House Votes For COMPETES Act, Even With Its Problems, Almost Entirely On Party Lines

from the that's-too-bad dept

Congress is trying to overload anyone who supports an open internet with terrible bill after terrible bill. Last week, they brought out the "COMPETES Act" (renamed from Endless Frontiers which had already been renamed as "USICA" and then became COMPETES). The underlying concept of the bill actually is important -- reviving American innovation. The Senate version of the bill was mostly good and had broad bipartisan support. However, for reasons I don't understand, Nancy Pelosi allowed the bill to be loaded up with a bunch of items on the Democrats' wish list, including the ridiculously dangerous SHOP SAFE Act.

This week, of course, we've been stuck dealing with the reintroduction of the also terrible EARN IT Act in the Senate, and while all of the open internet activists were gearing up to fight that, the House went ahead and voted to approve the COMPETES Act with no changes. It was an almost strict party-line vote, ending up at 222 for and 210 against. One Democrat -- Rep. Stephanie Murphy -- voted against it, and one Republican -- Rep. Adam Kinzinger (who technically is still a Republican) voted for it.

This all seems so incredibly counterproductive by Pelosi and the Democrats. I know they want a "win" and when there's a bill that will move they feel they need to hang all sorts of gifts on it, but following the Senate's lead and coming up with a more reasonable bill that wasn't stuff full of bad ideas would have presented this as an actually interesting and useful bill, rather than turning it into a partisan thing. Politics is where policy goes to die. And, unfortunately, it may take parts of the open internet with it.

That said, the Senate version does not have the nonsense and dangerous SHOP SAFE bill attached, and the hope is that during the conference process where the House and Senate try to square up the different bills, SHOP SAFE will get left on the cutting room floor, where it belongs.

Filed Under: competes act, competition, innovation, jerry nadler, liability, nancy pelosi, shop safe, trademarks

House Introduces 'Innovation' Act That Will Kill Innovation

from the not-great,-bob dept

A few weeks ago, we warned that Congress should not include the ridiuculously dangerous SHOP SAFE bill in the expected USICA bill. Unfortunately, Congress did not listen.

On Tuesday, Nancy Pelosi released the text of the renamed America Creating Opportunities for Manufacturing, Pre-Eminence in Technology and Economic Strength Act of 2022 (or America COMPETES Act). This is for the bill that had already been renamed from Endless Frontiers to USICA. As we noted in our last post, the crux of the bill actually is really important -- as it attempts to build out a much better infrastructure in the US for core research and development into science and technology. If the bill were actually just about that, I might support it.

But... the bill is an astounding 2912 pages long.

And with nearly 3,000 pages, you would be right in assuming that the House lit this thing up like a Christmas tree full of favors for certain members of Congress. And apparently that includes Rep. Jerry Nadler, who is the main sponsor of the SHOP SAFE Act, which is included in whole -- with no changes, despite the widespread criticism -- in the bill. If you're trying to find it, it starts on page 1672 of the 2912 pages. In other words, buried almost directly in the middle. Gotta hide all the bad stuff, I guess.

There are a few other bad bills included in the COMPETES Act as well, but I'm not going to go through each and every bit of nonsense in the 3000 page bill right now. But I will note that the SHOP SAFE bit is not just actively dangerous, but it undermines the rest of the bill. It does the exact opposite of what's on the tin: it will do significant damage to both innovation and competition, and basically lock in Amazon as the only place where people can sell stuff.

Nadler might as well have named it the "give Amazon a monopoly" Act. I have no idea why Speaker Pelosi would agree to put this piece of garbage in this bill, other than there must be a lot of favor trading going on. As policy expert Josh Lamel noted (accurately), this bill will make life really difficult for anyone who say, uses Etsy, in order to protect some giant European luxury brands who were asking for this nonsense bill in an attempt to control the online marketplace.

We've been talking about SOPA a lot in the past few weeks, and the SHOP SAFE is effectively a SOPA-level bad bill. It basically ends the open internet for selling, unless you're willing to go through the largest platforms, which will have massive compliance rules that will make it close to impossible for small sellers. It's madness.

