot of transparency and actually makes it more difficult for Congress to learn whether or not CISA is being used for domestic surveillance:

That Burr and DiFi watered down Tester’s measures so much makes two things clear. First, they don’t want to count some of the things that will be most important to count to see whether corporations and agencies are abusing this bill. They don’t want to count measures that will reveal if this bill does harm.

Most importantly, though, they want to keep this information from Congress. This information would almost certainly not show up to us in unclassified form, it would just be shared with some members of Congress (and on the House side, just be shared with the Intelligence Committee unless someone asks nicely for it).

But Richard Burr and Dianne Feinstein want to ensure that Congress doesn’t get that information. Which would suggest they know the information would reveal things Congress might not approve of.

Once again, these kinds of actions really only make sense if CISA is being used to justify warrantless domestic surveillance. Which once again raises the question of why Congress is willing to move forward with such a surveillance bill. We just went through a whole process showing that the public is not comfortable with secret laws and secret interpretations that lead to surveillance. Why would they immediately push for a new secret law that expands surveillance and reject any and all attempts at protecting the privacy of the American public or any sort of transparency and accountability in how the bill is used?

The bill is positioned as a cybersecurity bill, but good luck finding a single computer security expert who actually thinks the bill is either useful or necessary. I've been trying and so far I can't find any.

Filed Under: al franken, cisa, dean heller, dianne feinstein, pat leahy, privacy, richard burr, ron wyden, senate, surveillance, transparency

DailyDirt: Space-Based Telecommunications

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

The idea of space-based telecommunications seemed so promising in the 1980s, but the delivered services didn't quite live up to the dream of ubiquitous global communications. Al Franken's one-man satellite reporting didn't really address the latency issues associated with geosynchronous satellite orbits, but the future of satellite communications was still a bad joke. Perhaps after a few decades, we're ready for another try?

• Elon Musk's SpaceX intends to create a constellation of 4,000 small/cheap satellites to provide high speed internet all over the world. Billionaires have tried this concept before, but maybe this time, the economics of cheaper satellites and rocket systems will make it a more feasible venture. [url]
• Iridium is the usual example of a global satellite network that was supposed to provide an always-on telecom network anywhere in the world. Iridium Next is actually set to replace the original aging Iridium satellites -- launched from SpaceX rockets in the largest commercial launch contract ever signed in 2010. The original business wasn't exactly a success, and given some of the lackluster specs of the planned replacement satellites, the next revision might not be much better. [url]
• OneWeb is looking to build around 900 satellites to deliver internet connections all over the world. If all these plans actually pan out, it'll be a bit strange to see more competition in the satellite internet industry than in the terrestrial wireline internet business. [url]

After you've finished checking out those links, take a look at our Daily Deals for cool gadgets and other awesome stuff.

Filed Under: al franken, cubesats, elon musk, geosynchronous orbit, iridium next, isp, oneweb, satellites
Companies: iridium, oneweb, spacex

Now That Basically All Revenge Porn Has Moved Out Of The US, Al Franken Says FBI Should Do Something

from the a-little-late-to-the-party,-al dept

In the last few months, the small group of slimeballs who ran revenge porn websites have mostly been taken down by the legal system. The FTC went after Craig Brittain (though, weakly). Kevin Bollaert was convicted and sentenced to 18 years in jail. And Hunter Moore took a plea deal that will send him to jail for a while. Another revenge porn purveyor, Casey Meyering is about to face a trial. Not everyone will agree with whether or not the punishments are reasonable or fair (and you can definitely argue that the difference in punishment between Brittain and Bollaert is insane -- given that Brittain appears to have done the same thing as Bollaert, and actually did it first). On top of that, platforms like Twitter and Reddit have both changed their terms of service to make it much more difficult to use either to promote revenge porn.

However, the good thing is that all of this legal activity and platform policy changes have worked in terms of making it clear that revenge porn is not a worthwhile pursuit. According to Adam Steinbaugh, who is famous for tracking down and exposing the people who run revenge porn sites, all of this activity means that almost all revenge porn sites in the US have shut down. He believes there's still one left (which we won't name here), but we'll see how long that lasts.

And... even though various states have rushed to pass anti-revenge porn laws, none of the cases above relied on such laws. Rather they used existing laws around unauthorized computer hacking and extortion to bring those individuals and sites down. And yet, we still hear from politicians who insist that we need new laws -- laws that will put important safe harbors like Section 230 at risk. Laws that may, also, run up against the First Amendment.

