Connect with us

Big Tech

BroadbandBreakfast.com Hosts Broadband Breakfast Club Event ‘Social Networking, the End of Media and the Future of Privacy’ on Tuesday, April 17th, 2012 in Washington, DC

Published

on

WASHINGTON, Friday, April 13, 2012 – The internet policy news and events service BroadbandBreakfast.com will hold its April 2012 Broadband Breakfast Club event “Social Networking, the End of Media and Future of Privacy” on Tuesday, April 17th, 2012 at Clyde’s of Gallery Place, 707 7th St. NW, Washington, DC 20001 from 8 am – 10 am.

American and Continental breakfasts are included. The program begins shortly after 8:30 a.m. Tickets to the event are $45.00 plus a small online fee.

Registration is available at http://broadbandbreakfast.eventbrite.com

The Broadband Breakfast Club is sponsored by Comcast, Google, ICF International (ICFI), The National Cable & Telecommunications Association (NCTA) the Telecommunications Industry Association (TIA) and US Telecom.

The Broadband Breakfast Club series meets on the third Tuesday of each month (except for August and December).

The Broadband Breakfast Club schedule can be viewed at

http://broadbandbreakfastseries.eventbrite.com

Read our website for broadband news and event write-ups

http://www.broadbandbreakfast.com

Videos of our previous events are available at:

https://broadbandbreakfast.com/category/broadband-tv/

‘Social Networking, the End of Media and the Future of Privacy’ Event Description:

“Newspapers and broadcast television seem so… 1900s? Are there people who still subscribe to a mainstream paper newspaper, or tune in for an appointment to watch a television broadcast? We read news on iPads, we listen to “television” and “radio” on Droids, and we read what’s important because Facebook tells us so. The first stage was the creation and consumption of media content on the web – the second, the filtering of said content through social networks. In the new broadband economy, what is coming next? How will media companies and social networks continue to morph and how will media formats and content morph with them?  And, especially, what are the privacy implications of continued media expansion on social networks?”

Keynote Speaker:

Julie Brill, Commissioner, Federal Trade Commission

Julie Brill was sworn in as a Commissioner of the Federal Trade Commission April 6, 2010, to a term that expires on September 25, 2016. Since joining the Commission, Ms. Brill has been working actively on issues most affecting today’s consumers, including protecting consumers’ privacy, encouraging appropriate advertising substantiation, guarding consumers from financial fraud, and maintaining competition in industries involving high tech and health care.  Commissioner Brill is an advocate of protecting consumers’ privacy, especially with new online and mobile technologies, and supports the creation and implementation of mechanisms to give consumers better information and control over the collection and use of their personal online information, a view she has disseminated through many speeches. Prior to becoming a Commissioner, Ms. Brill was the Senior Deputy Attorney General and Chief of Consumer Protection and Antitrust for the North Carolina Department of Justice, a position she held from February 2009 to April 2010.  Commissioner Brill has also been a Lecturer-in-Law at Columbia University’s School of Law.  Before serving as Chief of Consumer Protection and Antitrust in North Carolina, Commissioner Brill served as an Assistant Attorney General for Consumer Protection and Antitrust for the State of Vermont for over 20 years, from 1988 to 2009.  Commissioner Brill was associate at Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison in New York from 1987 to 1988.  She clerked for Vermont Federal District Court Judge Franklin S. Billings, Jr. from 1985 to 1986.  Commissioner Brill graduated, magna cum laude, from Princeton University, and from New York University School of Law, where she had a Root-Tilden Scholarship for her commitment to public service.
 
Panelists: 
 
Bruce Gottlieb, General Counsel, Atlantic Media Company

Bruce Gottlieb is the Senior Vice President for Corporate Strategy & General Counsel of Atlantic Media Company, publisher of The Atlantic, National Journal, and Government Executive.  He occasionally writes for The Atlantic and National Journal on technology issues.  Before joining Atlantic Media, he was Chief Counsel of the Federal Communications Commission, responsible for managing the agency’s overall policy agenda, and a senior advisor to Chairman Julius Genachowski.  He was also a staff writer for Slate, where he originated the Explainer column, and he has written for publications including The New York Times Magazine, and The New Republic.  He is a graduate of Harvard College and Harvard Law School and began his legal career as a clerk for Judge David S. Tatel of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
 
Sarah Hudgins, Director of Public Policy, Interactive Advertising Bureau (IAB)

Sarah Hudgins is the Director of Public Policy for IAB in its Washington, D.C. office. Sarah is responsible for government relations with the United States Congress and Executive Branch of the Federal Government. As the industry’s liaison to third-party organizations and regulatory bodies, she helps advance advertising policy issues, including telecommunications and mobile platforms, privacy, and the First Amendment. Prior to IAB, Sarah was the Senior Manager of Federal Government Affairs for the Entertainment Software Association, covering various policy issues for the video game publishing industry. Her previous experience also includes government affairs and regulatory policy support for the magazine publishing industry, and federal election campaign advance work. She is a founding board member of the Global Women’s Innovation Network, and member of the Federal Communications Bar Association and American Intellectual Property Law Association. Sarah holds a J.D. from the Catholic University of America and a B.A. in Political Science and Communication Studies from the University of Iowa.
 