And... for what? I guess this is an acknowledgement that Nadler can't get SHOP SAFE passed through the regular methods, so he has to hang it on a giant bill to try to sneak it through. That alone is reason enough to reject it. This is the kind of nonsense that makes people cynical and distrustful of the political class, sneaking through bad bills that harm the public but favor giant companies. There's plenty of good stuff in the COMPETES Act. And it's all poisoned with nonsense favor bills like SHOP SAFE (and some others).

Filed Under: america competes, competes, competition, innovation, jerry nadler, marketplaces, nancy pelosi, shop safe

Nancy Pelosi Sells Out The Public: Agrees To Put Massive Copyright Reform In 'Must Pass' Spending Bill

from the why? dept

I know everyone is focused on Trump's attempt to take away Section 230 in the NDAA, but an equally important issue is that members of Congress have been trying to do Hollywood's bidding and sneak massive copyright reform into a must-pass government appropriations bill. The CASE Act has many problems that we've discussed, including the fact that it would unleash a wave of copyright trolling for people accidentally or innocently sharing works they don't realize are covered by copyright. There are also significant Constitutional problems with it, in that it routes around the Title III courts by handing disputes about private rights to the executive branch. That's not allowed.

But rather than actually discussing and debating those issues, and fixing the bill to make sure it is constitutional and protects the public, we've heard from three different sources that Nancy Pelosi has given the go-ahead in the House to include the CASE Act in the spending bill. As we said earlier this week, if you're trying to ram through a bill by adding them to an appropriations bill, it's because you know it has problems and will cause major issues and you just don't care because the politics of pleasing donors is too important. Hollywood has been screaming for this bill, and Pelosi has agreed to put it in.

If you're a constituent of Pelosi, I would highly recommend reaching out to her office and making it clear that you absolutely oppose any effort to attach the CASE Act to any appropriations bill. To ignore the many concerns that have been raised about the bill and what it will do to people across the country (especially in the middle of a pandemic) is a travesty. There is no need to pass this bill now, and there is certainly no need to do it in this way. Even if you're not a Pelosi constituent, it's worth reaching out to your Congressional Representatives. The good folks over at EFF have a handy dandy form under the accurate headline: "Don't let a quasi-court bankrupt internet users."

Many people have raised thoughtful critiques of the CASE Act, and there are many suggestions out there for how the bill can be fixed. To date, Congress has ignored those fixes. This is a bill that is highly controversial and should not be put into law through a sneaky, underhanded move like this. Make sure that Congress understands this.

Filed Under: appropriations, case act, christmas tree, congress, copyright, copyright office, copyright trolls, hollywood, nancy pelosi, small claims

House Democrats Have The Power To Protect Our Web Surfing From Warrantless FBI Searching; Instead, They're Pointing Fingers

from the not-a-good-look dept

You would think that House Democrat leaders like Speaker Pelosi and Reps. Adam Schiff and Jerry Nadler, who helped lead the impeachment effort against President Trump, would leap at the chance to stop Trump and the FBI from conducting warrantless searches of Americans' internet browsing habits. Instead, they seem to be supporting it and are trying to scapegoat Rep. Zoe Lofgren -- who is trying to safeguard our internet surfing -- because she's dared to push for a fix to the law. At issue is the FISA renewal bill, in which Congress has decided to take the FBI's "backdoor searches" out of the backdoor and moved them around the front: explicitly allowing the FBI to go trawling through internet/browsing/search histories collected without a warrant by the NSA.

As we've discussed, over in the Senate, Senator Ron Wyden and Steve Daines pushed for a pretty straightforward amendment to say that these searches should require a warrant (yes, the 4th Amendment alone should require that, but... ) and their amendment fell just one vote short. So even though significantly more than half of the Senate voted to require a warrant, the bill that passed out of the Senate does not require a warrant. The ball then moved to the House side, and you'd think that leadership there should just put in a similar amendment -- and, indeed, Rep. Lofgren had one ready to go. This shouldn't be a surprise. Lofgren has fought to end backdoor searches for years.

