Jeers to the Cellular Telecommunications & Internet Association for volunteering its membership’s data collections for the growing corporate-government surveillance axis.
In an exchange of comments to the FCC about whether there should be mandated security requirements for Customer Proprietary Network Information (aka “phone records”), the Electronic Privacy Information Center has argued for “deidentifying” older phone records that are no longer needed for billing and related purposes. This way, the companies can use the data to study their network needs without maintaining an ongoing risk to the privacy interests of customers. Whether this should be required by regulation or not – I think it probably shouldn’t – this practice is the right thing to do.
CTIA responds, “Historical calling records serve many legitimate purposes, from assisting customers who need to validate their wireless charges and document past events to responding to legal process from law enforcement in criminal and national security matters.” In other words, after all billing issues are gone, identified calling records are a trove of surveillance data for investigators. So let us keep them.
The implicit appeal to the threat of terrorism should not carry the day over the real consequences for every American consumers’ privacy. But regulators won’t put consumers’ interests ahead of covering their own asses. Watch for CTIA’s veiled terrorism argument to win. EPIC has the right answer, but it should be working this angle in the marketplace rather than in Washington.
From the Onion.
FCC: All Programming To Be Broadcast In ADHDTV By 2007
November 23, 2005 | Issue 41•47
WASHINGTON, DC–The Federal Communications Commission voted 3-1 Monday to require electronics manufacturers to make all television sets ADHD-compatible within two years…FCC Chairman Kevin Martin characterized the move as “a natural, forward-thinking response to the changing needs of the average American viewer…”
…”In the media-saturated climate of the modern age, few have the time and energy to sit still for an entire episode of King Of Queens,” Martin said. “Although the FCC will leave it up to the television networks to make the necessary programming changes, we are recommending, in accordance with the ADHDTV standard, that all shows be no more than six minutes in length, and that they contain jarring and unpredictable camera cuts to shiny props and detailed background sets…”
…The ruling represents a growing shift toward ADHDTV, a television format designed to meet the needs of an increasingly inattentive and hyperactive audience. The tuner includes a built-in device that automatically changes channels after three minutes of uninterrupted single-station viewing, as well as a picture-in-picture-in-picture-in-picture option…”A majority of our shows are only watchable for a few minutes at a time anyway,” said Fox president Peter Liguori, whose recently unveiled fall 2007 TV schedule includes over 850 new series. ..
Well, it could be true. They’ve done stranger things.
Happy Thanksgiving…
The Volokh Conspiracy has posted this gem.
The Internet’s absence from the President’s State of the Union address, noted here yesterday, didn’t escape our friends at the Progress and Freedom Foundation either. In comments yesterday, PFFer Kyle Dixon mused hopefully that “the speech did not quite vow to continue such policies as the FCC’s efforts to promote investment and innovation in digital technologies by minimizing regulation. But it did not rule out those policies either.”
It’s only February, but Kyle gets my vote already for “Glass Half Full Statement of the Year.”
Actually, Kyle makes some good points, even if he himself admits he is stretching far for good news. See his full piece here.
I recently reviewed a book called The Open Society Paradox: Why the 21st Century Calls for More Openness – Not Less. It’s not a good book and I said so.
The author has taken umbrage. I have no doubt that it stings to have something you’ve worked hard at openly criticized, but I feel no obligation to pull punches on a book with many weaknesses even if its author is a nice person.
His response to my review does say that the truth eventually comes out. In that spirit, I encourage all to read the review and the response . . . if not the book.
The family of a soldier killed in Iraq wants access to his e-mail. Yahoo! says no. Yahoo! is right. Their Terms of Service don’t allow them to give family access to an account after a user dies. Period. And there’s no “really sympathetic requester” exception. Stick to your guns, Yahoo!
The Federal Trade Commission has issued regulations fleshing out the CAN-SPAM Act. Given the impotence of CAN-SPAM to reduce spam, this weighty document can be regarded as regulation without a reason. Indeed, if, like me, you don’t buy the Supreme Court’s commerial speech doctrine, this is not just regulation without a reason, this is speech regulation without a reason.
There is (or may someday be) an argument that CAN-SPAM has (or will) reduce spam, but the recent successful spam lawsuits I’ve seen have gone off on laws other than CAN-SPAM or at least CAN-SPAM plus other laws. A full study of what laws are actually used against spammers, and perhaps an attempt to measure their deterrent effect, is needed. Volunteers?
Soon, perhaps, the American Psychological Association can certify that anti-spam activism is an obsessive-compulsive disorder. At the risk of wasting a lot of time myself, I’ll let you read for yourself about the guy who (literally) thinks getting an e-mail is a federal case. Alas, it is. But it really isn’t.
The delete key, Bob! And then go on with your life!
Here is a speech I gave on RFID the other day. I followed Katherine Albrecht of spychips.org, who is probably the world’s leading critic of RFID.
She’s very well-spoken and her presentation is thorough, but she makes a singular error: She takes at face value all the fantastic (at times, farcical) claims of people who are trying to build RFID systems and applications.
If I believed all the sales pitches that are out there, I’d be freaked out too. But I don’t, so I’m not. Please join me, dear readers.
The Progressive Policy Institute is very active on technology issues, providing a thoughtful point of view from what I guess would be ‘center-left.’ They take a bit of a “get over it” point of view on privacy, which is worrisome at times, but entirely welcome in the RFID debate. Here is PPI’s new piece on RFID, aiming to calm the hypesteria about RFID and privacy.
It’s SO odd when ‘consumer groups’ rail against technologies that will lower prices and improve the quality of goods for consumers. Thank you PPI for tamping down on that nonsense.
Just in case you missed it, here’s my piece on the social influences that will steer RFID to the benefit of consumers and a long, deeply engaging letter to the editor I sent to Information Week.
The Technology Liberation Front is the tech policy blog dedicated to keeping politicians' hands off the 'net and everything else related to technology.