Apparently, even as existing laws and voluntary efforts have thankfully pushed revenge porn far away, people still want to grandstand over it. The latest is Senator Al Franken. Franken is often good on tech policy issues (though he was on the wrong side of SOPA). For reasons unknown, he's suddenly decided that revenge porn is a big issue that he needs to take on.

In a letter to FBI Director James Comey on Friday, the Minnesota Democrat said he hoped the government would ramp up its recent steps to address the problem.

You can read the letter [pdf] yourself and see. The letter notes the conviction of Hunter Moore (but not the others) and the moves by Twitter and Reddit, but somehow fails to note that these efforts have been rather successful in reducing the easy access to revenge porn. Instead, he demands more action.

In light of this, I request that you provide information on all legal authorities available to the FBI to investigate cases involving the nonconsensual disclosure of sexually explicit images and any statistics on how your authorities, including federal hacking and identity theft laws, have been used to combat conduct of this nature. Furthermore, I ask that you provide information on any limitations in current law that you have identified that may have prevented the FBI from conducting investigations and making arrests in cases of nonsconsensual disclosure of sexually explicit images.

Of course, it doesn't take that much looking to recognize that the Justice Department has, in fact, spent a lot of time going after malicious hackers who have been breaking in to phones and computers to leak nude photos. But Franken seems to ignore all of that.

Instead, the language used in the letter suggests that Franken is going to release a federal anti-revenge porn law to give the feds even more power to go after people. There have been a few such attempts in the past to put forth federal anti-revenge porn laws and they've all been very, very problematic. This is not saying that revenge porn isn't a problem -- but the "solution" in the form of legislation will have massive and dangerous consequences for free speech and innovation online -- all to deal with a problem that has already mostly been eliminated, and where further steps can easily be taken without passing dangerous new laws that undermine Section 230 of the CDA or the First Amendment. Or which would create new penalties in dangerous ways that could be abused like the CFAA.

For Senator Franken -- who often presents himself as being one of the more internet savvy politicians -- to be moving in a direction that could undermine key rules that helped make the internet what it is today is a big problem. Over the last few months we've seen how existing laws and a few small changes to existing platforms can be used to make most of these bad sites go away. Do we really need to pass sweeping new laws that will undoubtedly have serious additional consequences?

Filed Under: al franken, do something, fbi, free speech, revenge porn, section 230

Nominee For Attorney General Tap Dances Around Senator Franken's Question About Aaron Swartz

from the fix-the-cfaa dept

We've discussed for years how broken the CFAA (Computer Fraud and Abuse Act) is. The law, which was written many years ago, is problematically vague in certain areas, allowing prosecutors to claim that merely breaking a terms of service you didn't read is a form of felony hacking -- as they define it as "unauthorized access." While there have been many egregious CFAA cases, one of the most high-profile, of course, was that of activist Aaron Swartz, who was arrested for downloading too many research papers from JSTOR from the computer network on the MIT campus. The MIT campus network gave anyone -- even guests -- full access to the JSTOR archives if you were on the university network. Swartz took advantage of that to download many files -- leading to his arrest, and a whole bunch of charges against him. After the arrest, the DOJ proudly talked about how Swartz faced 35 years in prison. Of course, if you bring that up now, the DOJ and its defenders get angry, saying he never really would have faced that much time in prison -- even though the number comes from the DOJ's (since removed) press release.

Swartz, of course, tragically took his own life in the midst of this legal battle, after facing tremendous pressure from the DOJ to take a plea deal as a felon, even as Swartz was sure he had done nothing illegal or wrong. Since then, there have been a few attempts to update the CFAA to block this kind of abuse, but they have been blocked at every turn by a DOJ that actually wants to make the law even worse. This includes the White House's latest proposal for CFAA reform, which would actually make more things a felony under the CFAA, and could drastically increase sentencing for things that many of us don't think should be a crime at all -- such as tweeting out a list of worst passwords on the internet.

Outgoing Attorney General Eric Holder has done his best to ignore or downplay any suggestion that his Justice Department abused the CFAA in going after Swartz. And it looks like his likely replacement is trying to do the same.

