Over 60 Human Rights/Public Interest Groups Urge Congress To Drop EARN IT Act

from the it's-a-bad-bill,-senators dept

We've already talked about the many problems with the EARN IT Act, how the defenders of the bill are confused about many basic concepts, how the bill will making children less safe and how the bill is significantly worse than FOSTA. I'm working on most posts about other problems with the bill, but it really appears that many in the Senate simply don't care.

Tomorrow they'll be doing a markup of the bill where it will almost certainly pass out of the Judiciary Committee, at which point it could be put up for a floor vote at any time. Why the Judiciary Committee is going straight to a markup, rather than holding hearings with actual experts, I cannot explain, but that's the process.

But for now at least over 60 human rights and public interest groups have signed onto a detailed letter from CDT outlining many of the problems in the bill, and asking the Senate to take a step back before rushing through such a dangerous bill.

Looking to the past as prelude to the future, the only time that Congress has limited Section 230 protections was in the Allow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act of 2017 (SESTA/FOSTA). That law purported to protect victims of sex trafficking by eliminating providers’ Section 230 liability shield for “facilitating” sex trafficking by users. According to a 2021 study by the US Government Accountability Office, however, the law has been rarely used to combat sex trafficking.

Instead, it has forced sex workers, whether voluntarily engaging in sex work or forced into sex trafficking against their will, offline and into harm’s way. It has also chilled their online expression generally, including the sharing of health and safety information, and speech wholly unrelated to sex work. Moreover, these burdens fell most heavily on smaller platforms that either served as allies and created spaces for the LGBTQ and sex worker communities or simply could not withstand the legal risks and compliance costs of SESTA/FOSTA. Congress risks repeating this mistake by rushing to pass this misguided legislation, which also limits Section 230 protections.

It also discusses the attacks on encryption hidden deep within the bill.

End-to-end encryption ensures the privacy and security of sensitive communications such that only the sender and receiver can view them. This security is relied upon by journalists, Congress, the military, domestic violence survivors, union organizers, and anyone who seeks to keep their communications secure from malicious hackers. Everyone who communicates with others on the internet should be able to do so privately. But by opening the door to sweeping liability under state laws, the EARN IT Act would strongly disincentivize providers from providing strong encryption. Section 5(7)(A) of EARN IT states that provision of encrypted services shall not “serve as an independent basis for liability of a provider” under the expanded set of state criminal and civil laws for which providers would face liability under EARN IT. Further, Section 5(7)(B) specifies that courts will remain able to consider information about whether and how a provider employs end-to-end encryption as evidence in cases brought under EARN IT. This language, originally proposed in last session’s House companion bill, takes the form of a protection for encryption, but in practice it will do the opposite: courts could consider the offering of end-to-end encrypted services as evidence to prove that a provider is complicit in child exploitation crimes. While prosecutors and plaintiffs could not claim that providing encryption, alone, was enough to constitute a violation of state CSAM laws, they would be able to point to the use of encryption as evidence in support of claims that providers were acting recklessly or negligently. Even the mere threat that use of encryption could be used as evidence against a provider in a criminal prosecution will serve as a strong disincentive to deploying encrypted services in the first place.

Additionally, EARN IT sets up a law enforcement-heavy and Attorney General-led Commission charged with producing a list of voluntary “best practices” that providers should adopt to address CSAM on their services. The Commission is free to, and likely will, recommend against the offering of end-to-end encryption, and recommend providers adopt techniques that ultimately weaken the cybersecurity of their products. While these “best practices” would be voluntary, they could result in reputational harm to providers if they choose not to comply. There is also a risk that refusal to comply could be considered as evidence in support of a provider’s liability, and inform how judges evaluate these cases. States may even amend their laws to mandate the adoption of these supposed best practices. For many companies, the lack of clarity and fear of liability, in addition to potential public shaming, will likely disincentivize them from offering strong encryption, at a time when we should be encouraging the opposite.

There's a lot more in the letter, and the Copia Institute is proud to be one of the dozens of signatories, along with the ACLU, EFF, Wikimedia, Mozilla, Human Rights Campaign, PEN America and many, many more organizations.

