Senate
Latest
CT senator proposes bill to ban minors using fake guns in arcades
Connecticut State Senator Toni Harp proposed a bill in January that would ban anyone younger than 18 from playing "violent point-and-shoot" video games in arcades or other public establishments. The bill defined "violent point-and-shoot" games as any entertainment device that used the "facsimile of a firearm as an essential component of play," which would include games such as House of the Dead, Area 51 and Duck Hunt.The bill also called for research into the effects of violent video games on young minds, through a committee called the Violent Video Game Task Force within the Department of Children and Families. The task force would advise the Governor and General assembly on state programs that "may reduce the effects of violent video games on youth behavior," suggesting before the research was done that violent video games have an effect on children's actions.The bill's Statement of Purpose offered a clear position on violent video games' impact on young minds, again presented before any research began: "To prevent minors from using violent point-and-shoot video games in public arcades and to create a task force to study the effects of violent video games on youth behavior."This bill joined an influx of attention on video games in relation to real-world gun violence, following the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Connecticut. Senator Harp's suggestions mimicked and magnified President Obama's proposal to research violent video games and enact other forms of potential gun-violence prevention.[Thanks, Seth.]
Events 2012: SOPA
The Stop Online Piracy Act, had it been successfully enacted, would have given US law enforcement agencies the ability to legally bar search engines from linking to websites that were deemed to host copyright-violating content (whatever that may be), provided said agencies were able to obtain a court order.It also would have given law enforcement the ability to bar advertisers and e-commerce payment providers from doing business with offending websites, but the bill's real party peace was its ability to block access to infringing websites at the ISP level.If you think that sounds oddly familiar, that's because it's essentially what The Patriots were trying to accomplish in Metal Gear Solid 2, although the bill's less clandestine methodology wouldn't have required the construction of a massive submersible aquatic fortress. As troubling as all that sounds, internet legislation isn't really in our wheelhouse since we're a video game website and everything. Once Nintendo, Sony and EA all put their weight behind the bill, however, the issue suddenly fell under our jurisdiction and became much more complicated, especially once Microsoft, Apple and a consortium of other tech giants expressed their support. Of course, anything that threatens the Internet's right to free speech is swiftly met by the razor-sharp blade of e-activism, with the whole of the Internet collapsing into a singularity of outrage aimed directly at the companies in support of the bill. As public objection grew, Microsoft, Apple and the other members of the Business Software Alliance rescinded their support almost immediately. Nintendo, Sony and EA followed suit shortly thereafter, though the ESA (of which they are all members) remained in support of SOPA. Rep. Lamar Smith (who had originally authored the bill) eventually announced that he was removing the DNS-blocking portions of the legislation, making the proposed bill somewhat less insane, but still plenty dangerous. Shortly thereafter, House Oversight Committee chairman Darrell Issa cancelled a scheduled hearing and indefinitely postponed voting on SOPA, effectively placing the bill into a state of suspended animation. A similar hold was placed on SOPA's Senate sister PIPA, which sought to accomplish the same goals. It was not until both pieces of legislation had effectively been killed that ESA withdrew its support.
Internet Association to lobby Washington, may tout Amazon, Facebook, Google among its ranks
Political lobbying is often a mixed bag at best. Still, there's a cautious amount of optimism surrounding the Internet Association, a soon-to-start lobbying group that plans to advocate for an "open, innovative and free" internet among US politicians. The unsurprising (if well-intentioned) aim is to prevent another SOPA or PIPA with more formal opposition than even the Internet Defense League can manage. Who'll be pulling the strings is nebulous -- officially, the Association will only say that former Congressional staff director Michael Beckerman is at the helm until a formal September 19th launch. That internet openness must extend to some very leaky representatives, however, as the National Journal, AFP and Reuters all claim that Amazon, eBay, Facebook and Google are charter members. None of them are talking on the record; we certainly wouldn't be shocked if the roster is real, knowing how much Google and other partners have fought takedown laws that would bypass much of the normal legal system. We're hoping that whatever manifests a genuinely rational counterbalance to media and telecom influences that often aren't very interested in protecting internet-only business models or due process.