Senator Al Franken questioned nominee Loretta Lynch about Swartz and the CFAA and got back a response that is basically her avoiding the question. She doesn't say anything about Swartz, but goes off on some FUD about the dangers of malicious hackers and how the DOJ needs the tools to fight spyware. She then claims that the newly proposed CFAA changes are okay because they only increase the possible maximum sentences, but not the minimums, leaving things up to the discretion of judges (and prosecutors):

Question 1. The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) has received attention for its potentially harsh penalties. In 2013, I wrote a letter to the Department of Justice expressing my concern about the way in which Aaron Swartz was aggressively prosecuted under the CFAA, and associating myself with a similar letter by Senator Cornyn. The Department’s response was, in short, that the prosecution of Swartz was consistent with the Act. Since then we have heard many people – from all over the political spectrum – call for reform of the CFAA. Recently, the White House announced a proposal to amend the Act. Some have characterized the proposal as a step in the wrong direction, noting – for example – that it would increase certain sentences. What is your assessment of these criticisms, and what is your opinion of the proposal?

RESPONSE: I believe that the Department of Justice has a responsibility to protect Americans from invasions of their privacy and security by prosecuting and deterring computer crimes. Accordingly, we must ensure that the CFAA, like all of our tools, remains up-to-date and reflects the changes in the way that cybercrimes are committed, changes that have occurred in the decades since it was first enacted. For example, I understand that the Administration’s proposals include provisions designed to facilitate the prosecution of those who traffic in stolen American credit cards overseas, to enable the Department to dismantle botnets that victimize hundreds of thousands of computers at a time, and to deter the sale of criminal “spyware.”

With respect to the sentencing provisions contained in those proposals, I believe it is appropriate to ensure that, in the event a defendant is convicted of a hacking offense, the sentencing court has the authority to impose a sentence that fits the crime. For example, the enormous harm caused by the massive thefts of Americans’ personal financial data from retailers illustrates the need to ensure that the maximum sentences available are adequate to deter the worst offenders. As the level of harm caused by the worst cybercrimes increases, I support increasing the maximum penalties available to punish those crimes to a level commensurate with similar crimes, such as mail fraud or wire fraud.

It is also important to understand that these statutory maximum sentences do not control what sentence is appropriate for less significant offenses under the CFAA. In many criminal prosecutions, including prosecutions under the CFAA of all but the most serious offenses, the statutory maximum penalty has little or no impact on the sentencing of convicted defendants. Instead, in each case, prosecutors make individualized sentencing recommendations, and judges make individualized decisions, based on such factors as the facts of the case, the offender’s history, and the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines.

Finally, I note that the Administration’s 2015 proposal does not include any new mandatory minimum sentences, and I support the decision not to seek any such new sentences in the CFAA at this time.

This, of course, misses the point. First, it assumes that longer sentences are somehow going to do anything to diminish the likelihood of malicious attacks. It won't. This is such a total braindead law enforcement view of things: that if only there were greater punishment it would scare the "bad people" out of doing what they're going to do. That's never really worked, and especially not in this area, where the law is being abused to go after people who don't think they're actually doing anything wrong.

Second, it just plays up the FUD that "bad stuff is happening" so "something must be done." But it ignores how vague the law is and how it's wide open to abuse. A good law enforcement official would ask for clearer laws that more narrowly target actual bad behavior, rather than celebrating a broad and vague law that can be, and is, widely abused just to rack up more DOJ headlines and "victories."

Filed Under: aaron swartz, al franken, attorney general, cfaa, doj, loretta lynch

Members Of Congress Ask Eric Holder To Try Again In His Explanation Of The Prosecution Of Aaron Swartz

from the this-time,-with-some-reality-involved dept

Tomorrow is the anniversary of the unfortunate passing of Aaron Swartz. Senators John Cornyn and Al Franken, along with Rep. Darryl Issa, have now sent Attorney General Eric Holder yet another request for an explanation concerning the investigation and prosecution of Swartz. This follows on a similar request from last year, but these elected officials note both that the DOJ's response was inadequate, and that it was also contradicted by the eventual report on the prosecution that came out of MIT.

We regret that the information your Department has provided to date has not been satisfactory -- among other things, it painted a picture of prosecutors unwilling or unable to weigh what charges to pursue against a defendant, something which you have instructed federal prosecutors is "among [their] most fundamental duties."