Filed Under: earn it, encryption, free speech, section 230, senate

The House Has Proposed An Excellent Broadband Bill. Telecom Lobbyists Will Make Sure It Never Passes.

from the round-and-round-we-go dept

Last week the House unveiled (a previous version of this story incorrectly stated the bill had been passed) the Accessible, Affordable Internet for All Act. The bill, which died last year after Mitch McConnell's Senate refused to hold a vote on it, includes a lot of great things, including spending $94 billion on expanding broadband into underserved areas. There's a ton of other helpful things in the proposal, like boosting the definition of broadband to 100 Mbps down (and upstream), requiring "dig once" policies that deploy fiber conduit alongside any new highway bills, and even a provision requiring the FCC to create rules forcing ISPs be transparent about how much they actually charge for monthly service.

A summary (pdf) of the bill offers some additional detail, such as the fact the bill includes a mandate that the government (specifically the Office of Internet Connectivity and Growth within the NTIA) more fully study the impact of affordability on broadband access. In the wake of allegations that the FCC's subsidy auction process is a corrupted and exploited mess, the law also lays down a lot of groundwork to make the subsidization of broadband access more transparent, equitable, and accountable to genuine oversight with an eye on affordability (instead of exclusively focusing on access, which is the DC norm):

"The section also establishes certain requirements for projects funded under the program, including offering broadband service that provides at least 100/100Mbps with sufficiently low latency, offering broadband service at prices that are comparable to, or lower than, the prices charged for comparable service, and offering an affordable service plan. All bidders must meet objective, transparent criteria upfront that demonstrates technical and operational capacity to implement winning projects."

There's several other common sense proposals in the bill, like giving schools and libraries more leeway to use E-Rate funding to help shore up broadband access during the pandemic. I remain nervous about throwing billions in additional subsidies at the industry when the government still can't accurately map where broadband is or isn't available. Many of the same folks who view subsidization as a silver bullet (Democrat and Republican alike) still can't even acknowledge that the two major contributors to US broadband sucking is monopolization, and state and federal corruption. Problems we seem intent on barely acknowledging, much less addressing.

Still, this is a genuinely good bill that includes a lot of common sense solutions for a problem that has taken on greater urgency during a public health crisis. Much like the last time the bill is likely to pass the House, then get blocked in the Senate. It seems unlikely this would win a straight 60 vote majority without demolishing the filibuster or burying it in some broader, much larger infrastructure bill, which seems increasingly possible.

For one thing, broadband monopolies will fight tooth and nail against any effort to increase the standard definition of broadband, just like the last few times the FCC has considered it. Sharing more data on pricing, and boosting the definition of broadband to symmetrical 100 Mbps will only highlight how feckless regulators and monopolization have muted competition, resulting in spotty coverage, high prices, and slow speeds. Make that data far more transparent and accessible, and somebody might just get the kooky idea to genuinely do something about it, and we can't have that.

There's several other things included in the bill that the telecom lobby will simply never allow, like a more competitive and transparent grant and subsidy process, which might (gasp) result in more federal funding going to smaller competitors. There's also some language that requires paying a competitive rate and not scuttling unionization efforts the industry (and its congressional BFFs) will never tolerate. I guess the Democrats assume that because Covid is adding historic pressure on lawmakers to do more about broadband, they can somehow get the GOP (and centrist Democrat) votes needed to push this across the finish line.

But that seems to ignore forty years of history showing that the GOP --and more than a few Democrats-- are opposed to absolutely anything that genuinely holds trusted intelligence partners like AT&T accountable, anything that brings transparency to advertising or pricing, anything that genuinely protects consumers from monopoly harms (be it privacy violations or net neutrality), or anything that even remotely risks hurting incumbent revenues and regional dominance by driving more competition to market. I don't see that suddenly changing here, though I'd love to be surprised.

