Fight for the Future is calling on Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) to disclose any "dark money" funds Democrats have received from Big Tech.

As the Senate majority leader, Schumer controls whether a couple of bipartisan Big Tech-regulating bills get a floor vote after being favorably reported out of the Senate Commerce Committee. To date, he has not scheduled a vote and Fight for the Future wrote Schumer saying the funding needed to be out in the open to dispel the appearance of a conflict of interest.

The group, which backs the bills, said disclosure would “help reassure a public that is questioning your hesitation in cracking down on Big Tech despite broad, bipartisan public support for doing so.”

Also: Group Pushes Schumer To Watch John Oliver Big Tech Video

The bills they want Schumer to advance to a floor vote are S. 2992 and S. 2710.

S. 2992, the American Innovation and Choice Online Act, is billed as preventing online favoritism.

Specifically, it would:

• 1. “Prohibit dominant platforms from abusing their gatekeeper power by favoring their own products or services, disadvantaging rivals, or discriminating among businesses that use their platforms in a manner that would materially harm competition on the platform; and  
• a. “Prohibit specific forms of conduct that are harmful to small businesses, entrepreneurs, and consumers, but that do not have any pro-competitive benefit, including: 
• i. “Preventing another business’s product or service from interoperating with the dominant platform or another business;  
• ii. “Requiring a business to buy a dominant platform’s goods or services for preferred placement on its platform;  
• iii. “Misusing a business’s data to compete against them; and iv. “Biasing search results in favor of the dominant firm; and 
• iv. “Biasing search results in favor of the dominant firm.”

Reading like an app net neutrality rule for Apple and Google, S. 2710, the Open Apps Market Act, would prevent a covered company from restricting the use of alternative in-app payment systems; or from favoring their own terms of distribution, pricing or conditions of sale; or penalize developers for using different pricing terms or conditions via another in-app payment system.

It prevents a Google or Apple, for example, from using info derived from a third-party app to compete with that same app.

That bill passed the Senate Judiciary Committee with overwhelming bipartisan support (21-1) back in February and was backed by the odd couple pairing of liberal Connecticut Democratic Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) and conservative Tennessee Republican Sen. Marsha Blackburn.

In a press conference last month, Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) and other S. 2992 sponsors and supporters said they need to get a vote ASAP, before the August recess. She pointed out that the leaders of both the House and Senate [the latter would be Schumer] have promised a vote and need to schedule it. Klobuchar pointed out that it has been over a year and there has been no vote on the bill. She also said that Big Tech has spent some $70 million on ads in the past year and employed thousands of lobbyists.

The airwaves and wires (cable) in D.C. have definitely been blanketed with scary ads suggesting the bills could end Amazon Prime's two-day delivery service, among just one of a parade of horribles. ■

Fight for the Future (FFTF) is fighting mad over a second Senate Commerce Committee hearing on the nomination of Gigi Sohn to the open Federal Communications Commission seat and has directed its anger at the powerful committee‘s chairwoman, Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.).

The group sent a letter to Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) calling on him to remove Cantwell as chair over what it said was “her refusal to advance [President Joe] Biden‘s highly qualified nominee to the FCC, Gigi Sohn.”

Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.), the ranking member of the Senate Commerce Committee, had suggested the need for a second hearing over issues related to Sohn's association with former TV station streamer Locast.

The committee had already held a hearing on her nomination back in December, but because no vote had been taken — likely because there were not enough Democratic votes at the time — her nomination had to be resubmitted by the President in the new year, but that did not necessarily mean she had to have a new hearing.

There is no indication that Cantwell is purposely trying to slow-roll the nomination. 

More likely is that she was making sure the vote would be favorable, and there has been some talk that Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.) might need persuading after progressive Democrats hammered her — including paying for a billboard in her home state branding her "corrupt"--during the net neutrality debate for not voting to repeal the 2017 FCC decision to eliminate the net neutrality rules, rules that Sohn stumped for under then-FCC chairman Tom Wheeler. According to sources, supporters of Sohn have reached out to Sinema to tell her Sohn had no part in the billboard incident.

Cantwell had not granted the hearing but instead scheduled a vote on Sohn's nomination this week. After Democratic committee member Sen. Ben Ray Luján of New Mexico suffered a stroke, though, that vote was put off due to a lack of Democratic votes for Sohn's and two other nominations with which Republicans had some issues, including a fifth Federal Trade Commission member.

Following that announced delay, and with Lujan still recovering in the hospital, Cantwell granted the second Sohn hearing for February 9.