However, a story in Politico argued that Lofgren's Amendment somehow threatened to "blow up" a well-orchestrated Congressional move to make sure the FBI could keep spying without a warrant. Dell Cameron, over at Gizmodo, breaks down just how ridiculous this whole story is, and how it appears that it's actually Speaker Pelosi and Rep. Schiff who want to let the FBI warrantless searches continue, and they've strong-armed Rep. Nadler into supporting this position (Nadler, who is terrible on copyright issues, usually is pretty good on civil liberties), while trying to pin any "blame" on Lofgren.

Much of the story covers shenanigans to box out Lofgren back in February when she sought to add her version of the Wyden/Daines Amendment:

A timeline of the negotiations shared with Gizmodo, which was compiled from notes and communication logs immediately after the story ran, shows that Lofgren and her allies had been pressing the Judiciary Committee about amendments to Nadler’s bill as early as February 10.

Requests to see the text were repeatedly denied, the sources said. The same FISA reformers reportedly reached out to the committee on February 12, saying that, if adopted in the form of amendments, parts of Lofgren’s bill would ensure that Nadler’s FISA re-authorization push was even more bipartisan. The Judiciary Committee reportedly turned over a draft copy of the bill the following day, but warned that “substantial revisions” were already in the works. About a week later, the updated text was still not available.

According to this timeline, the authors of the Lofgren-Davidson amendment would not see the final text of the bill until Friday, February 21. Minus the weekend, that gave staffers roughly 24 hours to work alongside legislative counsel to draft the amendment in a way that comported with Nadler’s bill. The Lofgren-Davidson amendment was finally handed over to the Judiciary Committee that Tuesday, a full 24 hours before the markup hearing, meeting the committee’s requirements.

And when Lofgren met that deadline... Nadler cancelled the markup, effectively blocking the amendment from a vote. And this wasn't for lack of interest:

One Republican staffer, who has direct knowledge of the negotiations, told Gizmodo that Nadler had effectively burned the Democrats by cancelling the markup hearing. The appetite for reform was certainly there, they said. Not only did the Democrat’s progressive wing and the libertarian House Freedom Caucasus support it, but many other Republicans, who’ve never shown interest in privacy reform, would have campaigned on curtailing the FBI’s authority.

It would have been useful in an election year, the staffer said, if only because President Trump has so frequently and publicly accused the FBI of breaking the law.

And so now that the bill is back on the House's plate, Nadler is the official roadblock to getting this amendment in, though it sounds like Pelosi and Schiff are putting on the pressure from behind the scenes.

Two Democratic aides said that the pressure on Nadler to kill the Lofgren-Davidson amendment was coming “from all sides,” and that cancelling the February hearing was probably not his own decision. Both staffers stopped short of fingering Pelosi and Schiff, but said that “House leaders,” including “other committee chairs,” were likely involved in that effort.

Questioning what it all means for the future of the Democratic party, which has long portrayed itself as the defender of Americans’ civil liberties, one Democratic aide said: “We need to look at ourselves and say, ‘Why on earth is the Senate the body that is producing the more progressive government privacy legislation and not the House?’ Why is that? I think the answer [requires] a long look in the mirror.”

Lofgren and others are now pushing to get their amendment back on the agenda, and it sure sounds like Schiff and Pelosi are trying to stop it, with Nadler -- whose public statements seem to indicate his support, but his actions show otherwise -- the key to actually making a decision.

I still find it bizarre that this amendment is even remotely controversial. First, it's just making it clear that the 4th Amendment applies. Second, if bad shit is happening, the FBI can still get a warrant. Third, both Democrats (stop Trump from abusing his powers) and Republicans (stop the deep state from surveilling Americans) have ready-made stories to explain their votes.

So what's the damn holdup?