Filed Under: broadband, congress, digital divide, funding, house, senate

Because Congress Apparently Has NOTHING AT ALL IMPORTANT To Work On, It Introduced TWO MORE Section 230 Bills Yesterday

from the don't-you-people-have-work-to-do? dept

If you were in a coma for the past 12 months, just came out of it, and had to figure out what had happened in the last year or so solely based on new bills introduced in Congress, you would likely come to the conclusion that Section 230 was the world's greatest priority and the biggest, most pressing issue in the entire freaking universe. I've completely lost track of how many new bills have been introduced this year -- in the midst of a pandemic -- that try to undermine and destroy the open internet enabled by Section 230 of the CDA. It's absolutely ridiculous.

Last week we had Lindsey Graham and his garbage Online Content Policy Modernization Act. Josh Hawley, the lying demagogue, has probably introduced half a dozen bills aimed at undermining Section 230, including one a few weeks ago. On Tuesday of this week we had Senators Manchin and Cornyn introduce their despicable and dangerous See Something, Say Something Act.

And then, on Wednesday, we got two more truly awful anti-230 bills. What's going on over there on Capitol Hill? If you introduce 12 bills to destroy the internet do you get a 13th one free?

First up, we had Reps. Sylvia Garcia and Ann Wagner introduce the House companion to the Senate's EARN IT Act. We've spent months detailing how this bill is a two-fer: it's dangerous for both encryption and Section 230. And yet, it now has bipartisan support in both the Senate and the House. Garcia seems so proud of being a part of this nonsense that she didn't put the press release on her own website (though she did have time to put up a press release for a bill to rename a post office).

Ann Wagner, you may recall, is the force behind the previous disastrous anti-230 bill, FOSTA, who has spent the years since passing that bill just flat out lying about what the bill did. She claims it's been a huge success, and yet it has yet to be used successfully, has been shown to put women's lives in danger, and has made it more difficult for law enforcement to find actual sex traffickers.

But, not surprisingly, Wagner is touting her "success" with that terrible legislation in introducing this new garbage:

“I’m proud to join with my colleague Rep. Sylvia Garcia in introducing the EARN IT Act, critical legislation that will hold accountable bad actors that facilitate child sexual abuse material,” said Congresswoman Wagner. "This bill is the natural follow-up to FOSTA, my Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act, which amended section 230 to hold accountable websites that facilitate sex trafficking. As I have said many times, I believe that if exploitation is a crime offline, it should also be a crime online, and I’m delighted to continue working with survivors, advocates, law enforcement, and industry to protect children from online sexual exploitation.”

Yes, she keeps saying that "if it's a crime offline, it should be a crime online" and it always has been. This bill, like her last bill, changed literally nothing about what was a "crime." What it did was blame service providers for non-crimes, and made them less willing to host perfectly legal content. And, again, her bill has harmed survivors and made it more difficult for law enforcement, meaning it has done the opposite of protecting children from online sexual exploitation.

And the EARN IT Act, as we've discussed, will again make things worse. This version of EARN IT is even worse than the Senate version, which included a narrow (and most likely useless) attempt to say that it couldn't be used to ban encryption. This version of the bill narrows that limitation, meaning encryption would be even more at risk.

And that was for the horrific bill we already knew about.

Next up to the plate is Senator John Kennedy with the ridiculously named Don't Push My Buttons Act. As you may have guessed, it's pushed all of my buttons for wasting my time in needing to respond to absolute wingnut batshittery in the form of you-can't-actually-be-serious legislation. There have been so many dumb anti-230 bills that it's hard to rank which one's worse than the next, but this one is... just bad. Basically, this would take Section 230 away from any site that tracks any information on its users, or presents an algorithmically generated feed for its users. But, it would not apply if the users of those sites "knowingly and intentionally elect to receive" the algorithmically generated feed. And so sites that want to do that will just put it in their terms of service and make people agree to it and... what good does that do for anyone?

And what does this even have to do with Section 230 anyway? If you don't like algorithmically generated feeds, it would seem that (1) you're going to have a 1st Amendment issue to overcome at some point and (2) there are other tools in the toolbox and (3) it's totally unrelated to the questions about Section 230. This is just "old man yells at cloud... and writes weird legislation."

Kennedy is trying to get this bill attached as an amendment to Graham's wacky bill that's about to be marked up, and it's just open season for crazy ideas on an issue that should not be a priority at this moment when people are literally dying by the thousands every damn day due to a pandemic that Congress seems to have decided to ignore.

