The U.S. and the other G7 nations signed a common understanding on digital economy competition (see here), DOJ said Thursday. It includes an agreement that competitive markets are vital to well-functioning economies, that digital transformation requires competition authorities to have up-to-date tools and resources for enforcement, that governments should assess whether policies or regulations unnecessarily restrict digital market competition, and that there needs to be more international cooperation and convergence in competition law application. There has been concern about data accumulation by platforms being a barrier to competitive entry, but such issues -- while challenging -- "are not beyond the reach of competition law," it said, and the G7 nations will continue to collaborate on such issues. FTC Chairman Joe Simons said the understanding "recognizes the importance for competition agencies to examine enforcement and policy issues raised by evolving business practices and emerging technologies in light of the goals of protecting consumers and promoting competition."
The FTC approved a roughly $5 billion privacy-related settlement with Facebook in a 3-2 party line vote, The Wall Street Journal reported Friday. That amount is toward the higher end of Facebook’s projected settlement (see 1904240064). DOJ’s Civil Division is reportedly reviewing the settlement. The FTC declined comment. DOJ and the company didn’t comment. The fine is a fraction of the company’s annual revenue and won’t make executives think twice about protecting user data, said House Antitrust Subcommittee Chairman David Cicilline, D-R.I. The apparent “slap-on-the-wrist” settlement shows Congress needs to investigate the FTC’s “wanton disregard” for its duties, said Freedom From Facebook co-chair Sarah Miller. Congress and state attorneys general should handle any antitrust probe of the platform, she said. The reported deal is a “capstone” for the agency’s failure to police privacy, said Open Markets Institute Director-Enforcement Sally Hubbard. The reported fine itself isn’t sufficient without business model and practices remedies, said Public Knowledge Competition Policy Counsel Charlotte Slaiman. Public Citizen called for “structural reforms and substantive terms to protect user privacy.”
Though opinions in the Supreme Court's Manhattan Community Access decision earlier this month (see 1906170014) don't mention social media providers, the majority ruling and the dissent agreement with the majority seems clearly to indicate social media services aren't state actors, blogged Santa Clara University Director-High Tech Law Institute professor Eric Goldman Wednesday. He said the majority opinion only deals with one branch of state action doctrine, but the ruling likely will have lower courts rejecting plaintiff attempts to restrict publishers' editorial freedom, with such "workaround arguments represent[ing] pro-censorship doctrines."
The U.S. should seek agreement with the EU on law enforcement access to data stored overseas, BSA|The Software Alliance and other industry organizations said Friday in a letter to Attorney General William Barr. The 2018 Clarifying Lawful Overseas Use of Data (Cloud) Act was a "critical first step" in modernizing the U.S. approach to challenges of law enforcement access to digital evidence, and there's now a "golden opportunity" to realize its potential as the EU Council authorized the European Commission to enter talks with the U.S., they said: "We urge you to explore this opportunity." They said an EU-wide pact with the U.S. could resolve potential conflicts of law that threaten American businesses in key markets and boost cooperation between U.S. law enforcement and their European counterparts. The agreement could also define processes for committing to privacy, civil liberties and human rights protections. Other signers include the Computer & Communications Industry Association, Information Technology Industry Council, Internet Association and Telecommunications Industry Association.
Senate Banking Committee ranking member Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, expects Facebook to testify July 16 about its Project Libra cryptocurrency plans (see 1906180063). The committee announced the hearing for 10 a.m. in 538 Dirksen without listing witnesses. “We expect them to come before the committee,” Brown told us. “The public should know what they’re going to do before they move ahead with this, for sure.” The company didn’t comment. Brown expects the company to argue Project Libra will fill the needs of customers who can’t operate within the traditional banking system. “I think people around here are not particularly trusting of Facebook to look out for them. They’re going to look out for themselves -- no surprise there.” The committee needs “to review it very carefully,” Chairman Mike Crapo, R-Idaho, said, calling the concept “very intriguing.” It’s important to evaluate whether the appropriate regulatory authorities are in place to ensure proper oversight, Crapo told us. American Enterprise Institute Visiting Fellow Jim Harper noted Libra will be a separate entity from the company, and transaction data won’t be available to advertising systems: “Whatever results from stirring the currency and payments pot is likely to be better than what we have now. We might just end up with a secure, privacy-protective internet of money.” The House Financial Services Committee is also seeking a hearing with Facebook on Libra. Brown said the project raises privacy and data security concerns. The Banking Committee hearing will also focus on data privacy. It's time to get moving on privacy legislation to avoid a patchwork of state laws like in California, Senate Majority Whip John Thune, R-S.D., told reporters Tuesday. “My hope would be that we would be able to mark something up before the August break.” It’s unclear if the Senate Commerce Committee privacy group is nearing a draft proposal, he said. It’s going to take a willingness and acceptance of not “getting everything you want,” he added. “Unfortunately, there are some Democrats who are fine with the California law going into effect, and that isn’t going to be helpful obviously if we’re trying to push this through and have a sense of urgency about it.”