US Senator says DOJ should drop Apple ebook lawsuit
Senator Charles Schumer of New York (right) appealed to the U.S. Department of Justice yesterday in the Wall Street Journal to drop its lawsuit against Apple and a number of major publishers. The DOJ alleges that Apple and the publishers colluded to raise prices in the ebook market. Schumer states that "the suit will restore Amazon to the dominant position atop the e-books market it occupied for years before competition arrived in the form of Apple. If that happens, consumers will be forced to accept whatever prices Amazon sets." Schumer points out in his guest editorial that after Apple entered the market with iBooks, competition increased. Amazon's market share fell from 90 percent to 60 percent, and as a result the company had to "expand its catalog, invest in innovation, and reduce the prices of its Kindle reading devices" -- all things that are good for consumers. He notes that the average price for ebooks fell from US$9 to $7, while the DOJ looked at the fact that prices on a very few new releases have gone up. Whether Schumer's printed entreaty will make a difference to the Department of Justice is unknown, but it's interesting to see an influential member of the Senate come to the defense of Apple and the publishing industry in this case.
Senate black box bill could see 2015 car models ship with data recorders
Black boxes aren't just for airplanes anymore, it seems. Though car companies have been installing the devices at their discretion since the early aughts, a new bill, ominously entitled Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century, has just passed Senate approval containing a provision that would mandate the inclusion of these Event Data Recorders in all automobiles produced from 2015 and on. Privacy fans may already be reaching for those protesting pitchforks, but keep in mind this legislation still needs to pass the House of Representatives on its way to becoming law. And given its other, more controversial elements (i.e. revoking passports for unpaid back taxes), it could still head back to the recycle bin. If it does pass Congressional muster, you'll still have ownership of any collected data, so long as the court doesn't require you to hand it over. Regardless of the outcome, we wouldn't breathe a sigh of relief just yet -- your car might be snooping on you as we speak. Just check your owner's manual.
Verizon halts dubious third-party billing on landlines, years after landlines were 'in'
Okay, okay -- landlines are still useful. But rapidly growing, they are not. That said, Verizon is caving to congressional pressure in a relatively minor way, announcing that it'll be banning certain third-party charges on landline bills. In political circles, the process is known as "cramming," where customers (oftentimes unknowingly) submit their number to certain third-party add-ons that have generated some $10 billion in revenue over the past five years. Sen. Jay Rockefeller from West Virginia is applauding the move, and also encouraging Congress to make this commonplace across all carriers. Curiously, there's no mention of mobile blocking, where consumers are regularly duped into subscribing to recurring fees via text-based competitions and contests. Perhaps when we've all moved on to telepathy, the feds can get right on that.
PIPA on hold in light of 'legitimate issues raised by many,' says Senate majority leader Harry Reid [update]
It seems that the unending stream of protest from the internet, as well as from the meatspace, have helped to slow -- and potentially stop -- one of the broad reaching anti-piracy acts being proposed for legislation in the US Congress. An upcoming Senate vote on the Protect Intellectual Property Act (PIPA) has been postponed by Senate Majority leader Harry Reid (D-NV).In a press release issued by Reid's office this morning, he cites "legitimate issues" brought up by protesters keeping the bill from being voted on, and calls on PIPA author and Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy to "continue engaging with all stakeholders to forge a balance between protecting Americans' intellectual property, and maintaining openness and innovation on the internet."Reid remains "optimistic" that the Senate will work out any issues with the bill "in the coming weeks," but given the bill's sister act in the house (SOPA) also getting a big delay, we're not similarly optimistic about PIPA's reintroduction. Additionally, Reuters reports that a "senior Democratic aide" speaking on condition of anonymity claimed the act was unable to garner support among the Senate, thus abetting in this delay.Update: House Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith (R-TX) issued a statement in response to the PIPA announcement, specifically addressing his SOPA bill in the House. "It is clear that we need to revisit the approach on how best to address the problem of foreign thieves that steal and sell American inventions and products." His complete statement can be found here. [ER 09 via Shutterstock]
Senator Al Franken asks about Carrier IQ, the companies answer: the complete breakdown