Does this shit ever end?

Filed Under: ann wagner, congress, earn it, house, john kennedy, push my buttons, section 230, senate, sylvia garcia

Senators Graham And Blumenthal Can't Even 'Earn' The EARN IT Act: Looking To Sneak Vote Through Without Debate

from the don't-let-them dept

Senator Lindsey Graham very badly wants to push the extremely dangerous EARN IT Act across the finish line. He's up for re-election this fall, and wants to burnish his "I took on big tech" creds, and sees EARN IT as his path to grandstanding glory. Never mind the damage it will do to basically every one. While the bill was radically changed via his manager's amendment last month, it's still an utter disaster that puts basically everything we hold dear about the internet at risk. It will allow for some attacks on encryption and (somewhat bizarrely) will push other services to more fully encrypt. For those that don't do that, there will still be new limitations on Section 230 protections and, very dangerously, it will create strong incentives for internet companies to collect more personal information about every one of their users to make sure they're complying with the law.

It's a weird way to "attack" the power of big tech by forcing them to collect and store more of your private info. But, hey, it's not about what's actually in the bill. It's about whatever bullshit narrative Graham and others know the press will say is in the bill.

Either way, we've heard that Graham and his bi-partisan supporter for EARN IT, Senator Richard Blumenthal, are looking to rush EARN IT through with no debate, via a process known as hotlining. Basically, it's a way to try to get around any floor debate, by asking every Senator's office (by email, apparently!) if they would object to a call for unanimous consent. If no Senator objects, then they basically know they can skip debate and get the bill approved. If Senators object, then (behind the scenes) others can start to lean on (or horse trade) with the Senators to get the objections to go away without it all having to happen on the floor of the Senate. In other words, Graham and Blumenthal are recognizing that they probably can't "earn" the EARN IT Act if it has to go through the official process to have it debated and voted on on the floor, and instead are looking to sneak it through when no one's looking.

While Senator Wyden (once again) has said he'll do whatever he can to to block this, it would help if other Senators would stand up as well. Here's what Wyden had to say about it:

The EARN IT Act will not protect children. It will not stop the spread of child sexual abuse material, nor target the monsters who produce and share it, and it will not help the victims of these evil crimes. What it will do is threaten the free speech, privacy, and security of every single American. This is because, at its core, the amended EARN IT Act magnifies the failures of the Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act--SESTA--and its House companion, the Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act--FOSTA. Experts believe that SESTA/FOSTA has done nothing to help victims or stop sex trafficking, while creating collateral damage for marginalized communities and the speech of all Americans. A lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of FOSTA on First Amendment grounds is proceeding through the courts, and there is bicameral Federal legislation to study the widespread negative impacts of the bill on marginalized groups.

Yet, the authors of the EARN IT Act decided to take this kind of carveout and expand it further to State civil and criminal statutes. By allowing any individual State to set laws for internet content, this bill would create massive uncertainty, both for strong encryption and constitutionally protected speech online. What is worse, the flood of State laws that could potentially arise under the EARN IT Act raises strong Fourth Amendment concerns, meaning that any CSAM evidence collected could be rendered inadmissible in court and accused CSAM offenders could get off scot-free. This is not a risk that I am willing to take.

Let me be clear: The proliferation of these heinous crimes against children is a serious problem. However, for these reasons and more, the EARN IT Act is not the solution. Moreover, it ignores what Congress can and should be doing to combat this heinous crime. The U.S. has a number of important evidence-based programs in existence that are proven to keep kids safe, and they are in desperate need of funding to do their good work. Yet the EARN IT Act doesn't include a single dollar of funding for these important programs. It is time for the U.S. Government to spend the funds necessary to save children's lives now.

While a Wyden hold would block any attempt to get unanimous consent via the hotlining process, it would help quite a lot if other Senators were willing to speak up and stand with him as well. If it's just Wyden, then he'll face tremendous pressure to remove the hold. If more Senators join Wyden in saying this isn't okay, then Graham and Blumenthal will realize they have a bigger challenge in front of them.