Filed Under: adam schiff, backdoor searches, browser history, fbi, fisa, fisa renewal, jerry nadler, nancy pelosi, nsa, patriot act, surveillance, zoe lofgren

New North American Trade Deal Keeps Useful (But Limited) Liability Protections, Dumps Bad Biologics Data Protection

from the not-bad dept

When the NAFTA replacement "USMCA" agreement was first announced last year, we noted that it included a mix of good and bad ideas. The key good idea was that the USMCA contained a bit of language establishing a requirement for strong intermediary liability protections, similar to (but not exactly the same as) Section 230's protections in the US. Among the really bad ideas was expanding the data protection term for biologics -- which, we've noted, is really dangerous for basic science and innovation for new drugs -- but was supported by big pharmaceuticals to increase their monopoly power and ability to extract monopoly rents.

So it seems like good news that the latest version of the agreement keeps the intermediary liability protections and drops the biologics piece, which has the big pharma companies screaming angrily.

The intermediary liability protections for tech also have lots of people complaining -- including from both parties, but it's all ridiculous. First of all, most of the people freaking out about this are the very same people who originally loved the idea of sneaking ideas like longer copyright terms and anti-circumvention provisions into trade deals, and are now mad that internet companies are realizing that other ideas, that are better for the internet and free speech, can be put into those deals as well.

Perhaps more importantly -- as you hear more people whining about the inclusion of intermediary liability protections in USMCA -- is that these protections aren't even that strong, and Canada is already talking about ways to put more liability on internet services, despite what it's about to agree to in the USMCA. In other words, while it's good to see this language in the agreement, which will, at the margins, help keep the internet more open for free speech, the actual impact of this provision may be limited by creative efforts to write around the agreement -- and now just becomes a stick for those pushing the whole "techlash" narrative to beat against a wall.

Filed Under: biologics, canada, free trade, intermediary liability, mexico, nafta, nancy pelosi, section 230, trade, us, usmca, ustr

The Best People: White House Emailed Talking Points Meant For Surrogates To Dems, Tried To Recall Email Afterwards

from the heads-up-everyone dept

At the time of this writing, I'll go ahead and assume that anyone reading this is now fully immersed in Ukraine-Call-Gate or whatever we're calling this potentially impeachment-inducing scandal Donald Trump has managed to build for himself. What started as a murky story surrounding the administration flatly ignoring the law in handling a mysterious whistle-blower complaint has since been clarified in the extreme. What happened essentially is that the whistle-blower raised alarms over several occurrences, one of which was a call that occurred between Trump and the recently elected Ukrainian President in which Trump reportedly pushed his counterpart to investigate Hunter Biden, the son of his potential 2020 rival. Then, for reasons that are beyond me, Trump released an unredacted "rough" transcript of the call, which demonstrates that he did that very thing. You're going to hear a great deal of obfuscation over the next days and weeks about what the transcript shows. Go read it for yourself. Trump asked Ukraine, while withholding aid money at the time, to investigate the Bidens.

In the wake of the outrage over the transcript, the White House obviously went into damage control. That's to be expected. As part of any scandal, talking points are developed for surrogates to use when talking on any of the insanely stupid 24 hour news channels. That's also to be expected. But once those talking points are in written format, it's not customary to send them out to the opposing party's Congressional members.

The White House on Wednesday sent out talking points on how to spin the release of a summary of President Trump’s phone call to his counterpart in Ukraine — but emailed them to House Democrats, apparently by mistake.

Here's the goods, should you want to see them for yourself.

Now, look, I've made this mistake in my own professional life. That said, I'm not one of the "very best people" working for a White House embroiled in a full on scandal of its own making, so there's that. When you're trying to sow confusion and intrigue around what appears for all the world to be a really simple example of abuse of Presidential power, you really have to be careful about who is in that "To:" field.

And, even when I have made this mistake, I was smart enough not to frantically send out one of those useless "recall email" requests to those very same rivals I had accidentally emailed.

Now, I know some of you are thinking that this really isn't a laughing matter. And you're right, but you're also wrong, because this is fucking hilarious. One is forced to imagine Stephen Miller himself furiously sending out recall requests to Nancy Pelosi having just realized what he's done.

