FTC members and staffers heard from academics about privacy, security and other risks in a range of connected products and in some of the programming that undergirds parts of the IoT. Many shared parts of their research and published papers Wednesday during the FTC’s PrivacyCon.
The Allow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act (FOSTA) (HR-1865) the House passed Tuesday evening (see 1802270057) is an example of the need for government intervention in the absence of action from tech companies, said House Commerce Committee Chairman Greg Walden, R-Ore. During an appearance Wednesday at an Axios event, he expressed skepticism online platforms couldn't formulate algorithms that weed out malicious actors. If private enterprise isn't responsible and doesn’t actively respond to community needs, regulation is needed, he said. “We passed a law yesterday to deal with it,” he said, while drawing parallels to alleged Russian U.S. election interference. “It’s shocking that this couldn’t have been identified before and managed differently, and that may require additional disclosure requirements,” he said, adding he would like a “light touch” in this space, but people are “demanding accountability.” Consumers want more control over their data and privacy, he said.
The Allow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act (FOSTA) (HR-1865) the House passed Tuesday evening (see 1802270057) is an example of the need for government intervention in the absence of action from tech companies, said House Commerce Committee Chairman Greg Walden, R-Ore. During an appearance Wednesday at an Axios event, he expressed skepticism online platforms couldn't formulate algorithms that weed out malicious actors. If private enterprise isn't responsible and doesn’t actively respond to community needs, regulation is needed, he said. “We passed a law yesterday to deal with it,” he said, while drawing parallels to alleged Russian U.S. election interference. “It’s shocking that this couldn’t have been identified before and managed differently, and that may require additional disclosure requirements,” he said, adding he would like a “light touch” in this space, but people are “demanding accountability.” Consumers want more control over their data and privacy, he said.
The Allow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act (FOSTA) (HR-1865) the House passed Tuesday evening (see 1802270057) is an example of the need for government intervention in the absence of action from tech companies, said House Commerce Committee Chairman Greg Walden, R-Ore. During an appearance Wednesday at an Axios event, he expressed skepticism online platforms couldn't formulate algorithms that weed out malicious actors. If private enterprise isn't responsible and doesn’t actively respond to community needs, regulation is needed, he said. “We passed a law yesterday to deal with it,” he said, while drawing parallels to alleged Russian U.S. election interference. “It’s shocking that this couldn’t have been identified before and managed differently, and that may require additional disclosure requirements,” he said, adding he would like a “light touch” in this space, but people are “demanding accountability.” Consumers want more control over their data and privacy, he said.
In oral argument in the “Microsoft Ireland” Supreme Court case Tuesday (see 1710160009), Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor asked whether the high court should defer to Congress for a legislative solution on police access to data stored abroad. Ginsburg called the environment of U.S. v. Microsoft a “brave new world.” Citing the 1986 Stored Communications Act, Microsoft challenged a U.S. government warrant demanding emails stored in Ireland as part of a drug trafficking investigation. The high court granted the government’s application to review a 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision that said Microsoft didn't have to comply with a probable-cause warrant for the customer's emails in Ireland because U.S. law doesn't apply abroad.
In oral argument in the “Microsoft Ireland” Supreme Court case Tuesday (see 1710160009), Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor asked whether the high court should defer to Congress for a legislative solution on police access to data stored abroad. Ginsburg called the environment of U.S. v. Microsoft a “brave new world.” Citing the 1986 Stored Communications Act, Microsoft challenged a U.S. government warrant demanding emails stored in Ireland as part of a drug trafficking investigation. The high court granted the government’s application to review a 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision that said Microsoft didn't have to comply with a probable-cause warrant for the customer's emails in Ireland because U.S. law doesn't apply abroad.
A handful of tech groups asked House lawmakers to delay considering “rushed” anti-sex trafficking legislation, slated for a vote Monday, arguing the law would ultimately harm victims. The Center for Democracy & Technology also criticized the bill, claiming it would “substantially expand” legal risks of hosting online speech, resulting in broad censorship. Lawmakers have an agreement (see 1802220043) for amending the Allow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act (HR-1865) to include language from the Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act (S-1693). The House bill has 174 co-sponsors. TechFreedom, Engine, FreedomWorks, Citizens Outreach, R Street Institute and the Committee for Justice wrote a letter calling SESTA’s language unworkable and warned against simply merging the two bills on the House floor. “Any new legislation should empower prosecutors and compensate victims without inadvertently discouraging responsible websites from helping to combat sex trafficking,” the groups wrote. TechFreedom released a separate statement Friday, again saying the legislation, as merged, would harm, not help, trafficking victims. SESTA would “upset a balance carefully struck by Congress in 1996 to ensure that the fear of liability does not discourage responsible websites from assisting in the fight against trafficking,” TechFreedom said. CDT’s Free Expression Project Director Emma Llansó said Thursday the reconciled bill combines the most expansive parts of SESTA and FOSTA, creating a “mashup of overlapping forms of federal and state criminal and civil liability for internet intermediaries.” Llansó said the legal risks from the new law could potentially put small firms out of business after one infraction, jeopardizing classified ad sites, dating apps, social media platforms and other hosts of user-generated content. “By including SESTA's expansion of existing federal anti-trafficking law, which links liability to knowledge of specific content, the House bill will actually discourage some platforms from engaging in good-faith moderation efforts,” CDT said. CTA President Gary Shapiro said Friday that “moving forward on a House vote without having a legislative hearing on the impact of the SESTA language is ill-advised.”