Jules Polonetsky, Director and Co-Chair, Future of Privacy Forum

Jules Polonetsky has served since November 2008 as Co-chair and Director of the Future of Privacy Forum, a think tank seeking to improve the state of online privacy by advancing responsible data practices. His previous roles have included serving as Chief Privacy Officer at AOL and before that at DoubleClick, as Consumer Affairs Commissioner for New York City, as an elected New York State Legislator and as a congressional staffer, and as an attorney. In 2011, Jules was appointed to the Department of Homeland Security Data Privacy and Integrity Advisory Committee. He has served on the boards of groups such as TRUSTe, the IAPP, the Network Advertising Initiative, the Privacy Projects, and the Better Business Bureau (NY Region). His writing and research can be found at www.futureofprivacy.org.
 
Moderator:

The event will be moderated by Drew Clark, Founder and Publisher, BroadbandBreakfast.com, a news and events company building a community around broadband stimulus, the national broadband plan, and intellectual property.  Drew Clark has a long-standing reputation for fairness and depth in his reporting. He worked for the National Journal Group for eight years, ran the telecommunications and media ownership project of the Center for Public Integrity, and was Assistant Director of the Information Economy Project at George Mason University. He has written widely on the politics of telecom, media and technology for a variety of publications, including the Washington Post, GigaOm, Slate, and Ars Technica. Drew launched BroadbandCensus.com in January 2008 as a means of providing objective information about broadband speeds, prices, availability, reliability and competition.
Background on BroadbandBreakfast.com

BroadbandBreakfast.com is in its fourth year of hosting monthly breakfast forums in Washington on internet policy issues. These events are on the record, open to the public and consider a wide range of viewpoints. Our Broadband Breakfast Club meets on the third tuesday of every month (except for August and December).

Our elected official keynotes have included Representatives Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), John Conyers (D-MI), Diane Watson (D-CA), Joe Barton (R-TX) and Rick Boucher (D-VA).

Our agency and commission official keynotes have included Deputy Undersecretary for Agriculture Dallas Tonsager, Julius Genachowski, Chairman FCC; Jonathan Adelstein, RUS Administrator; Anna Gomez, Deputy Assistant Secretary NTIA; FCC Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Chief, Rick Kaplan; Ari Schwartz, Senior Internet Policy Advisor to the Secretary of Commerce; Nick Sinai, Senior Innovation Advisor to the US Chief Technology Officer.

Our moderated discussion panels are comprised of leaders from a wide variety of organizations including government, industry, law firms, academia, nonprofit, journalism and many others. Our audiences are equally diverse. The keynote speech is followed by a moderated panel discussion in which audience participation is encouraged.

For More Information Contact:

Sylvia Syracuse
Director of Marketing and Events
BroadbandBreakfast.com
Sylvia@broadbandcensus.com
646-262-4630

Sylvia manages the Broadband Breakfast Club, on-the-record monthly discussion groups that meet on the THIRD Tuesday of each month. She has had a long career in non-profit development and administration, and has raised funds for technology and science education, and managed a project on health information exchange adopted by the State of New York. She understands community education and infrastructure needs for effective broadband access.

Antitrust

Federal Trade Commission Will Likely Not Be Able to Implement Competition Rules, Panelists Say

Panelists at TechFreedom event said judiciary will prevent the FTC from developing proposed antitrust policies.

Published

on

Photo of Peter Wallison from C-SPAN

WASHINGTON, October 22, 2021 –The Federal Trade Commission’s attempts to use rulemaking authority to issue antitrust policy governing technology companies will be struck down in federal courts, said panelists participating in a TechFreedom event on Thursday.

Recently formed conservative majorities on the Supreme Court and other panels have expressed opposition to the idea that the FTC possesses such rulemaking authority, these panelists said.

Hence, unlike past supreme courts, they current bench is likely to strike down FTC-issued binding rules.

Panelists highlighted former President Donald Trump appointees Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch as justices who have opposed legal reasoning often used to permit FTC rulemaking.

Indeed, some panelists said early 20th Century legislation governing the FTC makes the case that the agency was created as an investigative body rather than a regulatory one.