Again, if you haven't been following this debate closely, everything that Wyden says above is accurate. EARN IT is an attack on both free speech and privacy (a twofer) without doing anything to actually deal with the problem of child sexual abuse material online. That is very much a law enforcement issue, and it's one which Congress has failed to provide the funds to law enforcement that it promised on this issue, and (even worse) the DOJ has simply ignored its requirement mandates to deal with this issue as required by Congress. The DOJ seems more focused on attacking tech companies and blaming them for its own failure to do its job.

The EARN IT Act is an incredibly dangerous piece of legislation, but it's also a complicated one -- one that many people don't understand. But Senators see something that says "protect the children" and they immediately think "well, of course we support that." But this bill doesn't protect children. It attacks free speech and privacy online in very insidious ways. Please call your Senators and ask them not to let this through.

Filed Under: debate, earn it, earn it act, encryption, free speech, lindsey graham, privacy, richard blumenthal, section 230, senate

In The Midst Of A Pandemic And Widespread Unrest, Senate Republicans Think It's Time To Use Copyright To Make The Richest Musicians Richer

from the read-the-fucking-room-guys dept

There's kind of a lot going on in America right now -- what with widespread protests about police violence (leading to more police violence), and we're still in the middle of the largest pandemic in a century. You'd think some of those things would be priorities for Congress, but instead, Senate Republicans have decided that now is the time to pushing ahead with helping Hollywood by examining how to make copyright worse. Even the Washington Post is completely perplexed as to how this could possibly be a priority right now.

“I don’t think we have yet felt the urgency of acting immediately” on further help for those devastated by the pandemic, McConnell said two weeks ago. Now, with 100,000 dead and 40 million out of work, he still talks of waiting a month.

So what makes Senate Republicans feel the urgency of acting immediately? What would make them Take It to the Limit?

Don Henley would.

I Can’t Tell You Why.

Actually, I can. The Eagles singer and drummer has been summoned by the Senate Judiciary subcommittee to testify Tuesday about the functioning of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act’s “Notice-And-Takedown System.”

Henley, of course, is one of the wealthiest musicians in history, considering that he was a founding member of the Eagles, a band that literally has both the best selling album of all time AND the third best selling album of all time. Yes, in the top 3 best selling albums of all time, Don Henley's on two of 'em.

If Don Henley is hurting for money, I'm going to suggest that it ain't copyright that's the problem. But this is the same Don Henley who has been attacking the internet for at least a decade, when he whined that it was all copyright infringement that anyone might take any of his songs and build on it in doing a remix or a mashup.

Henley blasted all unauthorized uses of his music, whether by politicians or just amateurs making remixes, mash-ups, and similar unlicensed uses on sites like YouTube. "I don't condone it," he said of such practices. "I'm vehemently opposed to it. Not because I don't like parodies or satires of my work. But it's simply a violation of U.S. copyright law."

[....]

"People in my age group generally don't like it. Songs are difficult to write; some of them take years to write. To have them used as toys or playthings is frustrating."

Really, none of this makes any sense. You'd think (1) that right now wouldn't be the time to focus on copyright, (2) that Republican Senators wouldn't be in such a rush to aid Hollywood (which is generally not known for its support of the GOP), and (3) that of all the possible people to testify, they'd pick a rich rocker who's big complaint about the internet is that it allows the kids these days to be creative. But for whatever reason, this is what the Republican leadership in the Senate feels is most important right now. Helping super rich rockers who dislike the kids get even richer at the expense of the public.

Filed Under: copyright, dmca, dmca 512, don henley, internet, mitch mcconnell, notice and takedown, pandemic, protests, senate

Senate Passes Surveillance Reauthorization Bill 80-16 -- One Stripped Of Almost All Of Its Reforms

from the but-at-least-we-get-an-official-burial-of-the-bulk-phone-records-program dept

The Senate voted today to give us five more years of pretty much unaltered surveillance. The reauthorization of key spy powers is back on again, after Congressional inaction ran head-on into a global pandemic, allowing these to (briefly) expire. Not that this temporary expiration resulted in any less surveillance. And with this overwhelming vote in favor of resumed spying, it will probably only be a matter of days before a consolidated bill ends up on Trump's desk. Despite his continual agitation against the "Deep State," Trump is expected to give these powers his official blessing.