Two weeks ago, smack-dab in the middle of the CarrierIQ saga, Senator Al Franken pounded his fist on the table and demanded answers. He wanted to know what CarrierIQ is all about and why several US mobile providers and manufacturers felt the need to install potentially invasive software on the phones of unsuspecting consumers. Senator Franken sent Sprint, AT&T, T-Mobile, Samsung, HTC and Motorola a series of thirteen questions each, trying to get to the bottom of what each company is doing with the mysterious software. So far, all but T-Mobile and Motorola have complied with the Senator's wishes, as the two remaining companies were given until December 20th to have their responses submitted (we'll update this post as those are made public). As we reported previously, the Senator wasn't all too pleased by what the companies had to say. But what exactly is found in these pages and pages of documents? A few answers, and some more questions. We have pored through each company's letter, so follow us below as we break down their responses to each of the Senator's queries. Note: The level of involvement by the government seems to be making an impact, as Sprint is now disabling all Carrier IQ software on its devices so that data cannot be collected anymore. Its response to Senator Franken, however, should not be discounted as it provides insight into why the carrier's been a "valued customer" of CIQ's since 2006, and how it's been using the data it has collected over the past five years. Read on!
Google, Facebook, Twitter and others speak out against the Stop Online Piracy Act
Earlier today, the House Judiciary Committee held a hearing on the proposed Stop Online Piracy Act (or SOPA) which, depending on who you ask, is either a means to stop piracy and copyright infringement on so-called "rogue" websites, or the most serious threat of internet censorship that we've seen in some time. In the latter camp are some of the biggest internet companies around, including Google, Facebook, Twitter, Yahoo, eBay, LinkedIn, Mozilla, Zynga and AOL (full disclosure: Engadget's parent company), who today made their stance clear by taking out a full-page ad in The New York Times. The ad itself is a letter sent by the nine companies to Congress, which states that while they support the stated goals of the bill and the related Protect IP Act, they believe that, as written, the bills "would expose law-abiding U.S. Internet and technology companies to new uncertain liabilities, private rights of action, and technology mandates that would require monitoring of web sites." The companies further went on to say that they believe the measures also "pose a serious risk to our industry's continued track record of innovation and job-creation, as well as to our Nation's cybersecurity." While they didn't all sign onto the letter, those companies also also joined by a host of others who have spoken out against the legislation, including Foursquare and Tumblr. The sole witness against the proposed measures at today's hearing, however, was Google's copyright policy counsel, Katherine Oyama -- you can find her testimony on Google's Public Policy Blog linked below.
Senate to vote on net neutrality repeal today, Obama counters with a veto threat (update: 52-46 vote in favor of net neutrality)
The US Senate is slated to vote on a repeal of the FCC's controversial net neutrality regulations today, just a few days before they're scheduled to go into effect. Today's vote, like most these days, is expected to be divided along party lines, with most Democrats standing in favor of the rules, and Republicans calling for them to be overturned. Texas Republican Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson, who sponsored the resolution, claims that the FCC's regulations would obstruct innovation and investment by jeopardizing the openness upon which the web has thrived, thus far. "The internet and technology have produced more jobs in this country than just about any other sector," Hutchinson argued. "It has been the cradle of innovation, it does not have a problem, and it does not need fixing." Senate Republicans aren't the only ones taking issue with the rules, either. Both Verizon and MetroPCS have already publicly aired their grievances, with the former filing a formal appeal in late September. But Senate Commerce Chairman Jay Rockefeller believes the GOP-led opposition won't be strong enough to overcome his Democratic majority. "There's still 53 of us, and if we stay together we'll win," Rockefeller said. "I think we're going to prevail." Even if they don't, they'll still have the backing of the White House, which has already threatened to veto the resolution, should it survive past the Senate floor. "It would be ill-advised to threaten the very foundations of innovation in the Internet economy and the democratic spirit that has made the Internet a force for social progress around the world," the White House said in a statement, adding that the FCC's rules provide an "effective but flexible" means of preserving the web's intrinsically wild, wild west nature. Rockefeller, however, certainly isn't banking on a presidential veto to bail his party out. "You can take the cheap way out and just say, 'What if we fail, then Obama will veto it,'" he explained. "But that speaks so badly of us." All told, it's shaping up to be another net neutrality showdown on the Hill, but we'll keep you updated on the latest developments. Update: It wasn't an overwhelming victory, but the Senate today rejected the attempt to repeal the FCC's net neutrality rules in a 52 to 46 vote that fell largely along party lines.
