The White House decided a new voluntary agreement between ISPs and Hollywood on internet privacy was important enough to blog about. Unfortunately, the blog post pretty much said nothing. Since I already wasted time reading that White House post, I decided I should waste more time deconstructing what a waste of time it was.
The Administration is committed to reducing infringement of American intellectual property as part of our ongoing commitment to support jobs, increase exports and maintain our global competitiveness.
Well, I assume you’re committed to reducing anything that’s against the law, right? I mean, that’s why we have laws. But if you want to give me the this is all about jobs spiel, I suppose an election year is coming up.
The joining of Internet service providers and entertainment companies…
I’m sorry. Was there a merger of some sort? Is the FTC involved? Don’t some of the entertainment companies already own ISPs? But go on, I’m sure you’ll explain more.
…in a cooperative effort to combat online infringement can further this goal and we commend them for reaching this agreement. We believe it will have a significant impact on reducing online piracy.
Say what? What effort? What are they doing? Got a link or anything about this? Sounds pretty important. If I wanted to understand more about it, um, you want to point me to anything in particular?
We believe that this agreement is a positive step and consistent with our strategy of encouraging voluntary efforts to strengthen online intellectual property enforcement and with our broader Internet policy principles, emphasizing privacy, free speech, competition and due process.
Again, what agreement? You’re telling me this is all wonderful, but you can’t explain what’s going on? I mean, I know it’s all voluntary or whatever, and you’ve got nothing apparently to do with it other than saying you support it. But if you are so supportive of it to do a blog post, maybe you could explain it?
As such, we will follow the implementation and outcomes of this arrangement with great interest. Our expectation is that the new organization created by it will have ongoing consultations with privacy and freedom of expression advocacy groups to assure that its practices are fully consistent with the democratic values that have helped the Internet to flourish.
There’s a new organization? What’s it called? Does it have a web site? A Twitter account? Throw me a bone here. Maybe tell me some of the organizations behind it?
Simultaneously, the Administration will continue to pursue comprehensive solutions to the problems associated with Internet piracy, including increased law enforcement and educational awareness. To win the future and succeed in the global economy, it is critical to protect the intellectual property of America’s innovators and creators.
Really, that’s it? You called me over to the blog to tell me basically nothing? Thanks. I ended up having to head over to Techmeme, to read what journalists were writing about this new rosy future. Thank goodness they were around, because you told me zilch.
Next time, if you have nothing to say, then say nothing.
Oh, special request. If you’re all for helping Hollywood fight piracy, how about helping those consumers who actually do buy thing legitimately. For one, I never, ever, ever want a DVD to force me to sit through 5 minutes of previews. Can we have a law that if I push Menu, I immediately get the Menu button?
And that FBI warning? Enough. Let them put it on the box. I don’t need to see that logo over and over again. What other industry gets to shove those kind of warnings down the throats of consumers over and over again, outside of maybe the airline industry. And it’s not like we’re getting safety instructions, or anything.
By Danny Sullivan
Friday, July 8, 2011
Monday, January 24, 2011
Ad Groups Granted Extension To Comment On Do-Not-Track
At the request of a coalition of industry groups, the Federal Trade Commission has extended the deadline for comments to its privacy report until Feb. 18. The original deadline was Jan. 31.
Stuart Ingis, counsel to the umbrella organization Digital Advertising Alliance, asked for an extension in a letter to the FTC sent late last year. He said that business associations needed more time to evaluate the FTC's report -- which called on Web companies to create a universal mechanism for consumers to opt out of online tracking -- as well as a separate report about privacy issued by the Department of Commerce.
"Additional time will allow business to evaluate the potential impact on the proposals to important business operations and critical services to consumers," he wrote. "By allowing members to fully digest the two proposals and provide thoughtful input in the form of additional comments, we believe we can provide the Commission with more meaningful input from a broad spectrum of affected industries."
The American Association of Advertising Agencies, American Advertising Federation, Association of National Advertisers, Direct Marketing Association, Newspaper Association and U.S. Chamber of Commerce were among the groups that requested extra time. They had asked for an extension until March 15.
In a separate letter, the Securities Industry and Financial Markets also asked for a 30-day extension. That organization said the FTC's report "may impact the financial services industry to a significant extent."
In its privacy report, the FTC sought comment on a host of issues, including whether it should recommend legislation requiring do-not-track if the industry doesn't voluntarily implement "an effective uniform choice mechanism."
The separate Commerce Department report called for business groups and consumer advocates to work together to develop self-regulatory privacy policies based on Fair Information Practices principles. That report also called for comments about whether new laws are needed. The deadline for those responses is Jan. 28.
The Senate is expected to conduct a hearing next month about online privacy.
To date, the FTC has received more than 200 comments on its report, primarily from individuals, but also from at least one business organization -- the Management Association for Private Photogrammetric Surveyors, made up of private firms engaged in remote sensing, spatial data and geographic information systems.
That group takes issue with a section of the report calling for companies to seek consumers' affirmative consent before collecting "precise geolocation data" -- included in the FTC's proposed definition of sensitive information. MAPPS says this restriction could "hamper the ability of firms, agencies and organizations to collect, use, share, or apply geospatial data."
The organization is asking the FTC to either exempt geolocation data from the prior-consent requirement or define the term more precisely. "It would be impractical, if not impossible, for our member firms to obtain prior approval or consent from individual citizens prior to acquiring or applying data such as satellite imagery, aerial photography, or parcel, address, or transportation data," the group writes.
