Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and Rep. Doris Matsui (D-Calif.) have reintroduced a bill to boost online content moderation transparency and prevent algorithmic discrimination.

The bill was originally introduced in 2021. It failed to gain traction, but the D.C. heat on Big Tech has only ramped up since then.

Among other things, the Algorithmic Justice and Online Platform Transparency Act would prevent algorithms that exclude certain people from seeing online advertising — racial minorities for housing ads, for example, or certain gender identities from job ads.

“The legislation would ban harmful algorithms, bolster transparency by holding websites accountable for their content amplification and moderation practices, and commission a cross-government investigation into discriminatory algorithmic processes throughout the economy,” Markey’s office said Thursday (July 13).

“Congress must hold Big Tech accountable for its black-box algorithms that perpetuate discrimination, inequality and racism in our society,” Markey said.

“Harmful content continues to proliferate online, and online platforms are making conscious efforts to spread it through their algorithms,” Matsui said.

Specifically, the bill would:

1. “Prohibit algorithmic processes on online platforms that discriminate on the basis of race, age, gender, ability and other protected characteristics.
2. “Establish a safety and effectiveness standard for algorithms, such that online platforms may not employ automated processes that harm users or fail to take reasonable steps to ensure algorithms achieve their intended purposes.
3. “Require online platforms to describe to users in plain language the types of algorithmic processes they employ and the information they collect to power them.
4. “Require online platforms to maintain detailed records describing their algorithmic process for review by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), in compliance with key privacy and data de-identification standards.
5. “Require online platforms to publish annual public reports detailing their content moderation practices.
6. “Create an inter-agency task force comprised of entities including the FTC, Department of Education, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Department of Commerce, and Department of Justice, to investigate the discriminatory algorithmic processes employed in sectors across the economy.“

Among those backing the bill's reintroduction, according to Markey, include Center for Digital Democracy, Color of Change, Common Cause, Common Sense Media, and Consumer Reports. 

A group of congressional Democrats from both the House and Senate have introduced a bill banning the use of facial recognition and similar technologies by the government, which they suggest have been weaponized against minorities by the police.

It is yet another privacy and data-collection volley by Congress against Big Tech, in this case specific tech in the hands of government officials. It also has free speech implications if it is used to stifle protests.

The Facial Recognition and Biometric Technology Moratorium Act comes in response to reports of the growing use of the technologies by local, state and federal agencies, including law enforcement, combined with what the legislators said have been false facial recognition matches, particularly affecting Black men.

Also: Amazon Suspends Sale of Facial Recognition Tech to Police

In introducing the bill, the legislators cited research they said found that Black, Brown and Asian people were “up to 100 times” more likely to be misidentified by such technologies.

“The year is 2023, but we are living through 1984,” said Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), a longtime advocate for tougher privacy laws and one of the lead sponsors of the bill. “The continued proliferation of surveillance tools like facial recognition technologies in our society is deeply disturbing. Biometric data collection poses serious risks of privacy invasion and discrimination, and Americans know they should not have to forgo personal privacy for safety. As we work to make our country more equitable, we cannot ignore the technologies that stand in the way of progress and perpetuate injustice.”

The bill was applauded by the American Civil Liberties Union and Fight for the Future, among others. ■

Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) is urging Congress to move the nomination of Gigi Sohn to be the fifth member of the Federal Communications Commission. 

Her nomination has been held up for two years because not enough Democrats could be lined up to hold a Senate vote. The nomination failed to be reported favorably from the Commerce Committee, which was tied on advancing it to the full Senate. 

“It is outrageous that the FCC has gone without a full slate of commissioners while the nomination of the supremely qualified and prepared nominee, Gigi Sohn, languishes amidst lies and homophobia,“ Markey said.

Also: Sohn Supporters Call Out ‘Dithering Dems’

Sohn would be the first openly gay FCC commissioner, though her failure to advance has likely more to do with her support for Title II-based net neutrality rules and some tweets when she was a private citizen.

“The work of the Commission — from net neutrality to closing the digital divide —  is too important for this nomination to be delayed any further,” Markey said. “Gigi Sohn is President Biden’s nominee, and Congress should confirm her as soon as possible. As a member of the Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee and a longtime advocate for advancing telecommunications equity and access, I will continue to fight back against baseless attacks and push for swift confirmation.”

Markey is primarily addressing fellow Democrats since they control the gavel in committees and have the votes to discharge the nomination from the committee and approve her to the commission if they are all on board.

Republicans have called for holding a new nomination hearing, although Sohn has already had two. ■

Taking a page from former President Donald Trump, new Twitter CEO Elon Musk is using the social media platform to attack the media.

In a pair of tweets Friday (Nov. 11), Musk said: “As Twitter pursues the goal of elevating citizen journalism, media elite will try everything to stop that from happening.”

Musk has gotten plenty of criticism in the mainstream media after firing thousands of employees, echoing conspiracy theories and making — then, in some cases, rescinding — moves his critics see as allowing for more extreme and deceptive speech without sufficient moderation and oversight, given the dramatic staff cuts. Musk has pitched the moves as better advancing and protecting free speech and trying to better monetize the platform.

Also: Free Press Pushes for Twitter Ad Boycott

In an accompanying tweet, Musk argued that the mainstream media will still “thrive” alongside this citizen journalism, but it will “disrupt” their “oligopoly on information.”

There were reports Sunday (November 13) that Musk had laid off thousands more contractors over the weekend.

Musk has warned that Twitter would “will do lots of dumb things in coming months,” keeping what works and changing what doesn’t.

One of the things that didn't work, and was changed, was allowing subs to buy one of the blue checks that are used to verify accounts. That led to a number of “impersonation” accounts, including a reporter from The Washington Post who impersonated Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) for a story about selling those blue checks.

An unhappy Markey responded with a request for a bunch of information from Musk. ▪️

Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) wrote new Twitter chief Elon Musk seeking some answers after a Washington Post reporter was able to get the @realedmarkey Twitter handle and pay $8 for a blue verification checkmark, saying a new — though short-lived — company practice under Musk is "dangerous and unacceptable" and suggests larger problems with Musk's takeover of the powerful social media site.

