Why Are Senate Democrats Helping Move Forward Trump's Strategy Of Attacking The Internet?

from the this-makes-no-sense dept

We've detailed for a while now how both Republicans and Democrats are mad online about how the internet works -- though often for reasons that directly conflict with each other. We've also highlighted how Donald Trump and his administration are actively encouraging Republicans to focus all of their legislative and grandstanding firepower on attacking the internet.

What I cannot understand is... why are the Democrats helping?

In a Senate Commerce Committee hearing on Thursday, Democrats initially seemed to recognize that plans to subpoena various internet CEOs (AGAIN) were little more than a dog and pony show for Republicans working on their Trump-directed culture war against the internet. Senators Cantwell and Blumenthal both stated that they knew this was all a grandstanding ruse to pressure social media companies to leave up their misinformation and propaganda:

Sen. Maria Cantwell of Washington, the top Democrat on Wicker’s panel, said she resisted his initial subpoena request over fears that such a move would chill the companies’ efforts to tackle “lies, harassment and intimidation” ahead of the election.

“I am not interested in using our subpoena power to try to play or game the refs days before an election, which is clearly what Republicans are doing,” Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) said this week. “The timing shows that these subpoenas are clearly calculated to chill efforts to get misinformation or falsehoods from abroad or domestic groups [removed].”

But take a wild guess what came next? You got it. They ended up supporting the subpoenas unanimously. Why? Because Republicans told the Democrats that while everything they feared about this nonsense was true, the Democrats can also grandstand over their own bullshit misleading culture war issues. It's a win-win for politicians on both sides of the aisle and a lose-lose for the public and the internet we rely on. I mean come on:

Sen. Maria Cantwell, the top Democrat on the panel, urged caution amid her colleagues' complaints of anti-conservative bias. Last week, as Wicker had been pushing internally for the subpoenas, Cantwell said she feared Republicans sought to "chill the efforts of these companies to remove lies, harassment, and intimidation from their platforms."

On Thursday, Cantwell said she was pleased to move forward with the subpoenas after Wicker agreed to include the topics of Big Tech's impact on media and privacy as issues of concern.

"What I don't want to see is a chilling effect on individuals who are in a process of trying to crack down on hate speech or misinformation about Covid during a pandemic," she said at Thursday's markup.

Neither party seems interested in dealing with real problems. Both parties seem to want to waste time focusing on the internet rather than any of the actual problems facing the country and the world these days. What a waste.

Filed Under: congress, democrats, donald trump, grandstanding, intermediary liability, maria cantwell, privacy, republicans, richard blumenthal, section 230

Senator Cantwell Releases Another Federal Privacy Law That Won't Go Anywhere And Doesn't Deal With Actual Issues

from the this-isn't-going-to-work dept

A few weeks ago we wrote about a privacy bill in the House that seemed unlikely to go anywhere, and now we have the same thing from the Senate: a new privacy bill from Senator Maria Cantwell, called COPRA for "Consumer Online Privacy Rights Act." For months it had been said that Cantwell was working on a bipartisan effort to create a federal privacy law, so the fact that this bill only has Democratic co-sponsors (Senators Schatz, Klobuchar and Markey) doesn't bode well for its likelihood of success.

The basic features of the bill are to give more power and resources to the FTC to enforce "digital privacy" and also allowing state Attorneys General to enforce the law. And... as with the House bill it includes a private right of action. This is something that many privacy organizations do favor, but still seems likely to be a disaster in practice. Letting anyone sue for privacy violations when no one actually agrees what "privacy means" is a recipe for a ton of nuisance lawsuits. If this bill actually had a chance, it could lead to the rise of "privacy trolls." Even in the most well meaning sense of trying to protect privacy, the fact that so many people disagree over what should actually be private and what privacy means, would create quite a legal clusterfuck.

