CISPA Amendments Submitted, Concern Remains

Members of the House of Representatives submitted a slew of amendments to CISPA this afternoon in an effort to address the concerns of many in the digital activist community, including the Electronic Frontier Foundation and Center for Democracy and Technology. The amendments aim to protect consumer privacy, restrict the amount of time that information may be retained by the government, and prevent data mining of information generated by the private sector for cybersecurity purposes, among other changes submitted by lawmakers.

The proposed amendments haven’t satisfied all concerns -- CDT released a statement following rumors that they had dropped their opposition to the bill, saying that although the potential changes are promising, the issues of flow of internet data directly to the NSA, as well as the use of information for purposes unrelated to cybersecurity still need to be addressed.

Engine dropped its formal opposition to CISPA after working with the House Permanent Select Committee to remove provisions dealing with intellectual property, which, as written, left open the potential for innovation-crippling abuses.

House Intelligence Committee Releases Discussion Draft of CISPA

This afternoon, the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence released a revised discussion draft version (text here) of the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act, or CISPA — a piece of important cybersecurity legislation. We in the startup community raised concerns about the bill’s broadly defined terms, which posed a potential threat to innovation. Others even drew comparisons with SOPA and PIPA. In this draft, substantive changes have been made which, in our eyes, have significantly improved the bill.

We raised concerns — specifically around the inclusion of intellectual property, definitions around private and government information, and regulatory burdens for small business — directly with the Committee and with the office of Chairman Mike Rogers (R-MI). The Committee has taken into consideration our concerns as well as others from the community and has released a revised version of the bill. The new version preserves CISPA’s stated purpose of protecting networks and systems and preventing theft of information from these networks, while enhancing clarity around the focus of the bill.

The willingness of the Committee to work with those in our community was heartening. We were able to craft legislation that protects sensitive data — such as Research and Development and financial records — without including provisions that are harmful to technology startups.

Engine is committed to acting in the best interests of our community, and that includes protection of the critical infrastructure and networks upon which our companies are built. With these changes in place, Engine no longer opposes the legislation. We will continue to monitor CISPA through the amendment process to ensure that these changes stick so that our community is protected and innovation can thrive.

Child Protection in the Digital Age

This week, Engine is fortunate to have Alan Simpson (no, not the former senator of Wyoming) posting here about online child safety. We’ll be seeing that post later this week, but in the meantime, we want to share the scope of the existing debate around the pros and cons of new media for the under-13 set.

Here’s a little background: the main piece of legislation that has dealt with children’s safety online for the past decade is the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act of 1998 (COPPA). COPPA mandates specific requirements that web operators must adhere to for children under that age of 13 — namely requiring parental permission before collecting any personal information from children and not distributing the information to third parties. Standard stuff.

The bill was written over ten years ago, though, and technology has changed markedly in that time — social media, smartphones, and tablets have made COPPA both restrictive in some areas and inadequate in others. Amendments were proposed last year by the FTC to ease the way for parental authorization and to institute additional protections for location based and facial recognition technologies.

The FTC amendments were lauded by the internet community, who had long seen COPPA as a thorn in its side. The legislation, for instance, prevents children under the age of 13 from signing up for Facebook, which CEO Mark Zuckerberg said impedes the educational potential of social networking. Zuckerberg may not be the most impartial commentator on the issue, but he is not alone; plenty of others advocate for the educational possibilities of new technology.

Alan Simpson is one of those advocates. His argument? It doesn’t matter whether you think the internet is good or bad — It’s not going away. This is a world in which kids are growing up and media is a huge part of their lives. There are enormous positives that come out of that, and there are also things that you as a parent might decide are negative. The positives are pretty universal: the opportunities especially in education and learning that new media create for kids and adults are widespread. Giving people more tools to address the downsides — without dismissing the positives — allows parents to maintain the ability to be a filter without having to completely ban a technology which is an integral part of our lives now and will be even more so in 10, 20 years time when these kids are entering the workforce.

Look out for Simpson’s post here in the next couple days.

70 Groups Ask Congress to Halt Work On SOPA and PIPA

In the wake of all successful protest movements, once the dust settles, the time comes to take positive action. With SOPA and PIPA dead in the water, thanks to the sustained and comprehensive efforts of the internet community; the thousands of phone calls we made, the millions of us that signed Google’s petition, it’s time for our community to come up with alternative legislation - a solution that addresses online copyright infringement without compromising free speech and innovation. 

A letter sent today to Congress and signed by 70+ companies, including Engine, Mozilla, and Public Knowledge, urged Congress to “to take a breath, step back, and approach the issues from a fresh perspective.” 

The letter warned against repeating the mistakes of SOPA and PIPA, and requested that legislative debate surrounding the issue be “open, transparent, and sufficiently deliberative to allow the full range of interested parties to offer input and to evaluate specific proposals.” That means taking into account the views from tech companies and media companies. It means seeking out information and statistics from unbiased sources.

It means keeping the users of the internet in the loop, because our input matters, and we have shown that we can and will make ourselves heard.

Read the letter, in full, here from Public Knowledge.

#censorship? Not So Much.

The well-publicized January 18th blackout was so effective for SOPA and PIPA opposition that legions of Twitter users refused to Tweet last Saturday, January 28th, organizing their go dark movement via #TwitterBlackout. The protest was over a change in Twitter’s censorship policy, and, perhaps still rabid over the (very real) threat to open internet, Twitter users flew their freedom of speech flags defiantly.  Given a few days to meditate on the issues at hand, though, it seems clear that the righteous indignation of these protesters may have been a little hasty.

Twitter will indeed be censoring tweets - on a country by country basis according to the laws of the country being tweeted in. So, if a country’s government outlaws certain content, offending tweets will be taken down - but only in that country. Olivier Basille, from Reporters Without Borders, drafted a letter urging Twitter to reconsider a policy that from his point of view, kowtows to localized censorship and could therefore potentially contravene international free speech standards.  Basille posits that the change will stifle online dissidents who have previously used Twitter to great effect to stay informed and organize protests, such as last year’s social media fuelled revolution in Egypt.

But there are plenty of arguments to suggest that this won’t be the case.  For starters, the new policy differs from their previous one in only one respect: until now, these tweets would have had to be blocked worldwide. This means that instead of completely censoring any content deemed illegal by any government, all content will be available everywhere, with limitations only in effect for the country with the legality issue. And for those worried that localized censorship will hinder activism, John Castone over at Mashable makes a good point when he says that activists are smart enough to tweet in code if need be.  Twitter explicitly says they can’t block a user unless there is “valid and applicable legal order”.

Furthermore, Twitter will be posting all its take downs on watchdog site ChillingEffects.org. It’s also worth noting that all sites have to censor content to stay within the bounds of the law (in order to avoid being shut down) -- including eBay, Google, and Facebook. Most of them just don’t tweet about it.

On balance, it appears there will actually be less censorship than before - and more transparency when censorship does occur. As effective an activism tool as it has proven to be, even Twitter can’t operate outside of the bounds of the law. By complying with government regulations, despite any questions as to the morality of these laws, the platform can remain in countries where activism might be needed most.  

How the Internet Beat SOPA and PIPA: Advocacy in a Networked World (Part 1)

From our friend, Tina Lee, at ZeroDivide. Read more here.