The account also is inconsistent with findings in the report prepared by MIT about the prosecution of Mr. Swartz, dated July 26, 2013 ("MIT Report"). A letter provided by the Department in May states that "the charging and sentencing decisions made by Department. lawyers were properly based on the law and the facts of the case . . . and not on inappropriate considerations, such as Mr. Swartz's exercise of his legal rights as a citizen." The MIT Report indicates that Assistant U.S. Attorney Stephen Heymann considered other factors in advance of the return of the superseding indictment. He told MIT that "the straw that broke the camel's back" was an internet webpage soliciting signatures on Mr. Swartz's behalf by Demand Progress, an activist group founded by Mr. Swartz.

In other words, despite the claims from Holder that the charges against Aaron were not based on Swartz exercising his right to free speech, Stephen Heymann has since admitted that, in fact, Swartz's friends speaking out on his behalf were what made him decide to try to throw the book at Swartz. The letter points out further claims from Holder that appear to be contradicted by the MIT report and note:

Inconsistencies such as these require serious responses to the original letter, and indeed raise more questions about the prosecution of Mr. Swartz. One year ago, we sought the basis for the U.S. Attorney Carmen Ortiz's determination that her office's conduct was "appropriate." We have received no such information, not even the sentencing memoranda that surely were prepared in a case such as this.

In March, you testified that Mr. Swartz's case was "a good use of prosecutorial discretion." We respectfully disagree. We hope your response to this letter is fulsome, which would help re-build confidence about the willingness of the Department to examine itself where prosecutorial conduct is concerned.

Given how Holder and the DOJ have responded to these issues in the past, I wouldn't expect any real response to be forthcoming any time soon.

Filed Under: aaron swartz, al franken, darrell issa, doj, eric holder, john cornyn, prosecution, stephen heymann

Senators Introduce Bill To End Secret Law That Enabled NSA Surveillance

from the good-for-them dept

A bipartisan group of eight Senators have now introduced a bill to end the secret interpretation of the law which enabled the NSA, via the rubber-stamping FISA Court, to claim that the FISA Amendments Act enabled them to sweep up basically all phone call data on everyone.

The measure, coming amid daily revelations about the extent to which the National Security Agency is monitoring communications by Americans, would require the Attorney General to declassify significant Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) opinions. The senators say the move would allow Americans to know how broad of a legal authority the government is claiming to spy on Americans under the Patriot Act and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).

“Americans deserve to know how much information about their private communications the government believes it’s allowed to take under the law,” explains Oregon Senator Jeff Merkley, a Democrat who has been an outspoken advocate for congressional oversight of surveillance programs. “There is plenty of room to have this debate without compromising our surveillance sources or methods or tipping our hand to our enemies. We can’t have a serious debate about how much surveillance of Americans’s communications should be permitted without ending secret law.”

The bill will be put forth by Merkley, but co-sponsored by Senators Patrick Leahy, Dean Heller, Mark Begich, Al Franken, Jon Tester and Ron Wyden. Leahy, being the chair of the Judiciary Committee, is important, suggesting that this bill isn't automatically dead in the water. During the FISA Amendments Act fight at the end of 2012, Leahy was one of only a few Senators (along with Merkley and Wyden) who pushed back on just doing a straight reauthorization. In fact, it sounds like this bill will be similar to the one that Merkley pushed as an amendment to the renewal of the FISA Amendments Act last year, which got shot down -- but did score 37 votes in the Senate. Perhaps with Leahy's support, and all the news going on, it can get a few more votes.

And, in case you're wondering, yes, Congress can order the executive branch to declassify anything it wants, though obviously it needs to pass the law (and get past any potential veto). Declassifying how the FISC has interpreted the law should not be controversial. As we've been pointing out for years, under no circumstances would it make sense to claim that the official interpretation of what's legal and illegal should be classified. Yes, certain techniques or methods might need to remain classified, but the law must be public. Hopefully, others in Congress will finally recognize that basic fact.

Filed Under: al franken, dean heller, fisa amendments act, fisc, jeff merkley, john tester, mark begich, nsa, patrick leahy, ron wyden, secret law, senate, surveillance

Would You Like To Keep The Government From Spying On You? Speak Up Now

from the do-you-have-a-secret? dept

We've been talking about the Senate debate over cybersecurity all week, and it appears that it's moving into the endgame process. Last night, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid called for cloture -- basically the process to end the debate and move to a vote. In doing so, he also set it up such that he's basically blocking most amendments from being discussed. However, the important Franken/Paul amendment that increases privacy protections will be voted on. In fact, it will be the first amendment to be considered. Whether or not the overall bill passes (and there's some skepticism about whether the votes exist), it is important that the Franken/Paul amendment pass, and Congress get the message that protecting the public from government snooping is an issue the public cares about. Senate staffers have been saying that they've been getting calls on this issue, but more would certainly help.