One thing this bill does that the House bill would not, is to pre-empt "directly conflicting state laws." That's important for any federal bill, as otherwise companies will have to figure out how to comply with many different (and sometimes conflicting) standards and rules from multiple different states. At least this bill would prevent that. As Consumer Reports notes in its write-up of the bill, it is good to have more alternatives out there, and the bill does have some useful ideas in terms of protecting privacy:

“It’s a good bill to have out there,” Brookman says. “It gets a lot of things right—companies shouldn’t be collecting cross-site profiles about me and sharing that information—and it’s pretty aggressive on those things.”

The proposed law expands the definition of sensitive information to include biometric details such as facial recognition data, as well as geolocation data that is collected as individuals go about their day-to-day lives.

But, that "aggressiveness" is also what limits the bill's chances. This seems more performative than anything else, recognizing that people are (reasonably) worried about their privacy online, but does little to deal with the actual issues regarding privacy.

Filed Under: corpa, maria cantwell, privacy, private right of action

Washington's Growing AI Anxiety

from the perhaps-AI-can-help-us-deal-with-AI dept

Most people don't understand the nuances of artificial intelligence (AI), but at some level they comprehend that it'll be big, transformative and cause disruptions across multiple sectors. And even if AI proliferation won't lead to a robot uprising, Americans are worried about how AI and automation will affect their livelihoods.

Recognizing this anxiety, our policymakers have increasingly turned their attention to the subject. In the 115th Congress, there have already been more mentions of “artificial intelligence” in proposed legislation and in the Congressional Record than ever before.

While not everyone agrees on how we should approach AI regulation, one approach that has gained considerable interest is augmenting the federal government's expertise and capacity to tackle the issue. In particular, Sen. Brian Schatz has called for a new commission on AI; and Sen. Maria Cantwell has introduced legislation setting up a new committee within the Department of Commerce to study and report on the policy implications of AI.

This latter bill, the “FUTURE of Artificial Intelligence Act” (S.2217/H.4625), sets forth a bipartisan proposal that seems to be gaining some traction. While the bill's sponsors should be commended for taking a moderate approach in the face of growing populist anxiety, it's not clear that the proposed advisory committee would be particularly effective at all it sets out to do.

One problem with the bill is how it sets the definition of AI as a regulatory subject. For most of us, it's hard to articulate precisely what we mean when we talk about AI. The term “AI” can describe a sophisticated program like Apple's Siri, but it can also refer to Microsoft's Clippy, or pretty much any kind of computer software.

It turns out that AI is a difficult thing to define, even for experts. Some even argue that it's a meaningless buzzword. While this is a fine debate to have in the academy, prematurely enshrining a definition in a statute – as this bill does – is likely to be the basis for future policy (indeed, another recent bill offers a totally different definition). Down the road, this could lead to confusion and misapplication of AI regulations. This provision also seems unnecessary, since the committee is empowered to change the definition for its own use.

The committee's stated goals are also overly-ambitious. In the course of a year and a half, it would set out to “study and assess” over a dozen different technical issues, from economic investment, to worker displacement, to privacy, to government use and adoption of AI (although, notably, not defense or cyber issues). These are all important issues. However, the expertise required to adequately deal with these subjects is likely beyond the capabilities of 19 voting members of the committee, which includes only five academics. While the committee could theoretically choose to focus on a narrower set of topics in its final report, this structure is fundamentally not geared towards producing the sort of deep analysis that would advance the debate.

Instead of trying to address every AI-related policy issue with one entity, a better approach might be to build separate, specialized advisory committees based in different agencies. For instance, the Department of Justice might have a committee on using AI for risk assessment, the General Services Administration might have a committee on using AI to streamline government services and IT infrastructure, and the Department of Labor might have a committee on worker displacement caused by AI and automation or on using AI in employment decisions. While this approach risks some duplicative work, it would also be much more likely to produce deep, focused analysis relevant to specific areas of oversight.