The account was verified because it's “notable person in government," said Markey, even though it was the reporter.

Buying such marks is a new Musk effort to make more money for the site.

Markey said that "apparent need for cash" has led to lax verification practices that suggest "anyone could pay $8.00 and impersonate someone on your platform."

Markey says Musk needs to explain how it will prevent a repeat of such impersonation.

Also: Free Press Pushes for Twitter Ad Boycott

He also slammed what he called Musk's "rapid and haphazard imposition of platform changes, removal of safeguards against disinformation and firing of large numbers of Twitter employees," which he said had powered Twitter's descent into the "Wild West of social media."

Markey said that despite Twitter ending the pay-for-verification checkmark move following the Post article, which was about a proliferation of impersonation accounts, there are questions that need answering, including whether there are any plans to reintroduce a verification system and how a reporter was able to get the fake account.

Also: Musk Signals Longer-Form Tweets

The Post was also reporting that the Federal Trade Commission has pledged to keep its eye on Twitter to make sure that the firings and resignations of high-profile execs does not undercut the company's privacy oversight responsibilities under a consent decree with the FTC stemming from allegations Twitter misused users' data for targeted advertising.

The Post reported that some of the people leaving the company were from a data governance committee set up as part of the FTC settlement. ■

With no progress expected on new network neutrality rules out of a politically tied FCC anytime soon, net neutrality fan Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) is introducing net neutrality legislation Thursday (July 28).

The Washington Post had signaled two weeks ago a bill was in the offing.

Markey, along with bill co-sponsors Sens. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and Rep. Doris Matsui (D-Calif.) is unveiling the bill on a Zoom call and Reddit Ask Me Anything (AMA) on the r/politics subreddit.

The bill is billed as "appropriately" classifying internet access as "an essential service" as well as reinstating the FCC's authority to prevent blocking, throttling and paid prioritization, which were the heart of the FCC's net neutrality rules that were eliminated under Republican FCC chairman Ajit Pai.
Also: Democrats Propose Broadband Subsidies Be Used to Promote Net Neutrality

Joining the legislators on the AMA, according to Markey's office, will be Jessica González, co-CEO of Free Press Action; and Jenna Leventoff, senior policy council at public knowledge.

Any legislative action on net neutrality rules would also be a tall order anytime soon, particularly if the bill's appropriate essential service classification means reclassifying internet access from a Title I information service back to a Title II common carrier service--which the Post suggested was the case and Markey's office's description does as well. That would mean mandatory access and at least the possibility of rate regulation, either before the fact or after.

While both Democrats and Republicans have said they agree that Congress should step in to stop the FCC pendulum swings of reclassification from Title II to Title I, depending on the political makeup of the FCC, by clarifying the FCC's authority and coming up with rules against blocking, throttling and anticompetitive paid prioritization. But Republicans are solidly against Title II-based rules, and not even all Democrats are apparently convinced that is the way to go.

Markey has been pushing for Title II reclassification ever since the Pai FCC eliminated the rules. 

The Computer & Communications Industry Association, whose members include some of the biggest of Big Tech, was applauding the bill after it was unveiled. “Many Americans only have one choice of high speed broadband access provider and thus have nowhere to turn to work, shop, study, and communicate should their service provider limit or deny their access to lawful content and services," said CCIA President Matt Schruers. "CCIA remains committed to ensuring that consumers’ access to an open Internet is not slowed, impeded, or deprioritized."■

Sens. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) are introducing a bill that would reclassify internet service providers under Title II of the Communications Act’s mandatory access regulations and pave the way for a possible return of network neutrality rules.

That is according to someone who has seen the bill, which was reported on by The Washington Post.

The bill is unlikely to get much traction, given how complicated and divisive the issue of net neutrality is and due to the relative handful of legislative days before the midterm elections, in which Republicans, who strongly oppose Title II for the internet, are likely to regain control of the House.

Both sides of the net neutrality debate would like to get some closure on the issue rather than see the FCC classifying and reclassifying ISPs as the political majority changes. The FCC, though, is currently at a 2-2 political tie, so there will be no move to reclassify ISPs there anytime soon. 

While Republicans have signaled they can accept some version of net neutrality rules — such as prohibitions against blocking, throttling or anti-competitive paid prioritization — they don't want a return of the Title II common carrier-lite regime and even the hint of possible rate regulation.

Democrats like Markey argue Title II is needed for a truly “open” internet.

“The COVID-19 pandemic has made it more clear than ever that broadband Internet is a necessity, not a luxury,” Evan Greer, director of the nonprofit advocacy group and Title II proponent Fight for the Future, said. “The FCC is supposed to ensure everyone has affordable access to broadband and prevent telecom companies from abusing their monopoly power or charging an unfair fee. But because of the Trump administration’s disastrous repeal of Title II protections, the agency is currently unable to do any of that. 

“This bill would fix that by restoring the FCC's ability to protect the public,” she said. “It will give the agency the authority it needs to restore net neutrality and address the digital divide.”

The US Telecom trade association said telecom providers already adhere to net neutrality practices, which it said consumers should expect Congress to "codify." "But let’s be clear: any such legislation cannot and must not be a backdoor for government to regulate prices and degrade the consumer internet experience," the group said, attributing the sentiment to CEO Jonathan Spalter. ■

A pair of powerful Democratic senators has asked the Biden administration to use the $48 billion in broadband infrastructure spending overseen by the Department of Commerce‘s National Telecommunications & Information Administration as a way to restore net neutrality rules, at least for those government-funded network buildouts.

That's according to a letter to NTIA administrator Alan Davidson from Senators Richard Blumenthal (D-N.Y.) and Ed Markey (D-Mass.).

The Federal Communications Commission, under Trump-era Republican chairman Ajit Pai, eliminated its rules against blocking, throttling and paid prioritization, plus a catch-all rule that would allow the FCC to regulate conduct that did not fall under the other rules but that it concluded might hurt an open internet. Current chair Jessica Rosenworcel, a Democrat, would almost certainly like to restore those rules but lacks a majority, and Congress has been unable to agree on legislation establishing or defining the FCC‘s regulatory oversight of the internet.