Siri may pose 'competitive threat' to Google, Eric Schmidt tells Senate subcommittee
Back in September, Google chairman and former CEO Eric Schmidt sat down before a Senate antitrust subcommittee to discuss his company's competitive practices. As you would expect from anyone in his situation, Schmidt spent much of his time defending Mountain View's position atop the search industry, and cited several competitors as evidence of its fair play. The exec's list of "threats" featured some of the usual suspects, including Bing, Yahoo and Amazon, as well as Siri. "Even in the few weeks since the hearing, Apple has launched an entirely new approach to search technology with Siri, its voice-activated search and task-completion service built into the iPhone 4S," he wrote, pointing to a handful of publications that characterized Apple's voice assistant as a "Google Killer" and Cupertino's "entry point" into the search market. "Apple's Siri is a significant development -- a voice-activated means of accessing answers through iPhones that demonstrates the innovations in search," Schmidt explained. "Google has many strong competitors and we sometimes fail to anticipate the competitive threat posed by new methods of accessing information." Granted, it's not terribly surprising to hear Google talk up its competition -- especially before a panel of politicians devoted to rooting out anti-competitive practices. Yet Schmidt's comments do mark a noticeable shift from the stance he assumed last year, when he denied that Apple and Facebook posed a "competitive threat" to Google's search operations. As he admitted, "My statement was clearly wrong." Check out the full hearing at the source link below.
Senator Schumer blasts OnStar for 'brazen' privacy violation, calls for FTC investigation
Last week, OnStar issued a privacy notice informing customers that it would continue to collect data on vehicles still connected to its servers, even for those who have already canceled their subscriptions. The move elicited a chorus of protests from Democratic privacy advocates in the Senate, including Chris Coons, Al Franken and, most recently, Charles Schumer, who wrote a letter to the FTC yesterday calling for an investigation into what he sees as a bold violation of consumer rights. "By tracking drivers even after they've canceled their service, OnStar is attempting one of the most brazen invasions of privacy in recent memory," the New York Senator said. "I urge OnStar to abandon this policy and for FTC to immediately launch a full investigation to determine whether the company's actions constitute an unfair trade practice." Find out more about OnStar's new policy, after the break.
Senate Bill 978 not much of a danger to YouTube game runthroughs
When we're too busy to actually play Gitaroo Man, we happily resort to watching "Let's Play" runthrough videos of Gitaroo Man. Unfortunately, an addendum to federal copyright laws currently working its way through our country's legislative channels seeks to make streaming videos of copyrighted content just as illegal as pirating films -- the penalties for which are displayed every time you start up a video. Fortunately, This is My Next has explained why this law wouldn't find much traction in stopping these kinds of nostalgic walkthroughs from being uploaded. The statute can only be enforced in instances where uploaders are "willfully" infringing on a copyright with intent to make money, and is only punishable if said uploader makes (or the game company loses) over $2,500. That's probably not true about a vast majority of the walkthroughs on streaming video sites, meaning our vicarious Gitarooing should continue unabated.