Of course, even the best public advisory committees have limitations, including politicization, resource constraints and compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act. However, not all advisory bodies have to be within (or funded by) government. Outside research groups, policy forums and advisory committees exist within the private sector and can operate beyond the limitations of government bureaucracy while still effectively informing policymakers. Particularly for those issues not directly tied to government use of AI, academic centers, philanthropies and other groups could step in to fill this gap without any need for new public expenditures or enabling legislation.

If Sen. Cantwell's advisory committee-focused proposal lacks robustness, Sen. Schatz's call for creating a new “independent federal commission” with a mission to “ensure that AI is adopted in the best interests of the public” could go beyond the bounds of political possibility. To his credit, Sen. Schatz identifies real challenges with government use of AI, such as those posed by criminal justice applications, and in coordinating between different agencies. These are real issues that warrant thoughtful solutions. Nonetheless, the creation of a new agency for AI is likely to run into a great deal of pushback from industry groups and the political right (like similar proposals in the past), making it a difficult proposal to move forward.

Beyond creating a new commission or advisory committees, the challenge of federal expertise in AI could also be substantially addressed by reviving Congress' Office of Technology Assessment (which I discuss in a recent paper with Kevin Kosar). Reviving OTA has a number of advantages: OTA ran effectively for years and still exists in statute, it isn't a regulatory body, it is structurally bipartisan and it would have the capacity to produce deep-dive analysis in a technology-neutral manner. Indeed, there's good reason to strengthen the First Branch first, since Congress is ultimately responsible for making the legal frameworks governing AI as well as overseeing government usage.

Lawmakers are right to characterize AI as a big deal. Indeed, there are trillions of dollars in potential economic benefits at stake. While the instincts to build expertise and understanding first make for a commendable approach, policymakers will need to do it the right way – across multiple facets of government – to successfully shape the future of AI without hindering its transformative potential.

Filed Under: ai, artificial intelligence, brian schatz, committees, machine learning, maria cantwell, regulation

Alternative To PIPA/SOPA Proposed; Points Out That This Is An International Trade Issue

from the it-is-a-trade-issue,-isn't-it dept

While the MPAA has been pretending that there are no alternatives beyond the insanity that is PIPA and SOPA, some in Congress have actually been hard at work on trying to think through the specific issues. And one key point has become clear: this isn't a law and order issue, but an international trade issue. Nearly all of the complaints are about the problem of "foreign" sites sending goods across the border into the US. So it makes absolutely no sense that this issue isn't under the purview of the Finance Committee, whose job it is to oversee international trade. Thus, a bill is being worked on that tackles the issues as an international trade issue. A "discussion draft" is being circulated on this (embedded below).

This new effort has bipartisan support in both the House and the Senate, and unlike SOPA and PIPA, seeks to try to focus in on situations that are actually problematic. In the Senate, it has the backing of Senators Cantwell, Moran, Paul, Warner and Wyden. All of whom had come out against PIPA, except for Warner. Adding him to this issue is big, given his experience in the business world. On the House side, it's Reps. Chaffetz, Campbell, Doggett, Eshoo, Issa and Lofgren. The focus would be putting the issue into the International Trade Commission, where there are experts focused on trade issues.

I think this is an approach that absolutely makes sense for counterfeit physical goods and the websites that sell them. Frankly, it's bizarre that it ever went beyond a discussion of international trade. It becomes somewhat trickier with copyright issues, and that's because you now have questions about how physical borders apply to digital networks. And I'm not sure I know how to best deal with that. Separately, having seen the ITC process on patents go off the rails at times, and become more of a way for patent holders to issue a "double whack" against a company they accuse of infringement, I'd be concerned about making sure that this process doesn't allow for two bites at the same apple. If it's properly focused on just foreign sites, that might not be as big an issue.

Either way, the devil will be in the details, but the details are still being written. Seeing as this is a discussion draft, I'm hearing that the folks involved really do want a discussion (unlike what we got with SOPA/PIPA), and that includes folks here. Take a look at the draft, and weigh in, knowing that some of the folks involved really will be reading what you have to say.

