Karl Herchenroeder

Privacy advocates differed in interviews Monday if the FCC’s $208 million in proposed fines against the four national carriers for failing to safeguard data (see 2002280065) was adequate, given the consumer impact and how its calculated. Friday, Commissioner Geoffrey Starks questioned whether the agency failed to properly calculate consumer harm in reaching the fine amount. Commissioner Mike O’Rielly suggested the agency should have considered more information from the companies.

Washington state’s House Innovation, Technology and Economic Development Committee advanced Senate-passed SB-6281 6-3 Friday (see 2002270065). An amendment establishing a private right of action passed. One that would remove a controversial facial recognition section failed.

The Trump administration isn’t serious about maintaining a lead in science and technology, said House Science Committee Chair Eddie Bernice Johnson, D-Texas, Thursday. The administration claimed its 2021 federal research and development budget proposal is a 6 percent increase for R&D, Johnson said during a hearing, but said the proposal is actually a 6 percent increase over last year’s proposal, which Congress rejected before appropriating increases for R&D. “So in truth, this Fiscal Year 2021 budget proposal represents a 9 percent cut to R&D funding,” she said. Ranking member Frank Lucas, R-Okla., disagreed, saying the 2021 budget request includes “bold proposals” for ensuring American leadership in artificial intelligence and quantum computing. He cited a doubling of funding for AI and quantum R&D over the next two years. He said Office of Science and Technology Policy Director Kelvin Droegemeier agrees American superiority in science and technology is fundamental to economic competitiveness and national security. Droegemeier testified that R&D investment was about $580 billion in 2018 and is over $600 billion today. That’s important because AI and quantum intersect with every sector of technology, he said, also citing the doubling of R&D investment by 2022.

The internet has made event ticket purchasing more convenient, but consumers are also getting “ripped off,” said House Commerce Committee Chairman Frank Pallone, D-N.J., Wednesday. Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee Chair Diana DeGette, D-Colo., whose panel held the hearing, cited GAO findings on difficulty buying tickets at face value because of hidden fees, a lack of transparency and misleading marketing. Consumers should be able to know whether a ticket is “dynamically priced,” and transfer limitations should be clearly disclosed, said committee ranking member Greg Walden, R-Ore. Subcommittee ranking member Brett Guthrie, R-Ky., considered an inability to see the total cost as a “minor inconvenience.” He raised larger issues like white label websites designed to fool consumers into thinking they're buying tickets directly from venues or artists. Ticketmaster, AXS and Vivid Seats officials testified their companies support all-in ticket pricing, so consumers know upfront what they're paying. StubHub General Counsel Stephanie Burns accused Ticketmaster of using its dominance to disable transferability and using consumer data to force purchases through its platform. StubHub believes consumers should have the option to buy transferable tickets at the initial point of sale, said Burns. Ticketmaster supports all-in pricing, bans speculative ticketing, reports deceptive websites and combat bots, said President Amy Howe. AXS supports all-in pricing, as long as it's applied equally to all sellers, said CEO Bryan Perez. Vivid Seats supports upfront, all-in ticket pricing on a level playing field, testified Vice President Ryan Fitts. Ancillary fees based on consumer purchase choices make it impossible to provide entirely all-in ticket pricing upfront, testified Tickets.com CEO Joe Choti.

NSA’s call detail records (CDR) program cost more than $100 million between 2015 and early 2019, and led to only one foreign intelligence investigation, the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board reported Thursday. Later that day, the House Judiciary Committee postponed a markup on legislation that would end the USA Freedom Act Section 215 CDR program (see 2002250065).

Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, told us Tuesday his “understanding” is NSA won’t request funding for its call detail records program in its upcoming budget request (see 2002240046). “There’s a big question mark whether it continues to be a useful program,” he said of the USA Freedom Act Section 215 CDR program. “I think that’s likely, but I have not heard the depth of” NSA’s budget request, Sen. Roy Blunt, R-Mo., told us. NSA declined comment. Attorney General William Barr attended a Senate Republicans lunch Tuesday to discuss FISA revisions. He reportedly urged extension of other Section 215 surveillance authorities. “I’ve listened to the experts, and they indicate, as currently constituted, [the program is] not particularly useful,” Cornyn told us. “At least, the benefit doesn’t outweigh the cost." The House Judiciary Committee will mark up legislation Wednesday that would end the CDR program. Markup is 2:30 p.m. in 2141 Rayburn.

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act remains a vital tool for allowing innovation and startups to grow, Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., told reporters Tuesday, the day after another legislator threatened the tech industry’s liability shield with a legislative proposal (see 2002240051). “It’s just as important now as it was then, and the big guys are always ... looking to have more tools to dominate the little guys,” said Wyden, an author of Section 230. “Our constituency was always for the disruptor, the innovator, the person who is willing to take on the powerful and entrenched interests.”

Platforms should take on more civil liability for terror- and murder-related content, advocates said in interviews two days after Attorney General Bill Barr said Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act potentially blocks victims from seeking civil recovery (see 2002190056). The topic is gaining steam on Capitol Hill (see 2001280059).

YouTube illegally deceives users by “allowing violent murder videos” to spread in violation of its terms of service, gun safety advocate Andy Parker alleged in an FTC complaint Thursday. The agency confirmed it received the complaint, and Google defended its “vigilant” policy enforcement record against such content. Google’s “reprehensible and ongoing failure” to remove these monetized videos from YouTube is illegal under the FTC Act, which polices unfair and deceptive practices, Parker said at the National Press Club. Parker’s complaint stems from a video of his 24-year-old daughter, a reporter who was assassinated on live TV in 2015 (see 2002030059). He told us he’s also floating legislative proposals to the offices of Sens. Mark Warner and Tim Kaine, both Virginia Democrats. He planned to meet with their offices after the news conference to discuss proposals that would amend Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act to address “targeted harassment, hate speech and murder videos.” Google’s Community Guidelines are “designed to protect the YouTube community, including those affected by tragedies,” a spokesperson said. Policies prohibit such videos, and the platform has removed thousands of copies of the video for violating policies, the spokesperson said: “We will continue to stay vigilant and improve our policy enforcement.” Georgetown University Law Center's Civil Rights Clinic helped Parker file the complaint. A separate Georgetown clinic filed a 2018 complaint against Google involving child-directed content. That proceeding resulted in a $170 million fine against Google from the FTC and the Office of the New York Attorney General (see 1909040066). Offices for Kaine and Warner didn't comment.

Google's "verbatim copying” of Oracle computer code into a “competing commercial product” wasn’t fair use, the Trump administration said in a Supreme Court filing Wednesday (see 2002190058). Also siding with Oracle in separate filings were USTelecom, the Motion Picture Association, the RIAA, the National Music Publishers' Association and the Copyright Alliance.