A background screening company “falsely claimed” participation in the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield, and now faces $42,000 fines for future violations, the FTC announced in a settlement Friday. Commissioners approved 5-0 the agreement with Florida-based SecurTest, which the agency said failed to complete its 2017 Privacy Shield application. The company is barred from misrepresenting itself again, but no monetary penalty was issued for the initial offense. The agency also sent “warning letters to 13 companies that falsely claimed they participate in the U.S.-EU Safe Harbor and the U.S.-Swiss Safe Harbor frameworks,” the FTC said.
Mexico and the Netherlands, will host the 2021 ICANN public meetings, the organization said Monday. ICANN's 70th conference is March 20-25 at the Cancun International Convention Center and No. 71 June 14-17 at the World Forum in The Hague. The Hyatt Regency Seattle previously was announced as site for No. 72 (see 1902010027).
ICANN won't lobby, "influence or impact the development of any legislation" as it provides technical information on rules and bills that affect the group's mission and articles of incorporation, blogged CEO Goran Marby Monday. "Anytime we talk about government engagement, we get questions about lobbying, or if we are seeking to influence legislation, a politician or public official on a specific issue." The nonprofit sought comment on a draft charter about such activities.
A smooth shift from IPv4 to IPv6 isn't likely, the Internet Governance Project reported Wednesday. Its economic study for ICANN on how migration might play out found that "the most likely scenario is ... a mixed world for the next 20 years." Authors Brenden Kuerbis and Milton Mueller stressed that the conclusion "is just an educated forecast." The study focused on network operators' incentives to switch. It noted one or two major autonomous systems (AS's) have converted as much as 90 percent of their network to IPv6 in a few markets, while other major AS's in the same market haven't deployed it at all, giving IPv6 deployers no competitive advantage. The study also found that due to the added IPv6 deployment cost, there's a "strong positive correlation" between a country's per capita GDP wealth and country-level IPv6 deployment levels. The good news is that IPv6 is unlikely to "become an orphan" because for some network operators its deployment might make economic sense. The bad news is that deployers must maintain backward compatibility with IPv4, which eliminates many network effects that could create pressure to transition to IPv6. The most likely scenario for greater IPv6 rollout is deployment costs might shrink as legacy infrastructures are taken out of production and software incompatibilities are resolved, they said. IPv4 address scarcity could push the world into convergence since the rising price of such numbers and operational costs of network address translation systems spur IPv6 rollout. It's also possible big cloud and content providers could leverage their position to prod the rest of the world to move to IPv6 if there were a major economic benefit to doing so, but neither that benefit nor the method they would use to facilitate convergence is clear. Given the vast number of countries with no discernible IPv6 deployment, concentration in developing nations, and the presence of many enterprise networks that don't need to grow, it's hard to envision a clean convergence on IPv6 any time soon, the report found.
Efforts by major internet players to remove illegal online hate speech won high marks from the European Commission Monday. Dailymotion, Google Plus, YouTube, Facebook, Instagram, jeuxvideos.com, Microsoft, Snapchat and Twitter agreed to be bound by a 2016 code of conduct aimed at stopping proliferation of racist and xenophobic hate speech online, the EC said. EU law defines illegal hate speech as public incitement to violence or hatred directed to groups or individuals on the basis of characteristics such as race, color, religion, or national origin. Companies must review such content within 24 hours of being notified and remove it if necessary, while respecting the right of freedom of speech. The EC's latest review found that around 89 percent of notifications are assessed within 24 hours. On average, the companies are taking down nearly 72 percent of hate speech notified to them, and they're consistently and scrupulously gauging whether content falls within that category, it said. One area needs more work, the report found: information users are given on what happens to their notices of illegal hate speech. Facebook is "the only platform that provides systematic feedback to all users while the other platforms do not yet reach these levels," it said. Twitter is reviewing 88 percent of all notifications within 24 hours, emailed Director-Public Policy for Europe Karen White: The company has boosted its safety policies, tightened reporting systems and "introduced over 70 changes to improve conversational health." Twitter is "doing this with a sense of urgency," she added. "There is always more we can do to tackle hate speech." Facebook and Instagram are "delighted" to be part of the code of conduct, a Facebook spokesperson emailed.