'Let's Play' videos may soon make you a felon thanks to Senate Bill S.978 [Updated]
[Update: This Is My Next's Nilay Patel has published an extensive break-down of S.978, and it looks like the bill, if passed, wouldn't actually change much of anything for the majority of people who don't profit from their YouTube videos. "Some of the outcry here is a little overblown, as the text of the bill isn't quite as bad as you might think."] Hold on to your butts, Internet, because this party is going to get a whole lot worse before it gets any better. According to Game Informer, a Senate Bill has been introduced which, if passed, would make streaming unauthorized copyrighted material a felony, resulting in up to 5-years of jail time. Bill S.978 states that "10 or more public performances by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copyrighted works" will result in "not more than 5 years" of imprisonment, so long as the performance in question is valued at at-least $2,500 USD, or if the value of a license to legally "perform" the content is valued at $5,000 or more. These are, in essence, the same criteria that allow for DMCA take-down notices to be issued by copyright holders, however jail time and felony status are not currently associated with this particular flavor of copyright infringement. Should this bill jump through all the right hoops, its broadly worded contents could potentially cover everything from homemade gameplay clips (commonly referred to "Let's Play" videos), to fan-made music videos, webcam cover songs, and anything else that involves copyrighted music or video. S.978 could also potentially cover cell-phone videos of concerts and press events, making 13-year-old Beliebers and jaded gaming journalists alike equally in danger of losing their right to vote. If accepted into law, these addenda will be attached to existing copyright laws and will not only apply to YouTube users, but to the sites that embed YouTube content as well. Internet activism group Demand Progress has set up a web-form for those who disagree with the legislation and wish to communicate their displeasure to their local representatives. We would be concerned about the bill's implications as well, but fear not dear reader: the legislation doesn't cover puppet shows as far as we can tell, so Joystiq Playhouse's shadow-kabuki production of Battle Arena Toshinden should still be on track.
Senate denies Navy's missile-destroying laser funding, puts the kibosh on annoying Dr. Evil impressions
Leave it to the Senate to crush the military's fragile dreams. All the Navy ever really wanted was a giant ship-based laser that could be used to shoot down missiles. Despite some record breaking stats, however, the latest defense authorization bill handed down from the Senate Armed Services Committee throws a giant congressional wet blanket on the free-electron laser. The project, it seems, has simply proven too expensive -- among other things, the laser's researchers haven't found the ideal method for powering the weapon from a ship. According to the current timeline, the project was not likely to have been completed before 2020, and as such the Navy's request for further funding was, somewhat ironically, ultimately shot down.
Apple to drop DUI checkpoint apps like a bad habit
In a move that's bound to get at least a few MADD moms smiling, Apple's officially decided to block apps that encourage drunk driving. Section 22.8 of the newly revised App Store Review Guidelines reads: Apps which contain DUI checkpoints that are not published by law enforcement agencies, or encourage and enable drunk driving, will be rejected. That revision comes on the heels of a request from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, asking that Google, Apple, and RIM yank offending apps from their respective mobile outlets. At the time, Google declined while RIM was quick to jump on the bandwagon, leaving Apple to stew. For now, it looks like the rest of us still have to keep our eyes out for Android users with a propensity for boozing and skirting the fuzz.