The Senate on Thursday overwhelmingly voted to reauthorize three national security surveillance authorities that have been expired since March.

The chamber voted 80-16 to extend the surveillance authorities under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

The vote occurred after the Senate adopted a bipartisan amendment on Wednesday from Republican Sen. Mike Lee of Utah and Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont to provide additional legal protections in the FISA court for targets of surveillance warrants. The Senate's amendment means the House will have to pass the new version of the legislation before it goes to the President's desk.

The additional protections in the amendment would expand outside review of FISA surveillance cases. The USA Freedom Act allowed for the appointment of amicus curiae (outside, neutral advocates) at the court's discretion. This amendment makes it a bit more mandatory, requiring the court to appoint one in any case involving "sensitive investigative matters." That covers a lot of ground, but the amendment was written with the targeting of US persons in mind.

More importantly, it grants the amicus the power to raise any issue at any time and gives them access to all pertinent court documents, including underlying warrant applications.

Unfortunately, this bill moved forward without stronger surveillance reforms, including an amendment written by Senators Ron Wyden and Steve Daines that would have added a warrant requirement for the collection of internet browsing history and search data. This fell one vote shy of passing -- something that any of the four missing senators that supported the amendment could have fixed by showing up and voting.

The Senate's approved version reauthorizes authorities affected by 2015's USA Freedom Act and parts of Section 215, like the infamous "roving wiretap" authority and the apparently never-used "lone wolf" provision that allows for the surveillance of people with no known ties to any terrorist group.

If it remains intact before passage, the bill would also formally end the NSA's bulk phone data collection. The NSA voluntarily retired this after it was unable to avoid over-collection even while having to approach telcos directly with reasonable suspicion-supported requests for call records. Having gone from mostly useless to completely useless, the NSA decided this collection was no longer worth the compliance headache. For whatever reason, the FBI fought to keep this zombie program alive, claiming that the slim possibility of it being useful as some undetermined point in the future justified its continued existence.

We'll have to see what survives the House's second pass before it heads to Trump for a signature. That's the version that's had plenty of input from Bill Barr, who apparently wants as much surveillance power as possible even as the Commander-in-Chief complains about the abuse of these powers to target him and his.

Filed Under: fisa, patriot act, reauthorization, senate, surveillance

Senate Punts FISA Reform Bill For At Least 77 Days

from the punting-surveillance dept

Last week, we were perplexed as to why House Democrats had agreed to an extension of NSA/FBI surveillance powers for a President they keep insisting is incompetent and vindictive against anyone he dislikes. At the same time, we couldn't figure out why Republicans were so keen to support it at the same time they were insisting that those same powers were used by the "deep state" to spy on the President's own campaign. After it passed, President Trump hinted that he might veto it anyway, and now with the Covid-19 pandemic in full swing, the Senate has agreed to punt on the issue for the time being, extending the FISA authorities for 77 days, with a promise of debating real reform in the interim:

The Senate on Monday unanimously adopted a short-term extension of key federal surveillance programs that expired on Sunday night — a move that allows the chamber to more rapidly consider legislation addressing the economic impacts of the global coronavirus pandemic.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell scrapped an initial procedural vote Monday night on a House-passed bill that would reauthorize now-expired provisions of the 2015 USA Freedom Act and alter the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

Instead, McConnell and his leadership team worked out a deal with civil libertarian hard-liners who oppose that House bill, including Sens. Mike Lee (R-Utah) and Rand Paul (R-Ky.), on a 77-day extension of the surveillance powers.

Of course, we've gone through this before, with extensions being agreed to along with promises of time to debate the issues... and the debate almost never shows up. Instead, we get down to the very last minute again, and something gets shoved through. In this case, given that everyone's attention is really needed in dealing with the pandemic, this seems like a reasonable move, however. I do hope that there actually is a serious debate on the need for these FISA surveillance authorities at some point though.