In a letter advising Davidson on how to oversee that $48 billion, most of which is going to the states for their own projects, the two senators suggested NTIA‘s oversight of the money should include promoting “safeguards for the free and open internet.”

Blumenthal and Markey want NTIA to “implement measures that promote net neutrality as it fulfills its mandates under [the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act],” they said. The senators argue that such a set of neutrality principles were needed to “keep the internet open to all and free of discriminatory practices by powerful broadband providers” and to prevent those providers from “blocking or slowing down customers’ internet access; charging websites to reach users at quicker speeds; and instituting other unjust, unreasonable and discriminatory practices. These rules benefit consumers, promote free speech, and enrich the economy by making the internet a fair playing field where entrepreneurs and businesses of all sizes can thrive.”

The senators did not explicitly advise NTIA to put net neutrality conditions on the money, but their signal was clear. Both Blumenthal and Markey have been vocal proponents of net neutrality rules. ■

In a letter to Federal Trade Commission chair Lina Khan led by Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), a trio of senators called on the agency to flex its metaverse muscle to make sure children are protected from potential manipulation.

"While some platforms state their VR devices should not be used by children, many adult users have nonetheless encountered numerous children online. In fact, two-thirds of parents with VR devices report that their children asked them to buy the device," they wrote. Among the potential harms they point to are online harassment and unsafe content.

The senators said increasing use of VR and AR is cause for serious concern related to threats to younger users, including because VR platforms and headsets don't have parental controls. Not surprisingly given Washington's current focus on online platforms, they pointed the finger at Big Tech, saying FTC intervention was needed "as leading technology companies that have historically failed to protect children announce plans to expand their businesses into the 'metaverse.'"

Also: Kids Online Protection Bill Introduced

Markey was a driving force behind the V-chip parental control, a technology that was meant to give parents greater control over their kids TV viewing, though most parents likely don't know the V-chip receiver mandate exists, much less use it.

The senators said the FTC should use its authority under the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA, which Markey spearheaded) and the FTC Act to monitor the metaverse. "The need to protect young people from threats online is more urgent than ever. As new technologies emerge, it is incumbent upon the Commission to exercise this authority to protect children," they wrote. ■

Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) used part of his time during a Senate floor speech on the one-year anniversary of the January 6, 2021 Capitol insurrection to slam Big Tech, saying the seeds of offline harms "are planted, grown and spread online."

After talking about how anyone who "orchestrated, abetted or participated in the January 6 attack" has to be held to account.

But he said preventing another attack on democracy is a larger issue, and implicates online platforms.

"We cannot forget the role that online platforms played during the lead-up to the insurrection," he said. "Make no mistake, social media has become a hotbed of disinformation, hate speech and conspiracy theories."

Also: Journalists Exposed Ugly Face of January 6 Insurrection

He said social media platforms and algorithms promoted political disinformation that spread then President Trump's "big lie" -- that the 2020 election was stolen by the Democrats through massive voter fraud, for which there is no evidence.

Markey said they needed to "open the hood" on "online systems" pushing "toxic content" that feeds dangerous movements online.

Markey has been one of the Senate's strongest critics of Big Tech, including over political ads, disinformation, and its impact on children. ■

Sens. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and Doris Matsui (D-Calif.) have introduced a bill to boost online content moderation transparency and prevent algorithmic discrimination, with Markey saying it was time to "open up Big Tech's hood."

Facebook, for one, has been calling for legislation on transparency.

Among other things, the Algorithmic Justice and Online Platform Transparency Act of 2021 would prevent algorithms that exclude certain people from seeing online advertising--racial minorities for housing ads, for example, or certain gender identities from job ads.

“As we work to eliminate injustice in our society, we cannot ignore the online ecosystem. It is time to open up Big Tech’s hood, enact strict prohibitions on harmful algorithms, and prioritize justice for communities who have long been discriminated against as we work toward platform accountability," said Markey.

Specifically, according to Markey's office, the bill would:

1. "Prohibit algorithmic processes on online platforms that discriminate on the basis of race, age, gender, ability and other protected characteristics.

2. "Establish a safety and effectiveness standard for algorithms, such that online platforms may not employ automated processes that harm users or fail to take reasonable steps to ensure algorithms achieve their intended purposes.

3. "Require online platforms to describe to users in plain language the types of algorithmic processes they employ and the information they collect to power them.

4. "Require online platforms to maintain detailed records describing their algorithmic process for review by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), in compliance with key privacy and data de-identification standards.

5. "Require online platforms to publish annual public reports detailing their content moderation practices.

6. "Create an inter-agency task force comprised of entities including the FTC, Department of Education, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Department of Commerce, and Department of Justice, to investigate the discriminatory algorithmic processes employed in sectors across the economy."

Facebook took some heat in the announcement. "While media investigations have uncovered evidence that Facebook failed to abide by its commitment to stop using its algorithms to recommend political groups to users ahead of the 2020 election, and that the company similarly failed to take down content from a dangerous conspiracy theorist who the platform previously banned," Markey's office said, "many more examples may never have been uncovered."

The senators said that a "comprehensive review" of algorithms and their potential discriminatory impact on everything from healthcare to financial services to employment and higher education is called for.

Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), joined by Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.), has renewed his effort to extend the reach of his child online protection law to young teens.

Currently, the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA), which Markey motormanned, prohibits websites from collecting personal information from anyone 12 and under without consent. The new bill, the Children and Teens' Online Privacy Protection Act, would extend that protection to teens 13-15.

It would also create the "eraser button" Markey has been pushing for years, which would require online companies to allow users to eliminate personal information from a child or teen.

The bill creates a "digital marketing bill of rights" as well, which limits the collection of personal information from teens for marketing purposes. And to make sure that the limits are respected, it creates a Youth Privacy and Marketing Division at the Federal Trade Commission.