Cantwell's office had no comment at deadline on the letter. ■

Sen. Ron Wyden (R-Ore.), the author of Sec. 230, has signaled the law needs work, but apparently not the way that the EARN IT Act goes about it. 

The bill, whose principal co-sponsors are Judiciary Committee chairman Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), amends Sec. 230 of the Communications Decency Act to allow tech companies to be held liable in federal and state courts if there is child sexual abuse content on their sites.  

Related: Senate to Vet Edge Provider Liability Bill 

The bill passed out of the committee earlier this month. 

Wyden was on a livestream event hosted by Fight for the Future, which argues the EARN IT Act endangers online free speech.  

“By allowing any individual state to set the laws for Internet content, the bill creates enormous uncertainty, both for strong encryption and free speech online," Wyden told the streamed audience, according to FFTF. "And what’s worse, a flood of state laws could potentially arise under the EARN IT Act and raise strong fourth amendment concerns, meaning that any evidence collected can be rendered inadmissible in court and accused offenders could get off scot-free! That seems to be pretty bizarre, even by Washington, DC standards.” 

FFTF said it "virtually" presented Wyden with an open letter opposing the EARN IT Act signed by almost 500,000 people. 

"The EARN IT Act is a disaster for free expression and privacy online,” said Dayton Young, product director at Fight for the Future. “Not only does this bill infringe upon the Constitutionally-protected rights of everyone in America, but the EARN IT Act will actually make it harder to catch and prosecute sexual predators," he said. "Any member of Congress who is serious about stopping child exploitation online must reject the misguided EARN IT Act and focus on investing more resources in community-led efforts to stop violence and abuse before it happens.” 

Amazon said it is putting a one-year moratorium on selling its Rekognition facial recognition technology to police, saying it wants to give Congress time to come up with a regulatory framework. (The story initially incorrectly attributed the moratorium to Facebook).

The company said it would still allow its use for rescuing victims of human trafficking and reuniting missing children by groups like the International Center for Missing and Exploited Children. 

Related: OTI Won't Take Facebook Funding

Some legislators have expressed concerns about the use of facial recognition software to stifle the free speech of protesters currently organizing to oppose racial injustice. 

"We’ve advocated that governments should put in place stronger regulations to govern the ethical use of facial recognition technology, and in recent days, Congress appears ready to take on this challenge. We hope this one-year moratorium might give Congress enough time to implement appropriate rules, and we stand ready to help if requested," said the company. 

But one of Amazon's critics was not assuaged.  

“This is nothing more than a public relations stunt from Amazon," said Fight for the Future executive director Even Greer. "But it’s also a sign that facial recognition is increasingly politically toxic, which is a result of the incredible organizing happening on the ground right now." 

Greer said Amazon has been calling for government regulation of facial recognition so that its lawyers can write the legislation so it is verifying to their surveillance business model. 

"The reality is that facial recognition technology is too dangerous to be used at all," said Greer, likening it to nuclear or biological weapons in its potential threat. "Lawmakers need to stop pandering to Big Tech companies and corrupt law enforcement agencies and do their jobs," she said. "Congress should act immediately to ban facial recognition for all surveillance purposes.” 

Net neutrality activist group Fight for the Future (FFTF) has launched an online campaign that both encourages the government, public and corporations to heed public health messages and warns against attempts "to exploit this crisis to undermine fundamental rights and freedoms."

Related: Sen. Markey Concerned About Geolocation Virus Tracking

Those were the same fears, which some argue were realized, over the surveillance laws and various restrictions implemented by the government following 9/11. 

FFTF points to "some dangerous proposals with no basis in medical science, such as the DOJ requesting the power to indefinitely detain people without a warrant, facial recognition surveillance companies seeing the crisis as a business opportunity, and the potential of mass collection of cell phone location data." 

The group says privacy protections aren't enough, and that lines in the sand need to be drawn now. 

Those include avoiding responses to the crisis that: 

• Increase invasive surveillance or monitoring of our movements and communications, or require companies to hand over our personal data to the government. 

• Censor free speech or limit the free flow of information. Medical professionals should be free to speak out, and members of the public should be free to question and debate. Governments and social media companies should increase transparency. 

• Unnecessarily restrict our freedom of movement. When medical experts deem it necessary, we should close down schools, businesses, and public gatherings. But governments should not use the threat of violence, fines, or imprisonment to enforce shelter-in-place orders. There should be no checkpoints, random stops, or overly restrictive curfews that don’t have a public health benefit. 

