April’s newsletter didn’t get posted to the web, sorry for the delay.
CONTENTS
[1] Newsletter Highlights
[2] USACM Adds a Balanced Voice to the Copyright Wars
[3] Mixed Bag Data Security Legislation Inches Forward, USACM Comments on Proposal
[4] Proponents of “Net Neutrality” Express Concern Over New Legislation
[5] Senate Increases Funding for Basic Research, House Less Receptive
[6] Maryland House Passes Legislation Mandating Paper Trails for E-Voting Systems
[7] Upcoming Events
[8] About USACM
[An archive of all previous editions of Washington Update is available here.]
[1] NEWSLETTER HIGHLIGHTS
Below are highlights of the top stories for March; there’s more detail on each below, as well as on our weblog at http://www.acm.org/usacm:
* USACM releases policy statement on Digital Rights Management (DRM) encompassing six principles Congress should consider as it works on legislation where technology and copyright policy intersect
* The House Energy and Commerce Committee passes datasecurity legislation that reflects several USACM’s priorities, but concerns remain over “risk-based” notification proposals
* Telecommunications Act rewrite draws fire over “net neutrality” provisions, among other things
* The Senate supports President Bush’s American Competitiveness Initiative by passing budget that increases funding for basic research, less support found in the House of Representatives
* Maryland House of Delegates passes legislation mandating paper trails, Governor endorses effort
[2] USACM ADDS A BALANCED VOICE TO THE COPYRIGHT WARS
The battles over copyright policy in Washington D.C. are nothing new, but the digitizing of copyrighted works and the ability to quickly and widely distribute protected works has raised the stakes on this debate. A large part of this debate, and ultimately the most interesting to USACM, is that those holding copyrighted works are increasingly turning toward technology to protect their works in the digital age. Often called “Digital Rights Management,” these technologies present two interesting questions to policy makers. One, how does technology help or undermine existing copyright policies? Two, if technologies employed in the marketplace cannot adequately protect works or undermine existing fair uses of works, what role should policymakers have in steeping into this area and mandating how technology should perform?
To help guide policymakers thinking on this subject, USACM has adopted six principles for Digital Rights Management (DRM) policy: competition, copyright balance, consumer protection, privacy and consent, research and public discourse, and targeted policies. Each is too long to summarize in the newsletter; the entire statement can be found at:
http://www.acm.org/usacm/Issues/DRM.htm
The statement reflects USACM’s belief that DRM systems have a role in protecting against wide-spread infringement; however, it also reflects the community’s belief that long-standing legal uses of copyrighted works and consumer rights should be respect by policymakers wrestling with this issue.
Clearly theses principles can be used to educate Congress on at least four bills it is currently reviewing. First, the so-called “analog hole” bill, which creates a federal technology mandate that prevents transferring digital content to analog and back to digital without whatever DRM is attached to the original work. Second, the “broadcast flag” bill (all we have is a draft proposal on this), which would mandate that digital receivers recognize a flag embedded in video signals with DRM. Third, the “audio flag” bill, which is similar to the broadcast flag bill but deals with digital audio broadcasts. Fourth, Representative Boucher’s (D-VA) Digital Media Consumers’ Rights Act of 2005, which among other things amends the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) to allow for research into technological protection measures and circumvention of technology copy protection for “fair use” purposes, both of which are illegal today. USACM will now look to educate policymakers on how the principles below apply to their efforts.
[3] MIXED BAG DATA SECURITY LEGISLATION INCHES FORWARD, USACM COMMENTS ON PROPOSAL
Congress took another step forward in trying to deal with the numerous data breaches that continue to make news as the House Energy and Commerce Committee unanimously passed legislation (H.R. 4127) that would force companies to shore up their security practices.
The legislation has four main components:
* A requirement that all businesses have data security plans in place,
* Special regulations for so-called “databrokers,”
* A nationwide notification requirement, and
* Preemption of state law
USACM issued a letter finding that the draft legislation embraces several of the Fair Information Practices (FIP) principles recommended in a previous letter to Congress. The new letter can be found at:
http://www.acm.org/usacm/PDF/USACM_comment_House_EC_bill_final.pdf
The previous letter can be found at:
http://www.acm.org/usacm/PDF/datasec_letter.pdf
The bill requires information brokers to verify the accuracy of personal information, allows consumers access to personal information held by brokers, and introduces additional accountability through mandatory audit logs – all welcome steps forward. However, USACM expressed concern about the legislation’s notification provisions if there is a breach of a company’s security.
The bill would require companies to notify consumers of a data breach only if there is a reasonable risk that the acquired data can be used for unlawful practices. Further, it states that if a company encrypts the data or uses other technologies or practices that render data unreadable or indecipherable, then these technologies create an automatic exemption from notification (e.g. it argues there is little risk with encryption).
This troubled USACM in two different respects. First, the creation of a risk-based standard for notification may not improve security practices. Clearly if there is a breach, regardless of the risk to consumers, a company’s security system should be hardened to deal with the vulnerabilities. If there are multiple breaches, then notification should be required. Second, just utilizing technology such as encryption doesn’t necessarily mean that the risk of identity theft is mitigated if there is a breach.
While the bill has some troubling aspects, it is still a step forward. The legislation will have to be reconciled against other bills moving through House committees before consideration by the full House of Representatives. Other bills include one recently passed by The House Banking Committee:
http://financialservices.house.gov/News.asp?FormMode=release&ID=775
Several Senate bills are also still in play, so Congress still has a long road ahead on this issue.
