Discussion about a federal moratorium on facial recognition technology remains open, House Oversight Committee ranking member Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, told us Tuesday. “I’m hoping we can work out some legislation with the majority party, but we’ve been working on that for a year.” Chair Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y., “is interested, so we’ll see tomorrow. She seems very interested,” Jordan said. Maloney was elected chair after the death of Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md., who was vocal on face-scanning issues. The committee plans a third hearing on the topic Wednesday. There’s “quite a bit of bipartisan consensus,” Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., told us: Jordan “is actually quite passionate about this issue, as well. I think he’s coming from a very similar perspective trying to protect civil liberties and the right to our own face. It goes beyond government accountability.” Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., said he supports a moratorium until he’s convinced the technology won’t be used to profile or discriminate, and so far the evidence hasn’t suggested that. National Institute of Standards and Technology Information Technology Laboratory Director Charles Romine, Future of Privacy Forum Senior Counsel Brenda Leong, New York University AI Now Institute co-Founder Meredith Whittaker, Information Technology and Innovation Foundation Vice President Daniel Castro and Security Industry Association Senior Director-Government Relations Jake Parker will testify. Fight for the Future and Students for Sensible Drug Policy launched a campaign Tuesday to ban facial recognition from university campuses, arguing it decreases “security on campuses, and opens up a pandora’s box of privacy, civil liberties, and equity issues.”
Karl Herchenroeder
Karl Herchenroeder, Associate Editor, is a technology policy journalist for publications including Communications Daily. Born in Rockville, Maryland, he joined the Warren Communications News staff in 2018. He began his journalism career in 2012 at the Aspen Times in Aspen, Colorado, where he covered city government. After that, he covered the nuclear industry for ExchangeMonitor in Washington. You can follow Herchenroeder on Twitter: @karlherk
The Supreme Court should strike down Oracle’s lawsuit against Google’s use of Java programming code (see 1911150052) because innovation relies on interoperability and fair use, tech companies, groups and scholars told the court Monday. Computer innovation depends on “collaborative development and seamless interoperability,” which require reuse of functional code, said Microsoft. The company cited long-applied flexibility of fair use doctrine to address software issues. Eighty-three computer scientists agreed, saying the computer industry has long relied on free use of software interfaces to foster innovation and competition. Supreme Court precedent excludes program interfaces from copyright’s scope, said two intellectual property scholars. Public Knowledge and others urged the court to hold that the Java application programming interface “is uncopyrightable, in accordance with longstanding tradition, industry practice, and common sense.” PK's brief included the R Street Institute and the Niskanen Center. Functional aspects of Oracle’s code are “not copyrightable, and even if they were, employing them to create new computer code falls under fair use protections,” said the Electronic Frontier Foundation. “Successful software development requires platform [single sign-on] compatibility,” said a group that included Mozilla, MapBox, Etsy and Wikimedia Foundation. Prior court decisions dictate that “copying incidental to software reverse engineering does not infringe copyright,” said the Computer & Communications Industry Association. Google copied “less than 0.5% of the Java application programming interface into Android to make it easier for Java programmers to write apps for Android smartphones,” CCIA said, saying interoperability is key to innovation and success, including Oracle’s success. Oracle previously noted that half of Google’s petition had been rejected, while the other half doesn't "even purport to present a circuit conflict." The top court rejected review of whether Oracle’s creative computer code is copyrightable in 2015, that company wrote. It didn't comment now.
It’s “absolutely fair to say” the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act FTC rule “lacks clarity,” Commissioner Noah Phillips told reporters Monday. The agency is reviewing COPPA for potential changes, which spurred discussion about how the agency defines child-directed content (see 1912120062). “I also think it’s important to ask what the statute requires and then what is the proposed thing you think would add clarity,” Phillips said after a TechFreedom event.
There’s no timeline for reintroducing a Senate bill that would create a legal framework for autonomous vehicles, Sen. Gary Peters, D-Mich., told us Thursday. Members are actively engaged, and the legislation remains a priority for Senate Majority Whip John Thune, R-S.D., a Thune aide said Friday.
The House Consumer Protection Subcommittee is closer to releasing a privacy bill than bipartisan Senate negotiators, Chair Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill., told reporters Wednesday after a subcommittee hearing with Facebook. At the hearing, she and ranking member Cathy McMorris Rodgers, R-Wash., had contrasting views on the need to regulate media manipulation and deepfakes.
Facebook wants uniform tech platform standards for deepfakes, Vice President-Global Policy Management Monika Bickert plans to tell the House Consumer Protection Subcommittee Wednesday (see 1912310003). Her testimony was released the same day Facebook announced it’s banning manipulated content like deepfakes, which fabricate a person’s words. The announcement initially indicated political candidates would be allowed to include manipulated media in ads, according to Democrats who immediately criticized the policy change. The platform issued a correction.
FTC antitrust staff is right to scrutinize the consumer welfare standard, experts said in interviews. If the agency ultimately delivers related antitrust guidance, as Chairman Joe Simons suggested, some expect it in 2020. Critics claim the standard contributed to lax antitrust enforcement, but one expert said that narrow discussion is distracting from broader antitrust doctrine concerns, which led to enforcement failings. The FTC didn’t comment Monday.
Three Massachusetts-based sex-abuse survivor groups are drafting a letter to Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., criticizing her bill directing a federal study of 2018 anti-sex-trafficking legislation (see 1912170041). Warren introduced the bill with Reps. Ro Khanna and Barbara Lee, both California Democrats, and Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore. It would direct a study of the small percentage of consensual sex workers who claim a 2018 anti-sex trafficking law made their lives less safe and their trade more difficult, Living in Freedom Together (LIFT) CEO Nikki Bell told us. Some 200 survivors signed the draft letter, she said. The House version of the bill is HR-5448.
Sens. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., and Brian Schatz, D-Hawaii, welcomed Facebook’s announcement it will remove misleading platform content about the U.S. census (see 1912190059). Senate Commerce Committee ranking member Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., said more needs to be done.
If the FTC seeks to block Facebook from integrating its messaging platforms, it’s likely a justified decision backed by antitrust standards, various lawmakers told us in recent interviews. The New York Times quoting unnamed sources reports that the agency is considering seeking a preliminary injunction to block Facebook from integrating messaging services across Messenger, Instagram and WhatsApp. Neither the FTC nor the company commented.