Also Read: Senate Commerce Tees Up Federal Privacy Bills

But wait, there's more — a lot more — including:

1. Ban advertising targeted to kids (as distinguished from contextual advertising in content targeted to children.
2. Change COPPA's "actual knowledge" standard to a "constructive knowledge" standard, which means websites "should reasonably know" that children are on their sites and they need to get consent to collect data.
3. Requires online companies to explain what personal information is being collected, how it is being used and disclosed and their collection policies.
4. Require that internet-connected devices for kids have robust cybersecurity.
5. Require manufacturers of connected devices targetd to kids and minors to include on their packaging disclosures of how information is collected, transmitted, retained, used and protected.

Also Read: Senators Seek Major Investigation of Kids Data Collection

“The Children and Teens’ Online Privacy Protection Act rightly recognizes that the internet's prevailing business model is harmful to young people,” said Josh Golin, executive director, Campaign for Commercial-Free Children. “The bill's strict limits on how kids' data can be collected, stored, and used — and its all-out ban on targeted ads for children under 13 — would give children a chance to develop a healthy relationship with media without being ensnared by Big Tech’s surveillance and marketing apparatuses. 

"We commend Senators Markey and Cassidy for introducing this landmark legislation and urge Congress to act quickly to put children’s needs ahead of commercial interests,” Golin added.

Some Hill Dems led by Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) are pressing Facebook on more info in its exploration of a version of Instagram for children and warning if they don't like the answers they get, the company should stop exploring. 

In a letter to Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, they "demanded" some commitments, or know the reason why, and expressed their concerns about Facebook's past failure to protect kids on their Messenger Kids ap. "[R]esearch shows that apps such as Instagram may be detrimental to young people’s wellbeing and mental health," they wrote. "If Facebook’s objective is to decrease the number of users under the age of 13 on its current Instagram platform, it should invest in efforts to do that directly. The alternative approach that Facebook appears poised to take—specifically, pushing kids to sign up for a new platform that may itself pose threats to young users’ privacy and wellbeing—involves serious challenges and may do more harm than good." 

In 2019, Markey, joined by Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) hammered the company over its apparent failure to child-proof that app. Blumenthal is on the current letter as well, which is dated April 5.

At that time, a Facebook source speaking on background said it was a technical error affecting group chats, rather than a design flaw in the app itself, and that it had been detected and resolved.

Markey and Blumenthal, joined by Reps. Lori Trahan (Mass.) and Kathy Castor (Fla.), wanted answers to the following by April 26: 

1. "Will you commit that any platforms that Facebook launches for children, including a version of Instagram that is marketed for children, will never sell or share any user data with third parties for commercial purposes? If not, why not?

2. "Will you commit that any platforms that Facebook launches for children, including a version of Instagram that is marketed for children, will always be completely free of targeted advertising? If not, why" not?

3. Will you commit that any platforms that Facebook launches for children, including a version of Instagram that is marketed for children, will always be completely free of “influencer marketing” and other forms of commercial content that children may be incapable of identifying as advertisements? If not, why not?

4. "Will you commit that any platforms that Facebook launches for children, including a version of Instagram that is marketed for children, will not employ “push alert” techniques or similar design features that encourage users to spend time on the app? If not, why not?

5. "Will you commit that any platforms that Facebook launches for children, including a version of Instagram that is marketed for children, will not employ features such as “like” buttons, follower counts, or other tools that allow children to quantify popularity? If not, why not?

6. "Will you commit that any platforms that Facebook launches for children, including a version of Instagram that is marketed for children, will not include beauty filters or similar design features that can lead to an unhealthy body image? 

7. "Will you commit that any platform that Facebook launches for children, including a version of Instagram that is marketed for children, will not include ephemeral features such as stories and “vanish mode” which are difficult to monitor for bullying or child exploitation?"

“Should Facebook fail to provide adequate responses to the questions above or otherwise fail to demonstrate that a future version of Instagram for children would meet the highest standards of user protection," they warned in closing, "we would advise you to abandon your plans to launch this new platform.”  

Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) will reportedly introduce legislation in the next several weeks to reinstate the Title II classification for internet access providers as a way to restore the FCC's authority and the rules against blocking, throttling and paid prioritization. 

Also Read: Court Clears Way for California Net Neutrality Law

Democrats want to use new rules to get rid of "unfair data caps" as well, and argue reclassification will provide "firmer legal ground" for funding broadband through the Universal Service Fund.

The FCC in 2017 eliminated its net neutrality rules and effectively ceded authority over internet access to the Federal Trade Commission with the exception of some reporting requirements about service.

Also Read: Net Neutrality Push Is Coming to Shove

Sen. Markey has long pledged to restore the Title II designation and bright-line rules eliminated by the FCC under Republican Chairman Ajit Pai. For now, doing so will require Congressional action since the FCC is at a 2-2 political deadlock and neither Republican appears keen on restoring those regs.

Markey was joined by other Democratic legislators--including House Communications Subcommittee Chairman Mike Doyle (D-Pa.)--and net neutrality activists Tuesday (March 2) in signaling the push was on for new net neutrality regs.

 “Once we have three Democrats in place at the FCC, I will strongly urge the Commission to reverse the Trump FCC’s wrongheaded decision and restore net neutrality and the FCC’s authority over broadband," Markey said. "And in the coming weeks, I also plan to reintroduce legislation to do the same by statute.”  

 Title II is the common carrier designation that could allow the FCC to regulate rates or take other regulatory steps to insure nondiscriminatory access to the internet. The Dems and their activist allies argue that it is necessary to treat broadband like a utility (they use the term "essential service"), a point they say has been made more pressing during COVID-19.

Also Read: Comcast CEO Roberts Seeks More ‘Permanent’ Footing for Net Neutrality Laws

Both Republicans and Democrats (and some ISPs) have argued for legislation clarifying the FCC's authority over broadband, with some Republicans even supporting a return of bright-line rules, but the Republicans and ISPs only under a non-Title II regime, thus removing the threat of mandatory access and rate regulation.

Democrats generally argue that Title I is a non-starter and that only the Title II common carrier authority will secure an open internet.

Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), who earlier this week called on Facebook to stop recommending political groups, praised the platforms decision to do just that, but signaled he would be verifying because he did not exactly trust it to follow through.

In a letter to Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg Jan. 26, Markey said he was concerned by reports that Facebook was used to help plan the January Capitol insurrection despite promises from the company to him at an Oct. 28 oversight hearing they it would stop recommending political groups to users.

Also Read: Markey Wants Facebook Investigation

Zuckerberg reportedly announced aon an earnings call Wednesday (Jan. 27) that it would no longer recommend either civic or political groups to users.

“I am pleased to see that Facebook is heeding my calls and has pledged to permanently stop recommending political groups to its users, as a matter of policy,” said Markey in a statement Thursday (Jan 28). “Frankly, though, Facebook has a record of broken promises, and I’ll be watching closely to see whether it keeps this commitment. It’s clear that Facebook groups have become online spaces that foster political violence and serve as venues for misinformation that sows unrest. Given what we know about the real world harms that social media platforms’ recommendation algorithms can foster, it’s time for significant changes to these websites’ systems.”

Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) will join with some of his colleagues to introduce legislation to ban government use of facial recognition and other biometric technology.

The Facial Recognition and Biometric Technology Moratorium Act is in response to reports that law enforcement has been teaming up with tech companies, as well as some of those companies’ pledges to call their own moratorium on supplying such technology to law enforcement.

They are concerned about inaccuracy and bias, calling that a grave threat not only to privacy, but to the physical safety of Black Americans and other minorities. “As we work to dismantle the systematic racism that permeates every part of our society, we can’t ignore the harms that these technologies present," Markey said.

Joining him in introducing the ban are Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) and Reps. Prammila Jayapal (D-Wash.) and Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.).

The legislation, which is endorsed by the ACLU, Color of Change, Georgetown University Law Center’s Center on Privacy & Technology, and New America’s Open Technology Institute, among others, would:

1.) “Place a prohibition on the use of facial recognition technology by federal entities, which can only be lifted with an act of Congress;

2.) “Place a prohibition on the use of other biometric technologies, including voice recognition, gate recognition, and recognition of other immutable physical characteristics, by federal entities, which can only be lifted with an act of Congress;

3.) “Condition federal grant funding to state and local entities, including law enforcement, on those entities enacting their own moratoria on the use of facial recognition and biometric technology;

4.) “Prohibit the use of federal dollars for biometric surveillance systems;

5.) “Prohibit the use of information collected via biometric technology in violation of the Act in any judicial proceedings;

6.) “Include a private right of action for individuals whose biometric data is used in violation of the Act and allows for enforcement by state Attorneys General; and

7.) “Allow states and localities to enact their own laws regarding the use of facial recognition and biometric technologies."

Two weeks ago, Markey, a longtime advocate for consumer privacy, said Amazon's decision to suspend supplying facial recognition (branded "Rekognition") tech to police was good as far as it went, but suggests that was not nearly far enough, likening surveillance to the damaging government systems protesters are currently working to dismantle. 

"Facial recognition is the perfect technology for tyranny. It automates discriminatory policing and exacerbates existing injustices in our deeply racist criminal justice system," Fight for the Future deputy director Evan Greer said. "This legislation effectively bans law enforcement use of facial recognition in the United States. That’s exactly what we need right now. 

“We give this bill our full endorsement," she said. "Congress should pass this bill as soon as possible."

Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), a long-time advocate for consumer privacy, says Amazon's decision this week to suspend supplying facial recognition (branded "Rekognition") tech to police is good as far as it goes, but suggests that is not nearly far enough, likening surveillance to the damaging government systems protesters are currently working to dismantle.. 

Markey has been among those expressing concerns about the use of facial recognition software to potentially stifle the free speech of protesters currently organizing to oppose racial injustice.  

As he noted, Markey has long pressed Amazon on the potential misuse, and accuracy, of its Rekognition technology. 

Related: Markey Seeks Bezos Answers on Ring Partnership with Law Enforcement 

“For nearly two years, I have been sounding the alarm about Amazon’s problematic surveillance tools, demanding the company address concerns that its facial recognition technologies have deeply troubling accuracy and bias issues that pose particularly high risks to Black and Brown individuals,” said Markey. “Their products have the alarming potential to infringe on Americans’ privacy rights in ways that we would have thought unimaginable not long ago. Pressing pause on the use of this technology by law enforcement is a positive step, but what Amazon should really do is a complete about-face and get out of the business of dangerous surveillance altogether. That means also making wholesale changes to its Amazon Ring products and Neighbors app because the policies governing those offerings are an open door for privacy and civil liberty violations." 

He said that as protesters demand "dismantling damaging systems," Amazon has "considerable work to do."

In a letter dated Monday (June 8) Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) is pressing Clearview AI to commit to not violating Americans' civil liberties, a response to reports that cities where people are protesting against systemic racism and the death of George Floyd "have access" to Clearview's facial recognition technology. 

Markey has been an outspoken voice for transparency and consumer protections when it comes to the use of facial recognition. 

"As demonstrators across the country exercise their First Amendment rights by protesting racial injustice, it is important that law enforcement does not use technological tools to stifle free speech or endanger the public," he said. 

He has previously pushed the company to commit to third-party assessment of the accuracy of the technology and whether there is any bias, and has done so again in the face of the protests, saying he wants to make sure law enforcement is not misusing the technology. He also wants some answers on how it is vetting law enforcement clients and how the public can remove images from the database. 

"The prospect of such omnipresent surveillance also runs the risk of deterring Americans from speaking out against injustice for fear of being permanently included in law enforcement databases," he said. 

It is rare for Democratic Senator Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and Republican FCC Chairman Ajit Pai to be on the same page, but they are when it comes to auctioning T-Band spectrum, which they both oppose. 

Pai circulated an item Friday (May 15) starting the auction process Friday (May 15), but in the same breath urged Congress to pull the plug on the auction, which the FCC has concluded will fail to pay for itself, and hurt first responders in the bargain. 