A handful of tech groups asked House lawmakers to delay considering “rushed” anti-sex trafficking legislation, slated for a vote Monday, arguing the law would ultimately harm victims. The Center for Democracy & Technology also criticized the bill, claiming it would “substantially expand” legal risks of hosting online speech, resulting in broad censorship. Lawmakers have an agreement (see 1802220043) for amending the Allow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act (HR-1865) to include language from the Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act (S-1693). The House bill has 174 co-sponsors. TechFreedom, Engine, FreedomWorks, Citizens Outreach, R Street Institute and the Committee for Justice wrote a letter calling SESTA’s language unworkable and warned against simply merging the two bills on the House floor. “Any new legislation should empower prosecutors and compensate victims without inadvertently discouraging responsible websites from helping to combat sex trafficking,” the groups wrote. TechFreedom released a separate statement Friday, again saying the legislation, as merged, would harm, not help, trafficking victims. SESTA would “upset a balance carefully struck by Congress in 1996 to ensure that the fear of liability does not discourage responsible websites from assisting in the fight against trafficking,” TechFreedom said. CDT’s Free Expression Project Director Emma Llansó said Thursday the reconciled bill combines the most expansive parts of SESTA and FOSTA, creating a “mashup of overlapping forms of federal and state criminal and civil liability for internet intermediaries.” Llansó said the legal risks from the new law could potentially put small firms out of business after one infraction, jeopardizing classified ad sites, dating apps, social media platforms and other hosts of user-generated content. “By including SESTA's expansion of existing federal anti-trafficking law, which links liability to knowledge of specific content, the House bill will actually discourage some platforms from engaging in good-faith moderation efforts,” CDT said. CTA President Gary Shapiro said Friday that “moving forward on a House vote without having a legislative hearing on the impact of the SESTA language is ill-advised.”
A handful of tech groups asked House lawmakers to delay considering “rushed” anti-sex trafficking legislation, slated for a vote Monday, arguing the law would ultimately harm victims. The Center for Democracy & Technology also criticized the bill, claiming it would “substantially expand” legal risks of hosting online speech, resulting in broad censorship. Lawmakers have an agreement (see 1802220043) for amending the Allow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act (HR-1865) to include language from the Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act (S-1693). The House bill has 174 co-sponsors. TechFreedom, Engine, FreedomWorks, Citizens Outreach, R Street Institute and the Committee for Justice wrote a letter calling SESTA’s language unworkable and warned against simply merging the two bills on the House floor. “Any new legislation should empower prosecutors and compensate victims without inadvertently discouraging responsible websites from helping to combat sex trafficking,” the groups wrote. TechFreedom released a separate statement Friday, again saying the legislation, as merged, would harm, not help, trafficking victims. SESTA would “upset a balance carefully struck by Congress in 1996 to ensure that the fear of liability does not discourage responsible websites from assisting in the fight against trafficking,” TechFreedom said. CDT’s Free Expression Project Director Emma Llansó said Thursday the reconciled bill combines the most expansive parts of SESTA and FOSTA, creating a “mashup of overlapping forms of federal and state criminal and civil liability for internet intermediaries.” Llansó said the legal risks from the new law could potentially put small firms out of business after one infraction, jeopardizing classified ad sites, dating apps, social media platforms and other hosts of user-generated content. “By including SESTA's expansion of existing federal anti-trafficking law, which links liability to knowledge of specific content, the House bill will actually discourage some platforms from engaging in good-faith moderation efforts,” CDT said. CTA President Gary Shapiro said Friday that “moving forward on a House vote without having a legislative hearing on the impact of the SESTA language is ill-advised.”
Social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter should require advertisers to establish public-facing profiles with information about all their ads, a Microsoft researcher said Friday, arguing this could help eliminate toxic, viral political commercials. Speaking at a Georgetown Law Center conference, Microsoft Research’s Tarleton Gillespie suggested the profiles include targeting logic from ads, saying that's one way platforms could return value to consumers: “That’s our data that we handed to them for free.”