Peter Wallison, senior fellow emeritus at the American Enterprise Institute, said that between five and six Supreme Court justices would ultimately vote to weaken precedents that allow for FTC rulemaking.

The Judiciary Committee of the House of Representatives recently advanced six antitrust bills that attempt to regulate the tech industry and foster greater competition, including the Ending Platform Monopolies Act and the Platform Competition and Opportunity Act.

FTC rules have taken on increased importance in terms of economic regulation due to the frequent inability of Congress to pass major legislation due to partisan gridlock. The FTC has proposed new procedures to ensure competition since Lina Khan was appointed as chair.

However, NERA Economic Consulting on Wednesday concluded that legislative proposals to regulate competition would impose costs of around $300 billion while impacting 13 additional American companies in the near term and more than 100 companies in the next decade.

Study author Christian Dippon contends that the legislation would limit American startup growth and international competitiveness while at the same time increasing costs for Americans.

Continue Reading

Section 230

Democrats Use Whistleblower Testimony to Launch New Effort at Changing Section 230

The Justice Against Malicious Algorithms Act seeks to target large online platforms that push harmful content.

Published

on

Rep. Anna Eshoo, D-California

WASHINGTON, October 14, 2021 – House Democrats are preparing to introduce legislation Friday that would remove legal immunities for companies that knowingly allow content that is physically or emotionally damaging to its users, following testimony last week from a Facebook whistleblower who claimed the company is able to push harmful content because of such legal protections.

The Justice Against Malicious Algorithms Act would amend Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act – which provides legal liability protections to companies for the content their users post on their platform – to remove that shield when the platform “knowingly or recklessly uses an algorithm or other technology to recommend content that materially contributes to physical or severe emotional injury,” according to a Thursday press release, which noted that the legislation will not apply to small online platforms with fewer than five million unique monthly visitors or users.

The legislation is relatively narrow in its target: algorithms that rely on the personal user’s history to recommend content. It won’t apply to search features or algorithms that do not rely on that personalization and won’t apply to web hosting or data storage and transfer.

Reps. Anna Eshoo, D-California, Frank Pallone Jr., D-New Jersey, Mike Doyle, D-Pennsylvania, and Jan Schakowsky, D-Illinois, plan to introduce the legislation a little over a week after Facebook whistleblower Frances Haugen alleged that the company misrepresents how much offending content it terminates.

Citing Haugen’s testimony before the Senate on October 5, Eshoo said in the release that “Facebook is knowingly amplifying harmful content and abusing the immunity of Section 230 well beyond congressional intent.

“The Justice Against Malicious Algorithms Act ensures courts can hold platforms accountable when they knowingly or recklessly recommend content that materially contributes to harm. This approach builds on my bill, the Protecting Americans from Dangerous Algorithms Act, and I’m proud to partner with my colleagues on this important legislation.”

The Protecting Americans from Dangerous Algorithms Act was introduced with Rep. Tom Malinowski, D-New Jersey, last October to hold companies responsible for “algorithmic amplification of harmful, radicalizing content that leads to offline violence.”

From Haugen testimony to legislation

Haugen claimed in her Senate testimony that according to internal research estimates, Facebook acts against just three to five percent of hate speech and 0.6 percent of violence incitement.

“The reality is that we’ve seen from repeated documents in my disclosures is that Facebook’s AI systems only catch a very tiny minority of offending content and best content scenario in the case of something like hate speech at most they will ever get 10 to 20 percent,” Haugen testified.

Haugen was catapulted into the national spotlight after she revealed herself on the television program 60 Minutes to be the person who leaked documents to the Wall Street Journal and the Securities and Exchange Commission that reportedly showed Facebook knew about the mental health harm its photo-sharing app Instagram has on teens but allegedly ignored them because it inconvenienced its profit-driven motive.

Earlier this year, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg said the company was developing an Instagram version for kids under 13. But following the Journal story and calls by lawmakers to backdown from pursuing the app, Facebook suspended the app’s development and said it was making changes to its apps to “nudge” users away from content that they find may be harmful to them.

Haugen’s testimony versus Zuckerberg’s Section 230 vision

In his testimony before the House Energy and Commerce committee in March, Zuckerberg claimed that the company’s hate speech removal policy “has long been the broadest and most aggressive in the industry.”

This claim has been the basis for the CEO’s suggestion that Section 230 be amended to punish companies for not creating systems proportional in size and effectiveness to the company’s or platform’s size for removal of violent and hateful content. In other words, larger sites would have more regulation and smaller sites would face fewer regulations.

Or in Zuckerberg’s words to Congress, “platforms’ intermediary liability protection for certain types of unlawful content [should be made] conditional on companies’ ability to meet best practices to combat the spread of harmful content.”