Filed Under: anna eshoo, copyright, darrell issa, international trade, itc, jason chaffetz, jerry moran, maria cantwell, mark warner, pipa, protect ip, rand paul, ron wyden, sopa, trade, zoe lofgren

Extra Kudos To Senators Willing To Stand On Principle Against PROTECT IP

from the not-an-easy-task dept

While most of the attention over the past few weeks was given to SOPA and the House side of Congress in this debate on censoring the internet, the Senate side is becoming increasingly important. One of the ridiculous side effects of SOPA being so ridiculously bad is that PROTECT IP (the Senate version, also called PIPA) being just slightly less bad, means that some think that it can be seen as a "compromise." That's ridiculous, but it's part of the angle that supporters are using to try to rush that bill through the Senate in the near future. That's why the three Senators who stood up last week and spoke out against PIPA for the first time, Senators Rand Paul, Maria Cantwell and Jerry Moran deserve extra kudos. There's been massive lobbying support in favor of PIPA, and lots going on behind the scenes while the public was focused on SOPA on the House side. Having three Senators willing to stand up on principle, recognizing that the broad definitions and consequences of PIPA would hurt jobs, the economy and innovation, is something we don't see enough of these days. If one of these is your Senator, you should reach out and thank them for standing up for the benefit of society, rather than the benefit of big time corporate lobbyists.

Filed Under: copyright, jerry moran, maria cantwell, pipa, principles, protect ip, rand paul, ron wyden, sopa

Senators Rand Paul, Jerry Moran And Maria Cantwell All Warn That PROTECT IP Will Kill Jobs

from the good-for-them dept

Quite an interesting day. Having Rep. Nancy Pelosi come out against SOPA was quite something. But the Senate has still been pretty quiet. However, it appears that some Senators saw the public outcry against online censorship, against regulating internet companies, against changing the basic regulatory and technological framework that the internet has been built on... and realized that perhaps they shouldn't stay quiet any longer either. Senator Wyden, of course, has been vocal about his opposition to PROTECT IP (and has put a hold on the bill), but now Senators Rand Paul, Jerry Moran and Maria Cantwell have also come out with a statement against PROTECT IP, saying that they, too, will put a hold on PROTECT IP.

Our fear, which is shared by many, is that S. 968 as currently written will have the unintended consequences of undermining our nation's national security and our goals to encourage innovation, entrepreneurship, and job creation.

As currently written, the Protect IP Act and the companion Stop Online Piracy Act legislation in the House unnecessarily risk an overbroad application of the new and unprecedented tools they provide to the U.S. Department of Justice and the private sector. An excessively expansionary application of these tools would undermine our national security and economic interests.

We are particularly concerned that the proposal authorizes the use of remedies that will undermine the infrastructure of the Internet. The nation's leading technologists and security experts say these provisions will kill our best hope for actually making the Internet more secure against cyber attacks. We take seriously the alarm expressed by the nation's leading investors in new online startups who say the proposal will dampen interest in financing the new ideas and businesses of tomorrow, and to legal and human rights experts who caution that the proposal enables the silencing of speech.

With significant concerns from both parties in both Houses of Congress, will supporters of these bills still try to push them forward as is? Will they finally let the tech industry into the discussions? Or will they continue to make ridiculous claims about how this effort to regulate the internet is to "protect the troops"?

Unfortunately, the biggest lobbyists in favor of these bills -- the MPAA and the US Chamber of Commerce, mainly -- are working over time to get them to move forward. They're telling Senators and House members that yesterday's protests, which inundated Congress with calls and letters against SOPA/PIPA were "just a fluke." We know that's not the case, but it would be nice if Congress heard that as well.

Filed Under: copyright, jerry moran, jobs, maria cantwell, protect ip, rand paul, ron wyden, senate