The Association of Corporate Travel Executives recognizes the problems that the Department of Homeland Security will cause if it follows through on the threat to make air travel inconvenient for people from states that refuse the REAL ID Act’s national ID mandate. That’s why ACTE has released a statement asking for change to the REAL ID law.
An ACTE release published on etravelblackboard.com says:
“The traveling public needs more time to consider how these new regulations will affect them, and to be made aware of alternative efforts that may serve the same security objectives with less stress,” said Gurley. “Divisive activity by pressuring states into accepting a mandate at the risk of inconveniencing travelers is not conducive to the best policy-making.”
Gurley is referring to the Identification Security Enhancement Act S.717, described as a “compelling alternative to Real ID,” and is cosponsored by four senators from both parties. A companion bill, H.R. 1117, introduced by Tom Allen (D-ME) has been cosponsored by 32 representatives. It has been stated that these bills would produce a more secure identification program, faster than the implementation date (2017) given by DHS.
As I wrote in the American Spectator a week ago:
With enough states saying “Hell No” to the REAL ID mandate, the feds will back down from their threat to make air travel inconvenient. The airline industry will be up on Capitol Hill faster than you can say “You are now free to move about the country.” Congress will back the DHS off.
I was close. It turns out to be an air
travelers group making the first to move to end DHS’s brinksmanship.
Over at Slate, I call Republicans to task for flip-flopping on the rule of law:
Republicans scored a victory yesterday—with the help of many Democrats and independent Joe Lieberman—with the Senate’s spy bill. The legislation would give retroactive immunity to telecom companies who have shared customer data with the government in violation of the law, and it would expand the government’s ability to spy on Americans’ international phone calls without court oversight. Conservatives were ecstatic. “Immunity is very, very important, obviously, to get the full capability and cooperation we need,” Republican Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson, R-Texas, said yesterday. And yet this enthusiasm for telecom immunity is a betrayal of a principle Republicans love to invoke in other contexts. “America is based on the rule of law, and that law must be enforced,” Sen. Hutchison thundered during last year’s immigration debate. The conservative arguments against forgiving illegal immigrants apply with equal force to the telecom industry, even if no one made them yesterday.
The Senate legislation must now be reconciled with the House version, which does not include retroactive immunity. Given that the Democrats control both houses of Congress, you’d expect they’d come up with something closer to the House version, but I’m not going to hold my breath.
How about neither?
Chris Soghoian has an interesting post at his Surveill@nce St@te blog on C|Net decrying the “evisceration” of a data-breach bill in the Indiana legislature. He’s a big advocate of the bill and evidently spent a lot of time working for its passage.
“In a committee meeting Tuesday morning,” he reports, “Republican committee members successfully eviscerated the bill, reducing it to a mere 17 lines of text from the original 72. The Web site report provision and the requirement that companies notify the state attorney general whenever a data breach is discovered were stripped.” Etc.
I’m somewhat bemused to sense the excitement a young person has getting his first experience with the legislative process, then being disappointed with the results. I’m less amused – annoyed, frankly – that someone would use the length of a bill as a proxy for its quality. By that measure, the Consolidated Appropriations Act must be a real gem.
But it’s downright troubling to see a smart young man so thoroughly fallen victim to the fatal conceit. Top-down planning is no better in data security than it is in distributing bananas, but Soghoian is pretty sure he’s figured out how data security should be done across the economy (at least the economy of Indiana). I’m not sympathetic when his plans to have the legislature in his state carry out his will are quashed by others similarly situated.
Better than the regulatory contraption Soghoian desires is the use of simple common law rules, letting liability bring distributed knowledge about data breaches and data security together to construct the practices that best serve the public. There’s more to law than legislation, and people need to learn that.
Hmmm.. This sounds like trouble waiting to happen for kids in the UK. According to News.com:
British students aged 14 to 19 will have their school records permanently placed on an electronic database accessible to prospective employers. The project, called Managing Information Across Partners (MIAP), will launch in September. The record will include personal details and exam results and will remain with the pupil for life.
[…]
The system will be based on a Unique Learner Number. “The Unique Learner Number, necessary to acquire a learner record for the diploma is a unique identifier that can be used by a learner for life,” MIAP said on its Web site. “It is a national number that is validated and is therefore deemed to be unique.” The aim is to expand the system to include other information and to allow details already available but scattered across many databases to be brought together, it said.” The pupil would have control over the record and would be able to restrict the information shared.
Maybe. Or maybe not. As the story goes on to point out:
Continue reading →
My Progress & Freedom Foundation colleagues Ken Ferree, president of PFF, and Bret Swanson, a senior fellow with PFF, have filed comments today at the FCC in the heated proceeding about broadband network management policies. [Note: For more background, listen to our recent TLF podcast on the issue.] In their filing, Ken and Bret argue that:
Traffic shaping or channeling by broadband Internet access providers should be no more controversial than the examples provided above. Broadband access is not an unlimited resource. To the contrary, video and other rich media applications are profoundly changing the nature and volume of Internet traffic, straining network capacity. Video applications require between 100 and 1,000 times more bandwidth than static applications involving text, voice, or simple graphics. As video and graphics move to high-definition, many observers believe that web content and applications will grow in data-density by yet an additional factor of 10. Internet and IP traffic in the U.S. could grow more than 50-fold by 2015. The challenge facing providers of broadband access is how to maintain high-speed service for the vast majority of consumers while demands on the network mount.