Facebook has previously pushed for FOSTA-SESTA, a controversial 2018 law which created an exception for Section 230 in the case of advertisements related prostitution. Lawmakers have proposed other modifications to the liability provision, including removing protections in the case for content that the platform is paid for and for allowing the spread of vaccine misinformation.

Zuckerberg said companies shouldn’t be held responsible for individual pieces of content which could or would evade the systems in place so long as the company has demonstrated the ability and procedure of “adequate systems to address unlawful content.” That, he said, is predicated on transparency.

But according to Haugen, “Facebook’s closed design means it has no oversight — even from its own Oversight Board, which is as blind as the public. Only Facebook knows how it personalizes your feed for you. It hides behind walls that keep the eyes of researchers and regulators from understanding the true dynamics of the system.” She also alleges that Facebook’s leadership hides “vital information” from the public and global governments.

An Electronic Frontier Foundation study found that Facebook lags behind competitors on issues of transparency.

Where the parties agree

Zuckerberg and Haugen do agree that Section 230 should be amended. Haugen would amend Section 230 “to make Facebook responsible for the consequences of their intentional ranking decisions,” meaning that practices such as engagement-based ranking would be evaluated for the incendiary or violent content they promote above more mundane content. If Facebook is choosing to promote content which damages mental health or incites violence, Haugen’s vision of Section 230 would hold them accountable. This change would not hold Facebook responsible for user-generated content, only the promotion of harmful content.

Both have also called for a third-party body to be created by the legislature which provides oversight on platforms like Facebook.

Haugen asks that this body be able to conduct independent audits of Facebook’s data, algorithms, and research and that the information be made available to the public, scholars and researchers to interpret with adequate privacy protection and anonymization in place. Beside taking into account the size and scope of the platforms it regulates, Zuckerberg asks that the practices of the body be “fair and clear” and that unrelated issues “like encryption or privacy changes” are dealt with separately.

With reporting from Riley Steward

Continue Reading

Big Tech

OECD Ratifies Global 15% Digital Tax Rate, Aims For 2023 Implementation

The OECD finalized an earlier agreement that would impose a 15% tax on companies operating in 136 member nations.

Published

on

US Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen.

WASHINGTON, October 11, 2021 – The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development on Friday finalized an agreement to levy a 15 percent tax rate on digital multinational businesses, like Amazon, Apple, Google, and Facebook, starting in 2023.

The ratification of the tax rate comes after years of negotiations and after individual countries have proposed their own tax systems to keep up with internet businesses that have long skirted the tax of laws of nations they operate in because they don’t necessarily have a physical connection inside those borders. The Liberal Party in Canada, for example, had proposed a 3 percent tax on revenues obtained inside the country, while Britain, France, Italy, and Spain had been contemplating digital sales taxes on their own.

The 15 percent tax rate has been signed by 136 member nations, all OECD and G20 countries, out of 140 states (Kenya, Nigeria, Sri Lanka, and Pakistan did not join) and finalizes a July political agreement to reform international tax rules. The United States had proposed the 15 percent global corporate tax rate earlier this year.

Hungary and Ireland, the latter of which is a corporate tax haven for companies like Apple and Google, were two of the last holdouts. Hungary agreed to join Friday after they were guaranteed a ten-year rollout period for the regulation, and Ireland agreed Thursday after guarantees that the rate would not be subsequently increased.

The new tax rate is expected to generate US $150 billion annually for the countries involved and targets companies with revenues of over 750 million Euros. “The global minimum tax agreement does not seek to eliminate tax competition, but puts multilaterally agreed limitations on it,” the OECD said, adding the tax will not only stabilize the international tax system but also provide companies with more certainty as to their obligations.

The regulation would be the first foundational cross-border corporate tax rate regulatory change in over a century. Some are skeptical of President Joe Biden’s and Congress’s ability to ratify the agreement. The OECD hopes to sign a multilateral convention by 2022 and implement the reform by 2023.

The final agreement will be delivered to the G20 finance ministers meeting in Washington D.C. on Wednesday, then it will be charted off to the G20 Leaders’ Summit in Rome at the end of this month, according to a OECD press release.

The United States was in a bit of a defensive pattern under former President Donald Trump, after the country made tariff threats if the European nations, particularly France, decided to tax its big homegrown corporations.

French Finance Minister Bruno Le Maire said that the agreement, “opens the path to a true fiscal revolution.” US Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen said that the OECD has “decided to end the race to the bottom on corporate taxation,” referring to the practice of attracting large companies to headquarter in one’s country through purposefully incentivized lower tax rates.

Continue Reading

Recent

Signup for Broadband Breakfast

Get twice-weekly Breakfast Media news alerts.
* = required field

Trending