The folks at Fight for the Future have set up the excellent Do you have a secret? site to highlight why government snooping is a serious problem. Similarly, the EFF has set up a useful site with an embedded Tweet tool (and, yes, tweeting about this also helps -- staffers are paying attention to this, though calling is always best).

The Franken/Paul amendment does have some support, including from Senator Chuck Schumer who made an impassioned speech last night for protecting our privacy rights within this bill, and how important such privacy protections were to the future of the internet. Either way, today and tomorrow are important days for letting your Senators know that stopping the government from snooping on your private info online is important to you, so speak up.

Filed Under: al franken, chuck schumer, cybersecurity, privacy, rand paul, senate

There Are Many Reasons Not To Give The NSA The Power To Spy On Your Info

from the here-are-just-a-few dept

We were just noting that the Senate is undergoing a fight concerning whether or not the Cybersecurity Act is going to go anywhere, with much of the fight being a tug of war over your privacy. Senators Franken, Paul and Schumer are supporting an amendment to add in more privacy protections. Senators McCain and Hutchison are looking to take away privacy protections and give the NSA much more power to violate your privacy and access your private info, with less oversight and without it having anything to do with cybersecurity.

The folks over at EFF have put together a nice list of reasons why the NSA cannot be trusted with your data. There are a bunch of reasons, but here are a few:

• NSA has a dark history of violating Americans’ constitutional rights

  In the 1960’s, a Congressional investigation, led by four-term Senator Frank Church, found that the NSA had engaged in widespread and warrantless spying on Americans citizens. Church was so stunned at what he found, he remarked that the National Security Agency’s "capability at any time could be turned around on the American people, and no American would have any privacy left, such is the capability to monitor everything." (emphasis added) The investigation led to the passage of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which provided stronger privacy protections for Americans’ communications—that is, until it was weakened by the USA-PATRIOT Act and other reactions to 9/11.

• NSA has continued its warrantless wiretapping scandal

  In 2005, the New York Times revealed that the NSA set up a massive warrantless wiretapping program shortly after 9/11, in violation of the Fourth Amendment and several federal laws. This was later confirmed by virtually every major media organization in the country. It led to Congressional investigations and several ongoing lawsuits, including EFF’s. Congress passed the FISA Amendments Act to grant telecom companies retroactive immunity for participating in illegal spying and severely weaken privacy safeguards for Americans communicating overseas.Since the FISA Amendments Act (FAA) passed, the NSA has continued collecting emails of Americans. A 2009 New York Times investigation described how a “significant and systemic” practice of "overcollection" of communications resulted in the NSA’s intercepting millions of purely domestic emails and phone calls between Americans. In addition, documents obtained via a Freedom of Information Act request by the ACLU, although heavily redacted, revealed "that violations [of the FAA and the Constitution] continued to occur on a regular basis through at least March 2010"— the last month anyone has public data for.

• NSA recently admitted to violating the Constitution.

  Just last week, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence—which oversees the NSA—begrudgingly acknowledged that "on at least one occasion" the secret FISA court "held that some collection… used by the government was unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment." Wired called it a "federal sidestep of a major section of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act," and it confirmed the many reports over the last few years: the NSA has violated the Constitution.

There are more where that came from. All of these, however, raise serious concerns about why Senators McCain and Huchison seem so eager to allow the NSA to abuse your privacy even more with their amendments. What are they thinking? The EFF has put together an action page asking you to contact your Senators (which you can do via a handy site set up by the American Library Association). The EFF site is also asking people to tweet to their Senators, using the hashtag #defendprivacy and has set up a nice tool to make that easier as well (at the "action page" link above).

In the meantime, we're still waiting for someone (anyone?) to tell us exactly why this bill is needed without resorting to hyperbole about planes falling out of the sky. If there's an existing problem with infosharing, what is it? What law, today, is blocking this kind of infosharing? Until the government can explain that, it seems weird that they're pushing for much greater spying power by the NSA and fewer privacy rights. How can they defend this when they can't even point to what the roadblocks are?

Filed Under: al franken, charles schumer, cybersecurity, john mccain, kay bailey hutchison, privacy, rand paul