Markey agrees, issuing his own call for his colleagues to undue the 2012 mandate that first responders be moved off the band and the spectrum auctioned. 

“As the FCC’s announcement today makes clear, first responders across the country are at risk of losing a critical communications tool that they rely on to keep Americans safe and healthy every day,” said Markey. “It defies logic that during a massive public health crisis, Congress would saddle first responders with billions in bills to move spectrum bands, and we’re running out of time to solve this problem. Congress must do right by the heroes on the front lines of the COVID-19 pandemic and preserve their access to T-Band in the next recovery legislation.” 

Pai cited bills to cancel the auction in his statement urging Hill action. One of those was introduced by Markey, the Don’t Break Up the T-Band Act. 

The House Democrat's HEROES Act Covid-19 aid bill would also end the auction, but Senate Republicans and President Trump have signaled that bill won't pass. 

Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) was joined by almost four dozen other Senate Democrats Tuesday in introducing the Emergency Educational Connections Act.

The bill would insure that all K-12 students have access to "adequate" home broadband connectivity and devices during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Dems signaled last month they would be introducing the companion bill.

It is the Senate version of a bill introduced by Rep. Grace Meng (D-N.Y.), but would double Chen's $2 billion allocation for the FCC's E-Rate schools and libraries broadband subsidy program to $4 billion because the pandemic could extend far longer than the current academic year, they said.

"We cannot allow the ‘homework gap’ to become a larger ‘learning gap’ during the coronavirus pandemic.” said Senator Markey. “Without immediate action by Congress, and $4 billion in E-Rate funding, the students of low-income families, immigrants, communities of color and rural areas are at risk of being left behind."

NCTA-The Internet & Television Association Association, welcomed the bill, which would help their members in the already-ongoing effort to get broadband to low-income students in in increasingly study-in-place world.

“As America continues to adapt to changes in our daily lives resulting from the COVID-19 crisis, the cable industry is redoubling its efforts to partner with schools and families in ways that support remote learning while classrooms remain closed," NCTA said. "While the calendar moves us closer to upcoming graduations and the arrival of summer, we know that many challenges remain for schools in the coming months as they work diligently to prepare for the fall and a new school year. For that reason, we appreciate the efforts of Senator Markey and others to consider new tech-neutral ways of assisting schools during the pandemic, as we all work collectively to help teachers and students stay connected and ready to learn regardless of whether instruction occurs at school or at home.” 

Citing all those surfing-from-home kids during the coronavirus pandemic, a markedly bipartisan group of senators often on opposite sides of communications issues has teamed up to urge the Federal Trade Commission to launch a "major" investigation of data practices in the ed tech and digital ad spaces. 

Joining in the letter were Senators Ed Markey (D-Mass.) [one of COPPA's authors), Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Bill Cassidy (R-La.), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), and Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.).  

The FTC is already undertaking an early review of the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA), but in a letter to FTC chairman Joseph Simons and the other commissioners, the senators said a major investigation of those two areas should be part and parcel of its consideration of possible revisions to the COPPA implementation rule. 

Related: Privacy Advocates Push FTC for Kids Data Collection Oversight 

Fearing the review might lead to weakening, rather than strengthening COPPA, they told the FTC that "in order to ensure that the COPPA Rule review benefits young users, the FTC should use its statutory power to uncover critical information about evolving and widespread threats to children’s privacy that warrant further protections," specifically the ed tech that is now becoming increasingly important in a shelter-at-home world, and that the use of data by targeted online advertising to that same stay-at-home population of young people.

Related: New Bill Would Remake Kids Internet Content 

"Congress granted the FTC the power to undertake important fact-finding efforts, and we urge you to use this tool to better understand children’s privacy issues online as an essential step in the COPPA Rule review." 

Among the the things they want the FTC to investigate: 

• "What personal data ed tech services and providers collect from children and teens; 

• "How they obtain consent for this collection;

• "How long they retain students’ data and what their process is for deleting student data;

• "Whether they offer incentives for schools to integrate their products and services into their systems, and whether they offer incentives, such as financial discounts, for adults to consent to children’s data collection;

• "How they collect and process children’s biometric information, including facial recognition data, in educational settings, including outdoor educational settings; 

• "Whether they use student data for any non-ed tech products or services, including whether they use children’s data for behavioral advertising; 

• "What steps they take to maintain the security of students’ data;

• "Whether they have suffered any data breaches involving information about children or teens; 

• "Whether parents have adequate alternatives to consent to the collection of their children’s data, and what options are provided to parents in the course of obtaining consent; and

• "How they notify parents and schools about changes to their terms of service."

Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) has unveiled the National Broadband Plan for the Future Act, which would direct the FCC to update its 2009 National Broadband Plan with an eye toward how the coronavirus pandemic has, and will, affect that plan. 

As Markey pointed out in introducing the bill this week, he was instrumental in the creation of the initial plan via the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. 

The new bill would require the updated plan to assess the progress made in the last decade, come up with "detailed proposals" for increased internet access, and gauge how the virus and its impact on how Americans "live, work and learn online" will reshape the country. 

Markey said the plan had laid out a vision of connecting all Americans, but the virus had shown that vision has yet to become a reality. 

"Now more than ever, we see how necessary robust and affordable broadband is to the future of education, employment, medical care, and commerce in America," said Markey. "We need to update the National Broadband Plan so we can continue to invest in our nation’s future by bringing the power and promise of broadband to us all.” 

“An update of the 2010 National Broadband Plan is long overdue, and with the COVID Crisis demonstrating the importance of abundant, affordable broadband to economic resiliency and social progress, such an update is also essential,” said Blair Levin, senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution and the architect of the plan under then FCC chairman Julius Genachowski.  

Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) is taking a "don't trust but verify" approach to reports of a new COVID-19 tracking system. 

Markey spoke out Wednesday (April 8) following reports that the Trump Administration was looking into creating a coronavirus "surveillance" system using a database of potentially sensitive information. 

Markey expressed similar concerns about Google's pandemic-related population movement database. 

Markey says the current administration has given him no confidence that such a White House-led database would not undermine privacy rights. 