[4] PROPONENTS OF “NET NEUTRALITY” EXPRESS CONCERN OVER NEW LEGISLATION
As Congress considers revamping the Telecommunications Act of 1996, one of key issues it is debating is “net neutrality.” This term refers to the broad debate about whether Internet Service Providers should be able to create “fast” lanes to consumers’ homes that would allow preferential treatment for certain broadband traffic.
Neutrality supporters fear that creating “fast” lanes on the Internet for those willing to pay the price could stifle innovation by limiting the access of new companies or by creating an unfair advantage for larger companies able to pay the higher price for better access (or for the telcos themselves in offering their own services). Critics of the net neutrality idea, on the other hand, argue that enforcing neutrality will only limit their ability to innovate, invest in new networks, and bring new services and capabilities to consumers.
The House Energy and Commerce Committee recently unveiled a proposal that would give the Federal Communications Commission limited power to enforce a set of four principles the Commission adopted last August to encourage broadband deployment and promote the open nature of the Internet:
* Consumers are entitled to access the lawful Internet content of their choice.
* Consumers are entitled to run applications and use services of their choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement.
* Consumers are entitled to connect their choice of legal devices that do not harm the network.
* Consumers are entitled to competition among network providers, application and service providers, and content providers.
While most are generally in agreement with these principles, the details of how to enforce them are another matter. Shortly after the draft was released, proponents criticized the proposal as being too vague to be meaningful. They further argued that the proposal specifically prevents the FCC from issuing detailed rules to ensure the principles are followed. Proponents of strong neutrality positions also fear that the proposal will leave the FCC only as an adjudicator of disputes, instead of regulating behavior to prevent violations of the principles before they occur.
This is the first step in a long road for the Telecommunications Act rewrite. It is likely that Net Neutrality will be one of the centerpieces of this debate throughout the entire process.
[5] SENATE INCREASES FUNDING FOR BASIC RESEARCH, HOUSE LESS RECEPTIVE
Congress began it budget work in earnest last month with the Senate passing its version of the overall budget and the House eyeing early April for passage of its version. One critical issue this year is how Congress will handle the President’s the American Competitiveness Initiative (ACI), which calls for substantial new funding for the National Science Foundation (NSF), the Department of Energy’s Office of Science, and labs at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).
Early indications of Congressional support are mixed, as the Senate passed a budget that assumes funding for the initiative, but the House only partially funds it. The difference in the broad science numbers between the budgets is about $500 million. The ACI proposes about $900 million in increased funding for this year’s budget, so meeting the initiative’s funding goals may be difficult should the House budget prevail.
As always there are several caveats about what the budget really means at this stage of the process. First, this legislation only sets the overall levels of funding for the government and outlines spending targets for broad categories (e.g. Science), not funding for specific agencies. Second, it is not entirely clear that Congress will get a budget resolution because of larger fights over tax policy and funding for other programs. If Congress doesn’t enact an overall budget, then each body will decide their own allocations for funding. This discretion can leave a lot of room for funding different priorities.
[6] MARYLAND HOUSE PASSES LEGISLATION MANDATING PAPER TRAILS
By a unanimous vote, the Maryland House of Delegates passed legislation that would require the state to replace their current touch-screen voting machines with optical scan machines. The House action followed a letter from Governor Ehrlich (R-MD) Chairman of the State Board of Elections embracing the principles of the legislation, stating:
“Maryland’s lack of a paper trail means we are no longer a national leader in elections systems and that our equipment is susceptible to system failures … ” “It is inexcusable for us not to be prepared for a catastrophic system failure in the 2006 cycle.”
The legislation is now pending the State Senate, where its prospects are unclear.
ACM issued a statement in 2004 calling for voting systems to have a physical (e.g., paper) record to verify that individual’s vote has been accurately cast. That statement also called for all voting systems to “embody careful engineering, strong safeguards, and rigorous testing in both their design and operation.”
[7] UPCOMING EVENTS
April 5 Department of Homeland Security Privacy Workshop
April 10-21 Congress in Recess for Easter Holiday
April 22-27 ACM’s SIGCHI Conference in Montreal, Canada
May 2-5 ACM’s Computers, Freedom and Privacy Conference in Washington, D.C.
[8] ABOUT USACM
USACM is the U.S. Public Policy Committee of the Association for Computing Machinery (ACM). ACM is widely recognized as the premier organization for computing professionals, delivering resources that advance the computing and IT disciplines, enable professional development, and promote policies and research that benefit society. ACM hosts the computing industry’s leading Digital Library and Guide to Computing Literature, and serves its 80,000 global members and the computing profession with journals and magazines, conferences, workshops, electronic forums, and its Career Resource Centre and Professional Development Centre. For more information about USACM and ACM, see
http://www.acm.org/usacm/about.html
BACK ISSUES
For earlier editions of the ACM Washington Update, see
http://www.acm.org/usacm/update/
SUBSCRIBE/UNSUBSCRIBE
To subscribe to ACM’s Washington Update newsletter, send an e-mail to listserv@acm.org with “subscribe WASHINGTON-UPDATE ‘First Name’ ‘Last Name’” (no quotes) in the body of the message.
To unsubscribe, simply include the “SIGNOFF WASHINGTON-UPDATE” command in an email to listserv@acm.org.
Cameron posted this at 9:28 am ET | Filed in ACM/USACM News, Newsletter | Permanent Link |Trackbacks
The URI to TrackBack this entry is: http://usacm.acm.org/usacm/weblog/wp-trackback.php/370
None at this time.