League of Universal Computer Access Voters | Computers and Internet access for everyone!

Top GOP Staffers Paid Big Bucks By Lobbies To Campaign For SOPA

The irony is, these two staffers had a hand in authoring the piece of legislation, and were paid by taxpayers to do it.

Let’s pretend for a moment that there are some people, paid for by taxpayers’ dollars, that wrote a law that takes away some of your rights. Then those people are hired by a big company, where they get a huge raise, and their new job is to run the campaign to pass the laws they just wrote. Do you see a conflict of interest here? Some ethical ambiguity? Well, this is exactly what happened with Allison Halataei, former Deputy Chief of Staff for Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) and Lauren Pastarnack former senior aid to the Senate Judiciary Committee, both of whom helped to author the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA).

SOPA is the House version of what may become the country’s first internet censorship bill, a piece of legislation that mandates internet service providers block or restrict access to known pirating websites. Some of the largest intellectual property rights holders in the country are fighting to pass the bill, while internet companies are fighting to kill it to keep the internet open. The legislation has pitted two major private sectors, those of the entertainment industry and the internet provider industry, against one another in a campaign war. Of course, with such a contentious, big ticket piece of legislation, a “money is no option” mentality becomes prevalent.

In the spirit of this, the National Musical Publishers Association has hired on Halataei at a substantial raise and the Motion Picture Association of America has taken Pastarnack. Their new jobs? To consult and inform the campaigns of these two lobbying organizations to pass the bill they helped to author. This is pretty indicative of the revolving door between Capitol Hill and K Street, as big lobbies hire away top staffers in key committees to guide their efforts. It’s a kind of cannibalistic relationship in which the largest lobbies can afford to entice the most connected insiders to advance their interests ahead of the others.

Both of the top staffers will face a one-year lobbying ban from the committees on which they served, respectively. However, they are still able to lobby staffers on any of the other committees involved in the passage of the bill, and have plenty of insight and knowledge, not to mention relationships, that they can offer to their new employers. As for the lobbies, NMPA President David Israelite dismissed Halataei’s hiring as related to the SOPA bill. “It has nothing to do with the pending legislation,” he told POLITICO. MPAA, on the other hand, declined to comment.

Swiss Government To Media Companies: Learn To Live With Illegal Downloading

A Swiss study finds that downloading pirated entertainment media does not adversely affect the companies asking for copyright law reform.

As the U.S. government looks to pass SOPA, one of the most aggressive legislative bills addressing copyright infringement, the Swiss government seems to actually be heading in the opposite direction. In Switzerland, nearly 1 in 3 people download pirated media; whether music, movies, or games. The government commissioned a study to figure out what to do about such widespread copyright infringement and, based on the results of that study, have decided to keep downloading perfectly legal.

What the study found was the individuals the download pirated media continue to spend the money they saved on more entertainment. Although large companies all over the world have attempted to repress internet distribution of their copyrighted materials for fear that widespread downloading would severely impact their legitimate sales, the Swiss are saying, at least, that it’s better to encourage open-internet access rather than pass more repressive legislation. Here’s why.

The study found that individuals’ entertainment budgets stay relatively consistent in a given timeframe. Under current copyright law, the consumer investment within the entertainment industry has also stayed consistent despite more media being distributed via downloading. This means that the money that people saved downloading is spent on entertainment anyway, and that the downloading is largely complementary to what they’re already spending. In other words, it’s not actually costing the companies a dime, unless you account for the cost in downloads that they’re not making on top of what they would be anyway.

The other side of piracy, based on the Dutch study, is that downloaders are reported to be more frequent visitors to concerts, and game downloaders actually bought more games than those who didn’t. And in the music industry, lesser-know bands profit most from the sampling effect of file-sharing.

Companies may seek to make more money with more repressive internet copyright laws (like SOPA), but the consumer backlash is likely to be damaging as well, more so to the government than to those individual businesses. Instead, the Swiss government is telling entertainment companies to adapt to internet distribution or wither on the vine. Instead of allowing government to absorb the cost of restrictive and repressive censorship policies, they are simply telling the private sector that this is a case in which new technology is proving a threat to the established, and soon-to-be antiquated, ways of doing business. Switzerland’s report states, “Every time a new media technology has been made available, it has always been ‘abused’. This is the price we pay for progress.” If only the U.S. government possessed the same spine in the face of its own private sector.

SOPA Act To Be First Government Internet Regulation Law

Lawmakers go on the defensive over SOPA, accusing opponents of over-blowing unprecedented censorship.

T he House of Representatives began hearings on the controversial SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act) that has major internet companies and civil liberties organizations up in arms. The proposed legislation would force internet service providers to block or even slow down service to websites accused of copyright infringement, or so called “rogue websites”. However, many complain that SOPA is too far-reaching, and that it will give corporations, organizations, and the government the ability to censor internet content without enough accountability.