Senator Al Franken asks iOS developers to provide "clear and understandable privacy policies"
Following up on requests he made to Apple and Google in his hearing on mobile privacy earlier this month, US Senator Al Franken wrote a letter to the companies' respective CEOs asking them to require all software sold through the App Store and Android App Market to provide consumers with "clear and understandable privacy policies." Franken conceded that most customers never read the legal notices packaged with apps or think to look for a privacy statement for each (or any) app they install. He added that privacy notices alone wouldn't address all of the senator's privacy concerns. Even so, he observed that Apple and Google are market leaders capable of taking this "simple first step towards protecting [their] users' privacy." Requiring each app to transparently disclose what information it collects, how the data is used and who it is shared with would help attentive consumers, privacy advocates and federal authorities better understand how mobile software accesses and uses personal information. The senator concluded by urging Apple and Google to, at a minimum, make privacy policies a strict requirement for all location aware applications, implying it would be more feasible to address his privacy concerns within a subset of all software offered through Apple and Google's app catalogs. After all, Franken's hearings followed a highly publicized bug in iOS that caused location data to be stored in an unencrypted file on the device. Apple fixed the bug in a recent software update. Finally, Franken reminded Apple and Google of their commitments to protecting the privacy of their customers. "Apple and Google have each said time and again that they are committed to protecting users' privacy," Franken wrote. "This is an easy opportunity for your companies to put that commitment into action." [via The Loop]
The AT&T / T-Mobile senate hearing: deciphering the war of words
Over the course of the next year, AT&T and its opponents will be in the ring, duking it out in a war of words in attempt to convince the government that a $39 billion takeover of T-Mobile by AT&T should or should not take place. Consumers have the most to win or lose here, yet we are resigned to watching from the sidelines as both sides lob countless facts and stats at each other like volleys in a tennis match. If you look at the merger process as a stairway to climb up, AT&T is still near the very bottom. Every rung will be full of intense scrutiny as it is: if the two companies are allowed to merge, the national GSM market becomes a monopoly, and the wireless industry as a whole would shift to only three national players plus a handful of less-influential regional carriers. The carrier's going to blow as much as $6 billion if the merger is not approved -- almost enough to buy Skype -- it can't just expect to put up some feel-good facts and stats to win the hearts of the decision-makers. AT&T has to be absolutely sure it'll come out victorious in the war, else it risks losing the trust (and money) of its shareholders. But to accomplish such a feat, it has to be on top of its game. There was no better time to show off what it's made of than last week's Senate Judiciary Committee hearing conducted by the Subcommittee on Antitrust, Competition Policy and Consumer Rights. When the Committee entitles a hearing "Is Humpty Dumpty Being Put Back Together Again?," it's either exercising a sense of humor or a preconceived notion of the merger due to the implication that Ma Bell is simply reforming. CEO Randall Stephenson appeared as a sacrificial lamb, going before Congress and his opponents to explain his side of the story, answer hardball questions, and endure a hard-hitting round of criticism. Continue reading as we take you topic by topic and examine what he -- and his opponents -- had to say about the merger.
Apple and Google headed for round two with Senate privacy hearings
Following the first round of Senate hearings on privacy last week, representatives from Apple and Google will appear before the US Senate Subcommittee on Consumer Protection, Product Safety, and Insurance on May 19, according to CNET. In attendance for Apple will be Vice President of Worldwide Government affairs Catherine Novelli, while Google is sending its director of public policy for the Americas, Alan Davidson. Facebook is also attending this round of privacy hearings, sending its Chief Technology Officer, Bret Taylor. Microsoft apparently wasn't asked to attend. The hearing will address "consumer privacy and protection in the mobile marketplace," and unlike the first round of privacy hearings, the US Department of Justice isn't in attendance. No doubt the recent "Locationgate" controversy will be addressed in spite of Apple addressing it to a large extent with the recent iOS 4.3.3 software update. However, given that a representative from Facebook is in attendance this time, it's possible the hearing will focus on more generalized attitudes toward consumer privacy from the main pillars of the tech community. Google didn't appear to fare particularly well during the first round of hearings; its representative's repeated refrains of "openness" wound up being about the worst argument the company could put forward during a hearing on privacy matters. If the Senate chooses to focus on online advertising, particularly in light of recently introduced "do not track" legislation, both Google and Facebook may find themselves beneath a very uncomfortable microscope. That's not to say that Apple is entirely blameless in privacy matters, but with "Locationgate" largely out of the spotlight, it's possible Apple won't be the central focus of this next round of hearings.
Microsoft outlines WP7 tracking policy, promises to cut it out
Microsoft has managed to avoid a good deal of the heat surrounding the smartphone tracking freakout of the past few weeks, largely missing out on the media finger pointing and, unlike Apple and Google, avoiding the Senate hearings. For those worried that Redmond got off scot-free, have no fear -- Congress asked the company to respond to questions via letter, and Windows Phone head Andy Lees happily replied, stating that, while the OS does, in fact, have tracking built-in, it's intended for "landmarks not users," collecting the locations of things like cell towers and WiFi access points. Just to be safe, Lees also promised that, like the iOS 4.3.3 fix, the next WP7 update will do away with some of that controversial tracking.