Heightened surveillance in response to a crisis is a bit of a sore point with Democrats after the Bush Administration, with the help of Congress, ramped-up surveillance tools in the wake of 9/11. Tracking population movement by the White House also raises issues about how else tracking might be used, against immigrants for example. 

"In moments of crisis like this, we should not simply accept the declarations by some in power who will tell us that we have to stray from the guiding principles and civil liberties that make us who we are," said Markey. "They are wrong. We do not have to forgo all privacy in a pandemic nor watch a surveillance state take root. While we should certainly use technological innovations and evidence-driven collaborations to combat the on-going coronavirus crisis, we must also reject proposals and policies that promise harmful invasions of privacy." 

Markey said he would be pressing the White House for more details, but it sounds like it will take a lot of convincing if the Administration does create such a database. 

Rep. Suzan DelBene (D-Wash.) added her own word of caution: "It is critical that we keep personal privacy top of mind as data is collected, and I am concerned that the Trump administration has not highlighted privacy as it considers collecting personal health data in response to COVID-19," she said in a statement on the same reports.

Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) said he is concerned about reports that the White House Office of Science & Technology is considering partnering with Google, Facebook, IBM and others to analyze geolocation technology to stop the spread of the coronavirus. 

In a letter to chief technology officer Michael Kratsios, Markey cited a Washington Post story that the White House is talking with tech companies about tapping into smart phone geolocation to track the virus. 

Related: White House Calls for AI Mining of New COVID-19 Database

Markey said he agrees that there needs to be tech innovation and collaboration with the private sector to combat the virus. But he said he is concerned about a "wholesale privacy invasion." 

He urged them to balance privacy with any data-driven solutions to the current pandemic. 

He conceded the Post story said that the Administration was not looking to create a database of people's whereabouts, but is instead “looking to leverage aggregated, anonymized data to glean key insights for COVID-19 modeling efforts.” 

But Markey said that is not sufficient to protect against privacy violations. 

Markey wanted answers to the following questions by March 26: 

1. "Please identify any companies with which the Administration is collaborating to use location data for fighting COVID-19 and describe the nature of these collaborations in detail. 
2. "Please describe the location data to be used in any projects that the Administration is considering, including the granularity of data, how it was initially collected, how it is being anonymized and aggregated, and how the Administration is ensuring that it cannot later be de-anonymized.
3. "Please detail the evidence-based rationale for these collaborations and the specific objectives they aim to achieve.
4. "How will any data be collected and stored, and what data security safeguards will be in place to protect this data from malicious attacks or inappropriate access?
5. "Who will have access to location data collected for fighting COVID-19? Will you restrict use of this data solely to purposes of fighting COVID-19? If not, why not? 
6. "Will you ensure that the government stops collecting location data and disposes of any collected data once the COVID-19 health crisis has been resolved? If so, please describe your plans for this data disposal in detail. If not, why not?" 

A pair of powerful Democrats have drafted a bill that would change the face of children's online content/gaming industry. 

The Kids Internet Design and Safety (KIDS) Act, introduced Thursday (March 5) by Sens. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), would, among many other things, ban auto-play settings, push alerts and reward "badges" on websites and/or apps for kids and young teens.

It would also prohibit web sites from recommending content with host-selling and influencer marketing, including "unboxing videos" to kids and young teens, or from "exposing children and young teens to marketing with embedded interactive elements." 

Related: Senators Push for Research into Tech Impact on Kids

“Powerful companies push kids to buy products at every turn online, and top platforms are saturated with disturbing content that no kid should ever be exposed to," said Markey, co-author of the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA). "As a society, we’re playing catch up to the serious risks to kids online, and Congress has a responsibility to say loud and clear that Big Tech needs to get serious about the well-being of children and teens.”

“Big Tech has designed their platforms to ensnare and exploit children for more likes, more views, and more purchases,” said Blumenthal. "The KIDS Act puts guardrails in place to reign in recklessness of marketers and Big Tech – protecting children and giving parents some peace of mind.” 

“This groundbreaking bill will provide children with the 21st Century safeguards they urgently need today,” said Jeffrey Chester, executive director of the Center for Digital Democracy and one of the historically strongest voices for protecting kids online. “Children in the U.S. have been turned into digital “guinea pigs” as marketers and online platforms bombard them with commercial interactive applications designed to unfairly influence their emotions and behaviors. The 'Kids Act' will ensure that young people will be able to grow up in a world where they are no longer exposed to these unaccountable outside forces.”   

Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) is calling on Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos to better police his online marketplace for coronavirus-related price gouging. 

Markey cites reports of massive markups on face masks and hand sanitizer, like a normally $10 box of sanitizer priced at $400. 

He noted in a letter to Bezos Wednesday (March 4) that Amazon had taken steps last week to remove thousands of such posts per its fair pricing policy, but the senator suggested more needed to be done. "[C]ontinued reports of price gouging and a lack of transparency have left consumers exposed to unfair trade practices," Markey said. 

Markey suggested that online retailers have a particular responsibility to guard against gouging as consumers "who are finding the shelves of local brick-and-mortar stores bare, and who may wish to avoid venturing into crowded stores and shopping malls, turn to the internet.” 

The senator wants answers to the following questions by March 18: 

1. "How does Amazon determine whether coronavirus-based price gouging is occurring on its platform? 

2. "At what level is an item considered unfairly priced?

3. "How many price-gouging warnings has Amazon issued to sellers seeking to capitalize on the coronavirus? How many listings has Amazon removed or suspended?

4. "What additional resources is Amazon devoting to ensuring that coronavirus-based price gouging is not occurring on its platform?"

The bipartisan backers of a bill that would direct the National Institutes of Health to study the impact of technology and media consumption on children aren't waiting around for that bill to pass.

They say there is an urgent need to to start investigating how tech is impacting kids and teens increasingly living their lives online.

Sens. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) and Ben Sasse (R-Neb.) have written the director of the NIH out that the 2020 Appropriations Act that passed last year "encourages" NIH to prioritize the study of how widespread use of tech and consumption of digital media "affect young people's cognitive, physical, and socio-emotional outcomes, including attention, sleeping routines, and anxiety.”