A clear illustration of how hot this piece of legislation has become? The hearing began with political supporters defending their positions. Rep Mel Watt (D-NC) and Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) both accused opponents of the bill of hyperbole and sensationalism. It’s “beyond troubling to hear hyperbolic charges that this bill will open the floodgates to government censorship," Watt’s railed from the House floor, saying his opponents’ claims about, “a repressive regime belittles the circumstances under which true victims of tyrannical governments actually live.”

Among the opponents of the bill, which has already passed in the Senate back in May, the bill will open the floodgates toward internet censorship and regulation that have never been seen before. The bill would change the Domain Name System, creating a blacklist for websites accused of piracy or copyright infringement. This could mean significant costs to providers and other websites, as well as significant questions about who or what will be doing the blacklisting, and what due process will be involved. Supporters, including many Hollywood companies that have significant content holdings, are advocating for an internet where the rules of sale and theft also apply.

The opponents, which include Google, Facebook, Zynga, Twitter, Mozilla, and others, have been lobbying heavily to kill the bill since its introduction last week. Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) accused Google of profiting from rogue websites, saying, "Given Google's record, their objection to authorizing a court to order a search engine to not steer consumers to foreign rogue sites is more easily understood."

Even if the bill does pass the House, it may not pass Obama desk as his administration has made very clear that their main cyberspace initiatives have been toward open and unregulated internet. SOPA would take unprecedented steps toward regulation and government oversight of internet content, and will greatly streamline corporate legal action regardless of case merit. As with every other facet of American like, allowing corporate interests to dictate public policy opens the door for significant abuses. Although rogue websites will no doubt be all but eliminated should this bill become law, there’s also a great potential for abuses and profiteering should organizations and companies with deep pockets choose game the system.

GOP Calls Net Neutrality "Internet Regulation", Attempts to Repeal

President Obama promises to veto any attempt by congressional Republicans to overturn new FCC net neutrality rules.

The Federal Communication Comission (FCC) published its new net neutrality rules back in September of this year, which spurred congressional Republicans to step up their efforts to kill the new rules. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson (R-TX) of the Senate Commerce Committee took the mantle in pushing a motion to overturn the new FCC rules, which prohibit internet service providers from blocking or slowing internet service in delivering competitors’ content; a common practice among internet service providers right now.

Congressional republicans have been calling the rules “onerous”, and claim that the FCC is overstepping its “statutory authority” in attempting to “regulate the internet”. Of course, if anything, the FCC’s net neutrality rules are deregulating the internet by providing all content equally to all internet users regardless of provider. The Republican-controlled House passed the motion to repeal the new rules in April, and the Senate is slated to hear the motion on Thursday. A total of nine Democrats will need to cross the aisle to vote on the filibuster-proof repeal in order to get the necessary 51 votes to pass the bill. However, even if the rules repeal motion does pass Congress, President Obama has already promised to veto the bill, which would then require a super-majority 60 votes to overturn, which is highly unlikely.

Although Republicans are attempting to frame the FCC’s new rules as an effort by the federal commission to “regulate the internet”, it’s a mischaracterization that the GOP has attempted many times before with both the SEC and the EPA. Again, pandering to a corporate interests in protecting consumer abuses online is being thinly veiled as “upholding free market” ideology.

However, the White House has made Open Internet Rules a focal point of its cyberspace strategy, and supports free and open access for all internet users. The White House said in an official statement to the House on Tuesday that, "It would be ill-advised to threaten the very foundations of innovation in the Internet economy and the democratic spirit that has made the Internet a force for social progress around the world,” Whether this message will be taken to heart among congressional Republicans is doubtful, and even as many of them hail the democratic and empowering abilities of the virtual world, they simultaneously attempt to empower businesses to restrict and constrain it.

There are still a number of suits filed by net neutrality opponents in courts around the country, and with the promise of a Presidential veto, this may be the only venue for the new net neutrality rules to be potentially overturned.

Hillary Clinton's Secret Weapon for Digital Diplomacy Around the World

Alec Ross, senior advisor for innovation, is Hillary Clinton's answer to bringing diplomacy into the 21st century.

Individuals and the private sector have been connecting like root systems for over a decade now, using the internet to create greater communication and information sharing networks across the globe. However, governments, which have traditionally been insulated bureaucracies very slow to change, are finally starting to join the rest of the globalization movement. In large part, this is due to the efforts of the U.S. senior advisor for innovation, a member of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's executive team. Alec Ross took the job at 37, and has been working on creating digital platforms for U.S. ambassadors around the world; integrating Facebook, Twitter, and other social networking into the array of more traditional methods by which ambassadors disseminate information in their respective areas of influence. In fact, the State Department regularly uses nine different foreign language Twitter accounts, with more likely on the way. Ross tells TIME magazine that these new technologies give diplomats tools to exert "smart power" in advancing their interests.

