Posted 08/30/09 at 03:46:40 PM by Justin Kerr

Back in April we reported on new legislation which, if passed, would give the president the authority to take control of the Internet. Over four months later it appears that not only has this bill continued to be worked on, but it is now closer to fruition than ever before. Revisions to the legislation made by the office of Sen. Jay Rockefeller, a West Virginia Democrat, remains “vague” according to Larry Clinton, president of the Internet Security Alliance. “It is unclear what authority Sen. Rockefeller thinks is necessary over the private sector. Unless this is clarified, we cannot properly analyze, let alone support the bill.

The legislation which is now up to 55 pages in length isn’t all controversial, in fact the only section that is being hotly debated at the moment is Section 201. In this section the President is permitted to “direct the nations response to the cyber threat” if necessary for “the national defense and security.” This would allow the White House to engage in “periodic mapping” of private networks that are determined to be critical, and those companies will “share” requested information with the federal government. In plain English, this simply means that if your company is deemed “critical”, regulations determine who you can hire, what information you can disclose, and under what conditions the government can take control over your companies computers or network.

“The language has changed but it doesn’t contain any real additional limits,” according to the Electronic Frontier Foundation. “It simply switches the more direct and obvious language they had originally to the more ambiguous version. The designation of what is a critical infrastructure system or network as far as I can tell has no specific process”.

Want to read the official White House response to all the controversy? Click the jump to read the statement made to CNET’s Declan McCullagh.

Read More

Posted 06/23/09 at 04:05:18 PM by Andy Salisbury

Congressman Eric Massa, who represents New York’s 29th district, is taking a stand against what he sees as an abusive industry: broadband providers. Having recently written a bill, which he plans to introduce to the U.S. House of Representatives, he’s hoping to give the Federal Trade Commission the authority to veto ISP data capping plans.

“Volume-based pricing is detrimental to our economy,” stated Representative Massa at a press conference.  “I became aware of this issue when Rochester doctors said it would have a catastrophic impact.  They rely on broadband for their professional work, and pricing would triple their bill.  Volume usage charges for broadband Internet access that are substantially above cost in a market without sufficient competition constitute an unfair and unconscionable practice, as substantially above-cost pricing has anti-competitive and anti-consumer effects on Internet use.”

He also continued, stating that if we don’t remove data capping plans on ISPs, we could stunt the growth of online video, and potentially hurt “agricultural, medical, educational, environmental, library and nonprofit purposes” as well.

Representative Massa reportedly features tough competition from his colleagues, who support the ISPs and their lobbyists. Still, he remains vigilant.

Read More

Posted 05/24/09 at 01:05:53 PM by Justin Kerr

Depending on where you check your stats, the US ranks anywhere from 15th to 22nd in broadband speeds, falling way behind other countries such as Iceland, Denmark, and even Canada. The broadband problem in the US gets even worse as you move out further into the rural areas where some communities have the choice of dial up, or if they have a ton of money to burn, super high latency satellite. This is a problem that won’t be solved overnight, but a new bill proposed in Congress last week by Democratic Representative Anna Eshoo, might just be the long term solution everyone is looking for.

The new bill would force governments to build fiber conduit into the sides of all new road projects allowing high-speed connections to flow naturally throughout the country. The costs are expected to be relatively low, since the bulk of the cost associated with laying new fiber is digging up and burying the cables.

Eshoo is the representative pushing the proposal forward in Congress, but doesn’t deserve full credit for the idea. The concept was initially proposed last year in the New America Foundation’s playbook, a guide published by Ben Lennett and Sascha Meinrath who were advisors to the Obama campaign on tech issues. The cost of the fiber optic cables will still be paid by private companies, but it will make for a much more compelling return on investment for fiber deployments in the future.

With all the new roads the Obama administration is proposing to stimulate the economy, this certainly seems like an idea they should implement sooner, rather than later. What do you think?