Filed Under: congress, fbi, fisa, fisa court, fisa warrants, fisc, nsa, section 215, senate, surveillance

Bizarre: Democrats In Congress Agree To Give Trump More Of The Spying Powers He Complains Were Abused Against Him

from the someone-explain dept

If ever there were a time to end Constitutionally questionable FISA surveillance powers it should be now. Democrats have been, quite rightly, concerned about an out of control Trump administration, abusing the powers of government to target his enemies and critics. Republicans have been screaming from the heavens, quite rightly, about the FBI's abuse of the FISA process to conduct surveillance on members of the Trump Campaign. And all this is coming at a time when the crown jewel of the program -- the phone metadata surveillance -- has been shown to have been a huge, wasteful mess that has been effectively useless.

And it's up for renewal. So just kill it.

But, no, that's not how Congress works. Instead, earlier this week, the House worked out a bipartisan "compromise" that lets them each claim victory -- when all it really does is reauthorize powerful, frequently abused, Constitutionally-questionable surveillance powers -- the very same powers that the Trump administration has been insisting are being abused by "the deep state" against the President himself. As Marcy Wheeler explains, the final bill involved Rep. Adam Schiff -- who ran the impeachment effort against Trump, pointing out how incompetent and dangerous Trump can be -- watering down an earlier proposal to make sure that Trump has much greater surveillance powers with less oversight.

Effectively, Adam Schiff took the Jerry Nadler bill, watered down some key provisions, but added a bunch of symbolic certifications that would do nothing to eliminate the kinds of problems in the Carter Page application, probably are less effective than certifications presiding FISA judge James Boasberg required the other day, but give Republicans who are too stupid to understand FISA the ability to claim victory.

She goes on to detail the rather sneaky language in the bill that seems designed deliberately to give William Barr could use the program to hide some pretty scary shit:

Finally, and most outrageously, the government can still move not to give that notice based on a claim that providing it “would harm to the national security of the United States.” Outrageously, they don’t even have to convince a judge that such harm is real. A court “or other authority of the United States” could agree with such a finding. The Attorney General is “an authority of the United States.” So Attorney General Bill Barr — the father of the first subpoena based dragnet — could make a motion saying that notice of a dragnet would harm the national security of the United States, and Attorney General Bill Barr could agree with Bill Barr that that’s the case.

This is how the whole dragnet problem started in the first place, when, in 1992, Bill Barr decided that he could authorized secret dragnets.

I'm sure that won't be abused at all...

Of course, Bill Barr is thrilled with this outcome:

"I have reviewed the House FISA bill and support its passage. The bill contains an array of new requirements and compliance provisions that will protect against abuse and misuse in the future while ensuring that this critical tool is available when appropriate to protect the safety of the American people.

I am pleased that the bill contains a number of provisions Director Wray and I put forward to address past failures, including compliance failures that the Inspector General has identified for us in his recent audit work. The IG’s analysis and recommendations have helped shape our proposals. The Director and I will promulgate additional, implementing rules that advance these reforms.

It is of the utmost important that the Department’s attorneys and investigators always work in a manner consistent with the highest professional standards, and this overall package will help ensure the integrity of the FISA process and protect against future abuses going forward. This legislation deserves broad bi-partisan support."

Because none of this makes sense any more, the bill has both bipartisan support -- and bipartisan opposition, with the opposition coming from those who tend to actually fight to protect our civil liberties from either party. CNN has some of the details:

But the agreement has also come under fire from lawmakers in both parties, criticized by both liberals and libertarian-leaning Republicans for not going far enough to address privacy concerns.

In a sign of the odd alliances over the vote, both the leader of the conservative House Freedom Caucus, Rep. Andy Biggs, and the co-chairs of the liberal Congressional Progressive Caucus, Reps. Pramila Jayapal and Mark Pocan, opposed the measure.

"It's not real reform," said Rep. Zoe Lofgren of California, a Democratic member of the House Judiciary Committee who took part in the negotiations with Democratic leaders.

On the Senate side, Senators Rand Paul, Mike Lee, and Ron Wyden have all complained about the bill as well -- with threats to block and requests for Trump to veto the bill.