The U.S. has a famously wide and intricately webbed net of interests, responsibilities, and investments across the globe; no doubt why Clinton's 21st century statecraft agenda makes developing informational technologies and network communications a top priority. Military efforts, humanitarian aid, disaster relief, poverty prevention programs, and aid for democratic movements (like the Arab Spring) comprise efforts in dozens of nations that all need to be coordinated and well-communicated. Ross has been making developments in that area. A few examples of the digital networks that he's helped to create include an online map of landmines in Colombia, an anonymous mobile-phone based tip line to fight the drug wars in Juarez, Mexico, and a text-message programs to collect aid and coordinate assistance during the Haiti earthquake's aftermath. Ross is exploring ways to develop a mobile-payment program to assist with famine in East Africa.

Digital networks have been especially important in the Middle East, where popular uprisings use of social networking sites to organize have forced several repressive regimes to attempt to block the internet entirely. Syria, Yemen, and most recently Libya, have all shut down the internet in their country's to stifle popular unrest. Clinton has spoken out publicly against such measures, condemning them and recently announcing a $30 million initiative to "support digital activists and push back against internet repression wherever it occurs." Ross elaborated somewhat on the plan, saying that they will "support technologies and train activists so they can exercise their universal rights, including freedom of expression. Some nations, like Iran and China, are actively opposed to efforts to open internet access and utilization to everyone. China, in particular, boasts 400 million internet users and is struggling to maintain a security state in such a widely-used and openly-used medium. "The Chinese are still grappling with the implications of a networked citizenry," Ross tells TIME, "Ultimately, the future of the Internet in China will be determined by citizens under 25 who are growing up digitally."

Though the internet is increasingly becoming a place that is has become securitized by individual states and corporations looking to consolidate their power or turn a profit, it still has great potential for allowing people to thrive. "Technology takes on the values and intentions of it's users," Ross admits. Instead it should be seen as a tool, whose use and intent is determined by the people using it. For governments and corporations to attempt to use the tool to control their people is an exercise in futility, as throughout history the people have proven more tenacious than their regime.

Want Computers for All?

Share your opinions about universal computer access as well as news and ways to help people get computer access. Click "Add a Post" to begin.

House Internet Surveillance Bill Advances

Protecting Children from internet Pornographers Bill advances, retreating on Republicans "limited government" sermons.

In the midst of the government debt ceiling, deficit spending embarrassment this summer the Republican-controlled House of Representatives quietly passed a controversial internet surveillance bill through congress. This bill, hyperbolically entitled "Protecting Children from Internet Pornographers" bill, was passed by congressional Republicans and a handful of Democrats through committee in late July, and will be heard upon the House floor sometime soon (post-Labor Day weekend). The bill is one of the most flagrantly hypocritical bills to be passed, even submitted, via the Republican majority so far, flying in the face of their preachy "limited government" sermonizing. That said, without considerable change in the condition or makeup of the House, the bill is likely to pass a House vote and make it to the Senate floor.

H.R. 1981, the PCFIP Bill, is essentially a personal data retention bill that asks internet providers to retain all online activity of their customers for up to 18 months. In other words, the internet provider you pay to provide you with web access will record and archive every action you take online. Every link you click, every IP address, every username and password, every account and credit card number, everything; all subject to a search by law enforcement officials should they feel a need for it. Furthermore, in order to access the information, according to the bill, they would only need to request it from the internet provider; no warrants, no due process. Such unfettered, unaccountable access to our private lives doesn't exist in the physical world. If the web could be one of the fastest growing and strongest producing areas of commerce, if the government considers cyberspace a legitimate theater of operation in time of war (as they've determined with their new Cybersecurity Initiative), then why isn't the virtual world subject to the same checks and balances, the same constitutional protections, as our physical world?

Sponsors of the bill, a number of congressional Republicans and a handful of Democrats, feel that the internet is infested with sexual predators and child pornographers, and are attempting to staunch the tide of debauchery with a piece of wide-reaching legislation which would essentially lift the veil on internet anonymity. Unfortunately, that veil is lifted on everyone accessing the internet (which is very nearly everyone) in order to catch a comparatively small number of criminals. This is characteristically a tactic of police states, like China or North Korea; countries that have such little faith or respect for their own populace that they deny them their personal liberties in the name of protection and lawfulness.

I find it especially strange that a bill of this nature would be introduced, and co-sponsored, by so many Republicans; something that seems to fly in the face of their "limited government" mantra. Of course, conservative principles have only supported limited government in fiscal matters, but many would like to see government legislate people's lifestyles and peak into their living rooms to assure accountability. If the majority in the House or the mentality of its lawmakers does not change, it's likely that H.R. 1981 will pass the full vote, and be sent to the Senate floor. Depending on the outcome of 2012, we could soon find ourselves in a world where our online privacy is forfeit to the agenda of a few fear-mongers in government.