Read More

Posted 04/11/09 at 12:53:16 PM by Justin Kerr

New legislation proposed on April 1st will give a whole new meaning to geeks who like to joke that the President has his finger on the button. If the proposed legislation comes to pass, the president will have the ability to shut down public and private networks, including internet traffic should the need arise. This power is part of a new cybersecurity emergency plan that is designed to help protect the US against attack, but also gives the government unprecedented control over our networks.

The critics of this bill however are lining up, and are voicing their concerns over how this power could be abused. According to Leslie Harris of the Center for Democracy and Technology, “This is pretty sweeping legislation. Seems the President could turn off the Internet completely or tell someone like Verizon to limit or block certain traffic. There is a lot to worry about in this bill.”

Since the bill is still in its early stages, it is unclear what amendments will be made, or if it will even be passed at all. West Virginia Democratic Senitor John Rockefeller made it clear to the media that this is the first draft of the proposal, and that they will be in close contact with internet-centric companies who obviously have a lot more at stake here than the average user.

Obama may soon have the power to nuke the real world, and World of Warcraft. Are you comfortable with this?

Read More

Posted 04/10/09 at 06:31:37 PM by Andy Salisbury

Ah, the French. Sure, they may be the butt of many a joke, but its situations like these that remind us that they’re (usually) well deserved.

While the “Creation and Internet” bill (a bill that would allow ISPs to take actions against customers accused of illegally downloading copyrighted material) won preliminary approval in French Parliament last week, it would appear that too few members supporting the bill showed up to the hearing that ultimately saw it denied.

According to reports, the bill was expected to pass, but a low turnout caused the bill’s opposition, the French Socialist party, to defeat it by a vote of 21 to 15. And while President Nicolas Sarkozy’s own UMP party was able to propel him to the highest office in France, they were unable to turn down that third crêpe, and missed out on the hearing.

This isn’t the last we’ll hear of it though – the UMP party does intend to reintroduce an amended version within the month. Maybe this time they’ll show up?

Read More

Posted 02/23/09 at 07:15:56 PM by Pulkit Chandna

The Kiwi government seems to have been somewhat precipitate in formalizing a controversial “three strikes” rule meant to discourage copyright usurpation. The anti-P2P law, which was originally scheduled to come into force on February 28, has been pushed back to March in the face of some stiff resistance from a group called the Creative Freedom Foundation and country’s ISPs.

An internet blackout organized by the group has forced the government to reconsider the controversial legislation. The Kiwi government plans to bring it into effect on March 27. However, the government wants the ISPs and copyright holders to see eye to eye on the issue before enforcing the law.

The ISPs are opposing the legislation, which makes repeat copyright infringers liable for disconnection, because they want tainted users to be able to defend themselves (using counter-notices).

Read More

Posted 01/12/09 at 10:36:59 PM by Nathan Grayson

“WARNING: Excessive exposure to violent video games and other violent media has been linked to aggressive behavior.”

WARNING: The above label could soon take top billing on all of your favorite game packages – that is, if Congressman Joe Baca has his way. Last week, he introduced the “Video Game Health Labeling Act of 2009.” His reasoning? A masterpiece of misinformation.

“The videogame industry has a responsibility to parents, families and to consumers – to inform them of the potentially damaging content that is often found in their products,” Baca said in a statement.

“They have repeatedly failed to live up to this responsibility.  Meanwhile research continues to show a proven link between playing violent games and increased aggression in young people.  American families deserve to know the truth about these potentially dangerous products.”

Of course, Baca fails to mention the other, equally valid studies that kind of, you know, “prove” that gamers are, by and large, normal people. We think one of them might’ve been titled “Real Life.”

So yeah, odds are, this bill won’t be sitting on Capitol Hill for long. Sorry, Baca. Same time next week?

Read More

Posted 11/15/07 at 01:39:28 PM by Erin Simon

A new federal financial aid bill includes unprecedented copyright provisions calling on universities to curb students' filesharing.

Read More