By Wendy Davis
Stuart Ingis, counsel to the umbrella organization Digital Advertising Alliance, asked for an extension in a letter to the FTC sent late last year. He said that business associations needed more time to evaluate the FTC's report -- which called on Web companies to create a universal mechanism for consumers to opt out of online tracking -- as well as a separate report about privacy issued by the Department of Commerce.
"Additional time will allow business to evaluate the potential impact on the proposals to important business operations and critical services to consumers," he wrote. "By allowing members to fully digest the two proposals and provide thoughtful input in the form of additional comments, we believe we can provide the Commission with more meaningful input from a broad spectrum of affected industries."
The American Association of Advertising Agencies, American Advertising Federation, Association of National Advertisers, Direct Marketing Association, Newspaper Association and U.S. Chamber of Commerce were among the groups that requested extra time. They had asked for an extension until March 15.
In a separate letter, the Securities Industry and Financial Markets also asked for a 30-day extension. That organization said the FTC's report "may impact the financial services industry to a significant extent."
In its privacy report, the FTC sought comment on a host of issues, including whether it should recommend legislation requiring do-not-track if the industry doesn't voluntarily implement "an effective uniform choice mechanism."
The separate Commerce Department report called for business groups and consumer advocates to work together to develop self-regulatory privacy policies based on Fair Information Practices principles. That report also called for comments about whether new laws are needed. The deadline for those responses is Jan. 28.
The Senate is expected to conduct a hearing next month about online privacy.
To date, the FTC has received more than 200 comments on its report, primarily from individuals, but also from at least one business organization -- the Management Association for Private Photogrammetric Surveyors, made up of private firms engaged in remote sensing, spatial data and geographic information systems.
That group takes issue with a section of the report calling for companies to seek consumers' affirmative consent before collecting "precise geolocation data" -- included in the FTC's proposed definition of sensitive information. MAPPS says this restriction could "hamper the ability of firms, agencies and organizations to collect, use, share, or apply geospatial data."
The organization is asking the FTC to either exempt geolocation data from the prior-consent requirement or define the term more precisely. "It would be impractical, if not impossible, for our member firms to obtain prior approval or consent from individual citizens prior to acquiring or applying data such as satellite imagery, aerial photography, or parcel, address, or transportation data," the group writes.
By Wendy Davis
Friday, January 21, 2011
Verizon: FCC Neutrality Regulations An 'Abuse'
Following through on its threat to challenge net neutrality rules in court, Verizon on Thursday filed suit against the Federal Communications Commission. In court papers filed with the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, Verizon alleges that the FCC exceeded its authority by voting to promulgate open Internet rules. The telecom giant also argues that the new rules are "arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of discretion."
The FCC's controversial open Internet rules prohibit wireline providers from blocking or degrading traffic or otherwise engaging in unreasonable discrimination. The order also prohibits wireless providers from blocking sites or competing applications, but doesn't prohibit wireless carriers from creating fast lanes for companies that pay extra.
The rules -- which the FCC approved by a 3-2 vote in December -- drew criticism from many observers, ranging from consumer advocates, who say the rules don't go far enough to telecoms, who say that regulation will discourage investment and innovation. Verizon immediately vowed to challenge the rules in court.
The telecom giant isn't alone in trying to ax the new rules. The Republican leadership of the House Energy and Commerce Committee also aims to vacate them. An Energy and Commerce Committee memo circulated this week lists nullifying net neutrailty as among this year's priorities. Congress has the power to vacate the FCC's rules, but only if a majority of the House and Senate vote to do so within 60 days of the regulations' official publication. The FCC has not yet published its order in the Federal Register, but is expected to do so soon.
The committee, now under the leadership of Fred Upton (R-Mich.), also intends to hold hearings "on the harm regulation of the Internet will cause to investment, innovation and jobs, as well as the FCC's abuse of authority and process," according to the memo.
Some lawmakers also are gearing up to legislate against neutrality laws. Earlier this month, Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) introduced a bill that would strip the FCC of authority to regulate the Internet. Her measure -- which has garnered support from 60 other Congress members -- would ban the FCC from issuing "any regulations regarding the Internet or IP-enabled services."
By Wendy Davis
The FCC's controversial open Internet rules prohibit wireline providers from blocking or degrading traffic or otherwise engaging in unreasonable discrimination. The order also prohibits wireless providers from blocking sites or competing applications, but doesn't prohibit wireless carriers from creating fast lanes for companies that pay extra.
The rules -- which the FCC approved by a 3-2 vote in December -- drew criticism from many observers, ranging from consumer advocates, who say the rules don't go far enough to telecoms, who say that regulation will discourage investment and innovation. Verizon immediately vowed to challenge the rules in court.
The telecom giant isn't alone in trying to ax the new rules. The Republican leadership of the House Energy and Commerce Committee also aims to vacate them. An Energy and Commerce Committee memo circulated this week lists nullifying net neutrailty as among this year's priorities. Congress has the power to vacate the FCC's rules, but only if a majority of the House and Senate vote to do so within 60 days of the regulations' official publication. The FCC has not yet published its order in the Federal Register, but is expected to do so soon.
The committee, now under the leadership of Fred Upton (R-Mich.), also intends to hold hearings "on the harm regulation of the Internet will cause to investment, innovation and jobs, as well as the FCC's abuse of authority and process," according to the memo.
Some lawmakers also are gearing up to legislate against neutrality laws. Earlier this month, Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) introduced a bill that would strip the FCC of authority to regulate the Internet. Her measure -- which has garnered support from 60 other Congress members -- would ban the FCC from issuing "any regulations regarding the Internet or IP-enabled services."
By Wendy Davis
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)