• Undermine due process and the rule of law. There must be no indefinite detention without trial, and no suspension of other basic constitutional and human rights. Law enforcement has no authority to detain or question people without reasonable suspicion, and that should not change under quarantine. 

Privacy and civil rights groups are ramping up their campaign to get facial recognition technology off of college campuses. 

They are circulating a letter to aimed at college administrators seeking signatures of support. 

Many of the groups are the same ones that were successful in spotlighting the use of the technology at concerts. 

While many of the groups, including Fight for the Future, would prefer an across-the-board ban on the technology, they said they were especially calling out colleges and universities because they were being pitched on facial recognition as a way to increase campus safety and even determine whether kids are paying attention in class. 

"But the truth is there is no justifiable reason to use it,” said FFTF deputy director Evan Greer. “Claims that it increases safety are unfounded, and using it as a tool of convenience puts the privacy and rights of students and faculty at risk, for little-to-no benefit.” 

The letter follows the announcement by the groups of a March 2 National Day of Action to promote the ban of facial recognition on college campuses. 

“Just imagine you’re in college—exploring new ideas, meeting new people, going to parties, dating, attending rallies,” says Greer. “Now imagine doing all of that while under constant surveillance, not knowing who is watching you, what’s happening to your biometric data, or what the implications of that may be. There is no way to protect students’ rights and ability to thrive at college when the school uses facial recognition technology.” 

In addition to FFTF, the groups backing the campus ban include the ACLU, Roots Action and the National Immigration Law Center. 

FCC chair Ajit Pai has told Fox & Friends that net-neutrality protesters have "crossed a line" with hateful signs that target his children.

Fox News Channel reported Monday (Nov. 27) that demonstrators had been gathering outside Pai's home after last week's release of the order to reclassify ISPs as information services not subject to mandatory access regulations and to eliminate most of the bright-line network-neutrality rules.

Signs posted on the street outside the FCC chair's home included some naming his children and asking how his kids could look him in the eye as he was "murdering Democracy in cold blood," according to a tweet by one of Pai's neighbors that was cited in the Fox & Friends story.

I have a friend that lives near @AjitPaiFCC. Net neutrality "activists" posted these signs, featuring his children's names, outside his house. Pizzas also reportedly sent to his house every half-hour last night. pic.twitter.com/jWI4gV6Hvc

— Brendan Bordelon (@BrendanBordelon) November 25, 2017

“It certainly crosses a line with me,” Pai said on the show. “Families … should remain out of it, and [protesters should] stop harassing us at our homes. ... It was a little nerve-racking, especially for my wife, who’s not involved in this space.”

Former FCC chair Tom Wheeler also had protesters outside his home before he switched to a Title II approach to net-neutrality rules -- the approach Pai is now moving to roll back -- but the demonstrators were not threatening, and Wheeler even spoke with them and posed for a photo at one point.

Protesters had taken to Pai's street back in May, as well, after the FCC voted to propose the Title II rollback, but the tone of the newest protest had an uglier edge.

Pai chief of staff Matthew Berry also condemned -- by way of retweets -- some of the hateful and even racist messages aimed at Pai and his family by opponents of his proposal, including one that said he should get cancer and his family should be executed so they could not pass his genes on.

Former FCC chair Michael Copps, now a special advisor to Common Cause, is one of the strongest critics of Pai's proposal, but he told B&C that, as he tweeted over the Thanksgiving Day weekend, there is not a place for such hateful speech in the net-neutrality discussion, and anyone who directs it toward the current chair is no ally of his.

Copps added that when he was on the commission, he was concerned about hate speech and would like to see more done to rein it in, adding that given how much uncivil dialog is going on these days, the problem should be a little more obvious.

Fred Campbell, president of Tech Knowledge, which backs Pai's Title II rollback, stood up for the chair and against the protests.

“The repeated racist attacks against FCC chairman Ajit Pai and his family in their own home during the holiday weekend are horrific," he said. "The perpetrators of this villainy should be ashamed. These attacks aren’t net-neutrality advocacy. They are terrorism.”

Free Press president Craig Aaron distanced his group, which is strongly opposed to the Title II rollback, from the attacks on Pai and condemned the tenor and tactics.

Should go without saying, but we'll say it again and again. #NetNeutralitypic.twitter.com/LiiYCgDC3e

— Free Press Action (@freepressaction) November 27, 2017

"We don't condone this type of harassment. We believe in rigorous public debate," said Evan Greer, campaign director at Fight for the Future, which called for protests of the pending vote to roll back Title II. "People who care about this issue should be channeling their anger productively and calling on their lawmakers to take action to stop the FCC vote."