And, of course, privacy advocates are reasonably concerned about this as well. The ACLU has asked Congress to vote against the bill:

Over the last several years, it has become abundantly clear that many of our surveillance laws are broken. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court is not equipped to protect Americans’ rights -–with an Inspector General report finding a litany of errors in the government’s applications to the court to surveil Trump campaign advisor Carter Page. During a House hearing last month, FBI Director Christopher Wray agreed with the characterization of at least a portion of the surveillance of Carter Page as illegal. Also last month, the FISC court itself accepted the Justice Department’s position that at least two of the surveillance applications for spying on Page were “invalid” and the court took extraordinary steps to order the government to try to remedy its wrongdoing and avoid a repeat. Despite the secrecy around FISA proceedings, the Page episode offers a window into the abuses that predictably follow from giving the government extraordinary powers with minimal checks and no meaningful due process.

At the same time, Section 215, which is one of the Patriot Act provisions set to expire on March 15th, has been used to engage in large-scale collection of Americans’ information, and the call detail record program operated under the authority has been suspended following compliance violations that resulted in unlawful collection of information.

Despite this record, disappointingly, the reforms contained in H.R. 6172 are minimal –in many cases merely representing a codification of the status quo. In addition, the bill contains provisions that would be a step back from even our flawed current law, including an additional criminal penalty. Given this, we believe that a short six week extension of the expiring

One hopes the criticism of the bill -- and the bizarre situation of Trump possibly signing a bill that continues the program he's been railing against (while pretending to limit it) -- leads this bill to die.

Filed Under: adam schiff, carter page, fisa, fisa renewal, house, mass surveillance, section 215, senate, surveillance, trump administration

Senators Wyden And Paul Put A Hold On Dangerous CASE Act; Will Propose Alternative

from the no-more-copyright-trolls dept

Last week we noted that the House (overwhelmingly) voted in favor of the CASE Act, which is presented as a "small claims court" for copyright issues, but which has significant Constitutional issues, and would almost certainly lead to an uptick in copyright trolling activity. As we noted, the bill still needed to go to the Senate, and it appears that this is (at least for now) being blocked by Senators Ron Wyden and Rand Paul who have put a hold on the bill, and will introduce an alternative approach.

Sen. Ron Wyden... is crafting alternative legislation to a bill that overwhelmingly passed the House and would create a voluntary small claims board within the Copyright Office... a Wyden aide told us. He and frequent partner here Sen. Rand Paul... recently placed holds on the Copyright Alternative in Small-Claims Enforcement (Case) Act... according to aides.

Wyden notes that the concept of enabling more access to copyright holders to an enforcement/remedy makes sense, but he has problems with the nature of the CASE Act:

Wyden says he agrees small copyright owners "are less likely" to reap the full benefits of the copyright system than major corporations like Disney or Sony. But he said the bill would "create an extrajudicial, virtually unappealable tribunal that could impose statutory damages of $30,000 on an individual who posts a couple of memes on social media, even if the claimant sustained little or no economic harm." The threat of litigation could stifle fair copyright use and free expression and enable copyright troll harassment, he said.

From that, it sounds like Wyden is working on some sort of compromise version that deals with the problems (including the fact that it's probably unconstitutional) and seeking a better approach for setting up a form of a small claims court for copyright violations. He did this last year with the Music Modernization Act as well, taking a really, really bad bill, and turning it into something that was actually okay (not great, mind you, but was a general improvement -- and one that got more or less everyone on board). Hopefully this new bill will do the same.

Unfortunately, it looks like those who have already decided the unconstitutional pro-copyright trolling version is the approach to take don't really want to deal with Wyden and Paul seeking a better approach:

Bill sponsor Sen. John Kennedy... told us of "two headaches" in the Senate Thursday. "We're working on it. I'm going to make them an offer they can't refuse," he said, declining to name names.

Hey, Senator John Kennedy, did you license that quote from whoever holds the copyright on The Godfather? Or are you ready to pay up to $30,000 for it?

Either way, that quote is fucked up. Wyden and Paul are seeking to make sure the bill is (1) Constitutional and (2) won't destroy lives. And Senator Kennedy thinks that's deserving of a Godfather-style threat? What is wrong with him?

Filed Under: case act, copyright, john kennedy, rand paul, ron wyden, senate, small claims