Will this inadvertent transparency matter? Probably not. If you're the sort that spends any calories watching cable news, this will all probably fly right over your head. Meanwhile, partisanship has so infested Washington that one of the truest things Donald Trump has ever said is probably that he could shoot someone on 5th Avenue without consequence. So at least we can have a laugh at the very best people's use of email, instead.

Filed Under: donald trump, hunter biden, impeachment, nancy pelosi, recall, talking points, transcript, ukraine, white house

Facebook Tested With Deepfake Of Mark Zuckerberg: Company Leaves It Up

from the as-it-should dept

Over the last few weeks there's been a silly debate over whether or not Facebook made the right call in agreeing to leave up some manipulated videos of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi that were slowed down and/or edited, to make it appear like she was either confused or something less than sober. Some Pelosi-haters tried to push the video as an attack on Pelosi. Facebook (relatively quickly) recognized that the video was manipulated, and stopped it from being more widely promoted via its algorithm -- and also added some "warning" text for anyone who tried to share it. However, many were disappointed that Facebook didn't remove the video entirely, arguing that Facebook was enabling propaganda. Pelosi herself attacked Facebook's decision, and (ridiculously) called the company a "willing enabler" of foreign election meddling. However, there were strong arguments that Facebook did the right thing. Also, it seems worth noting that Fox News played one of the same video clips (without any disclaimer) and somehow Pelosi and others didn't seem to think it deserved the same level of criticism as Facebook.

Either way, Facebook defended its decision and even noted that it would do the same with a manipulated video of Mark Zuckerberg. It didn't take long to put that to the test, as some artists and an advertising agency created a deep fake of Zuckerberg saying a bunch of stuff about controlling everyone's data and secrets and whatnot, and posted it to Facebook-owned Instagram.

And... spoiler alert: Facebook left it up.

“We will treat this content the same way we treat all misinformation on Instagram," a spokesperson for Instagram told Motherboard. "If third-party fact-checkers mark it as false, we will filter it from Instagram’s recommendation surfaces like Explore and hashtag pages.”

This actually is not a surprise (nor should it be). People keep wanting to infer nefarious intent in various content moderation choices, and we keep explaining why that's almost never the real reason. Mistakes are made constantly, and some of those mistakes look bad. But these companies do have policies in place that they try to follow. Sometimes they're more difficult to follow than other times, and they often involve a lot of judgment calls. But in cases like the Pelosi and Zuckerberg manipulated videos, the policies seem fairly clear: pull them from the automated algorithmic boost, and maybe flag them as misinformation, but allow the content to remain on the site.

So, once again, we end up with a "gotcha" story that isn't.

Of course, now that Pelosi and Zuck have faced the same treatment, perhaps Pelosi could get around to returning Zuckerberg's phone call. Or would that destroy the false narrative that Pelosi and her supporters have cooked up around this story?

Oh, and later on Tuesday, CBS decided to throw a bit of a wrench into this story. You see, the fake Zuckerberg footage is made to look as though it's Zuck appearing on CBS News, and the company demanded the video be taken down as a violation of its trademark:

Perhaps complicating the situation for Facebook and Instagram a call late Tuesday from CBS for the company to remove the video. The clip of Zuckberg used to make the deepfake was taken from an online CBS News broadcast. "CBS has requested that Facebook take down this fake, unauthorized use of the CBSN trademark," a CBS spokesperson told CNN Business.

Of course, if Facebook gives in to CBS over this request, it will inevitably (stupidly) be used by some to argue that Facebook used a different standard for disinformation about its own exec, when the reality would just be a very different kind of claim (trademark infringement, rather than just propaganda). Hopefully, Facebook doesn't cave to CBS and points out to the company the rather obvious fair use arguments for why this is not infringing.

Filed Under: content moderation, deep fake, deepfake, mark zuckerberg, nancy pelosi
Companies: facebook, instagram