[…]
Far from some nefarious plot to undermine the communications of their own subscribers, broadband access providers using traffic management tools to maintain the highest level of service for the greatest number of users simply are mirroring the commercially reasonable conduct of service providers everywhere, in nearly every field.
They go on to detail the technical reasons why various types of network management activities are necessary and beneficial:
Continue reading →
The Washington Post had me utterly fooled with its choices in headlines for a story regarding the killing of a Hezbollah leader that had been targetted by the U.S.
The headline on the Web site has now been changed, but here’s how the email alert and Web headline first appeared.
These are perfectly ambiguous as to who killed whom, and I took them to mean that Hezbollah had killed a target of theirs, someone representing the United States.
Cable and telecom operators have long fought like cats and dogs in the political marketplace. And now that they are competing more intensely for customers in the real marketplace, we can expect relations between the two camps to grow even more acrimonious inside the Beltway.
Case in point: Yesterday, cable operators Bright House, Comcast, and Time Warner filed a complaint at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) alleging that telecom giant Verizon has been offering “unlawful inducements to customers” in an effort to retain those customers looking to switch over to cable-based voice offerings. The cable companies want to FCC to force Verizon to halt those “winback” tactics which take place before a customer switches over. And the cable operators also want the FCC to award damages based on past harm supposedly done to them.
It’s an example of just how cut-throat the marketplace competition has become between the two sectors recently. As Cynthia Brumfield of IP Democracy points out, telecom operators have been hemorrhaging customers in recent years and cable operators have been the primary recipient of those telco-defectors. As Cynthia notes:
Continue reading →
This ad from the Republican National Committee has been making the rounds inside the beltway over the last week:
http://www.youtube.com/v/dWIn-S6W5pg&rel=1&border=1
The ad is chock-full of misleading, scare-mongering claims, most of which I’ve already addressed. But of course, the point of this ad isn’t education, but intimidation. The message is that Democrats who don’t fall in line behind the president’s warrantless surveillance agenda will face similar attack ads in the fall elections.
But as the Electronic Frontier Foundation points out, this tactic has already been tried, and it failed miserably. In the 2006 elections, incumbent Nancy Johnson used an ad with a virtually identical message to ward off challenger Chris Murphy. The ad backfired, sparking newspapers to editorialize that it was “desperate” and a “fraud.” Murphy returned fire with an ad quoting these editorials and arguing that Johnson would say anything to stay in power.
The rule of law and judicial oversight of domestic spying are bedrock principles of our system of government. There is no reason Democrats (or Republicans, for that matter) should be afraid to run on those principles in November. Capitulating to the president’s demands on this issue would not only undermine our civil liberties, but it would also miss a key opportunity to draw a clear contrast with an unpopular president.
Democrats are constantly complaining about the fact that they’re seen by voters as weak on national security issues. Perhaps their constant capitulation to the president’s demands is part of the problem. Democrats are never going to win elections by presenting themselves as being just as willing to shred the constitution. In the first place, no one will believe them, and in the second place, why would you vote for the imitation when you can vote for the original? Democrats are only going to win on national security when they’re willing to say something
different from the Republicans. This, it seems to me, is a golden opportunity. It allows them to stake out a clear position: “yes to eavesdropping on terrorists, no to eavesdropping on innocent Americans, and no to allowing big telecom companies to break the law.”
In an essay earlier today, I discussed why I believe that private censorship is superior to public censorship since it lets each family dictate for themselves what is in their own best interest. Public censorship, by contrast, expects regulators to dictate for all families what is best for them by imposing a single arbitrary standard on the entire nation. The ideal state of affairs, I argued, would be a nation of fully empowered parents who have the ability to perfectly tailor their family’s media consumption habits to their specific values and preferences. That would include the ability to not only block objectionable materials, but also to more easily find content they feel is appropriate for their families.
But, for the sake of argument, let’s assume that this ideal state of affairs exists but that many parents continue to allow their children to experience some types of media content that others believe is harmful. What should be done about that?
I ask because I was just reading through this month’s
Federal Communications Law Journal, which includes the transcript of a Federalist Society symposium on the “Expansion of Indecency Regulation.” The discussion included remarks from FCC Chairman Kevin Martin and Robert W. Peters, the President of Morality in Media among others. During the discussion, both Chairman Martin and Mr. Peters suggested that it if we really wanted to get serious about protecting children from media content somehow deemed “harmful to minors,” then we might need to consider criminal sanctions for parents who voluntarily bring such fare into their homes.
Continue reading →
The Technology Liberation Front is the tech policy blog dedicated to keeping politicians' hands off the 'net and everything else related to technology.