Their bill, the Children and Media Research Advancement (CAMRA) Act, which would authorize the NIH to led such a study, but in the letter to NIH they were looking speed the process given that appropriations bill language.

"As the largest funder of biomedical research in the world, the NIH has an important role to play in catalyzing and conducting critical research into how technology use and digital media consumption relate to and influence social awareness, problem solving skills, exercise, and other important outcomes," they wrote.

Both sides of the aisle and the Hill were claiming victory, and sharing credit, for Senate passage of the bipartisan Telephone Robocall Abuse Criminal Enforcement and Deterrence (TRACED Act), a bill that would mandate free default robocall blocking, something the FCC has authorized and pushed carriers to adopt by the end of the year anyway, threatening to mandate it if that didn't happen.

Related: Cable Ops Oppose Robocall Blocking Mandate

Among other things, the bill would give the FCC civil fining authority of up to $20,000 per call for those who "intentionally flout" telemarketing restrictions. That could add up given that, by some estimates, spam calls make up over 40% of all calls. It would also extend the statute of limitations for taking action against illegal robocalls from one year to three.

The bill would help punish bad actors--the FCC could seek financial penalties for misleading calls--and verify good calls, said its backers.

"President Expected to Sign Thune-Markey Bill to Crack Down on Illegal Robocalls," said a press release from the office of Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) which pointed out that the senate first passed the bill in May, then the House passed a modified version in Dec. 4, and now the Senate had passed that House version and it was headed to the President's desk.

Related: House Approves Omnibus Robocall Bill

"The TRACED Act cracks down on scammers by requiring phone carriers to authenticate whether calls are legitimate, and then blocking unverified robocalls at no charge to consumers," said Markey. "I thank Senator [John] Thune [R-S.D.] for his unwavering partnership on this important consumer protection issue. I hope the President quickly signs this bill into law so that families can enjoy a new year of family calls instead of robocalls.”

On the House side, Energy and Commerce Committee chairman Frank Pallone, Jr. (D-N.J.), Republican Leader Greg Walden (R-Ore.), Communications Subcommittee chairman Mike Doyle (D-Pa.), and Subcommittee Republican Leader Bob Latta (R-Ohio) praised of the "Pallone-Thune TRACED Act," which was the name of the compromise bill.

“We’re delighted the Senate acted quickly to pass this legislation to shutdown illegal robocalls," they said. "We’re working hard to help the American people get real relief from these relentless and illegal calls. We look forward to the President signing this overwhelmingly bipartisan legislation into law very soon."

Specifically, the bill:

1. "Requires carriers to offer call-authentication technology to consumers and small businesses—in rural and urban America—at no additional charge;

2. "Requires opt-in or opt-out robocall blocking be offered at no additional charge to consumers;

3. "Gives the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) the ability to step up enforcement actions against unlawful robocalls with a longer statute of limitations and increased fines in certain cases;

4. "Pushes the Department of Justice to bring more criminal prosecutions against criminal robocallers;

5. "Requires the FCC to work to stop one-ring scams;

6. "Helps the FCC and responsible carriers traceback and cutoff suspect phone companies that are responsible for sending vast numbers of unlawful robocalls; and

7. "Protects patients, doctors, and hospitals from unlawful robocalls."

“We applaud Senate and House passage of the TRACED Act, and commend the bipartisan leadership on both sides of the Capitol for passing legislation that protects consumers from these frustrating calls," said NCTA-The Internet & Television Association. "Illegal robocalls have flooded phones for far too long, and TRACED takes meaningful steps to keep consumers safe from scammers. We urge the president to take swift action and sign this important legislation into law.”

Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and a couple other Democrats called of an immediate vote on the Save the Internet Act, the bill that would reclassify internet access as a telecom service subject to common carrier regulation and reinstate the net neutrality rules eliminated by the FCC under chairman Ajit Pai as well as the general conduct standard to get at future conduct unbecoming an open internet but not falling under those rules.  

That came in floor speeches Tuesday (Dec. 10) to mark the second anniversary of Pai's deregulatory Restoring Internet Order. 

While the Save the Internet Act passed the Democratically controlled House last April Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has declined to schedule a vote in the Senate, and is unlikely to do so at the urging of Markey or fellow Dems Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.). 

The same three Senators made a similar Senate floor stand back in June to mark the one-year anniversary of the Restoring Internet Freedom (RIF) order's effective date.  

Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) said there appears to be a YouTube ad policy 'gap' when it comes to protecting children, and he wants some answers from parent, Google.

He said Friday (Nov. 22) that many ad policies that protect kids on the YouTube Kids platform apparently do not apply to content directed to kids on YouTube's main platform.

Markey has long argued that while YouTube says it is not for children under 12, as a practical matter, "there is a wide range of child-focused content available for children on YouTube’s main platform," and plenty of children accessing the site.

“The access that children have to YouTube carries with it a corporate obligation to institute and enforce policies that protect the well being of these young users,” Markey wrote in a letter to Google CEO Sundar Pichai. “Unfortunately, it appears there are large gaps in YouTube’s advertising policies, which raise concerns about your commitment to safeguarding children from inappropriate advertising.”

Pai said that the prohibitions on product placement, influencer "unboxing" (opening and promoting a product) videos, and other practices on YouTube kids should also apply to the "children's content across all platforms."

Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) provided a ringing denunciation of Amazon's privacy policies and civil rights protections--or lack of them--related to its Ring internet-connected video doorbell. 

Markey's investigation began in September and he said Tuesday (Nov. 19) that the findings showed "an alarming disregard for basic privacy protections for consumers, as well as a lack of codified rules or policies to protect consumers from invasive or even discriminatory information-gathering practices." 

Markey broke out his denunciation in the following list: 

• "Ring has no restrictions on law enforcement sharing users’ footage with third parties
• "Ring has no policies that prohibit law enforcement from keeping shared video footage forever
• "Ring has no evidentiary standard for law enforcement to request Ring footage from users
• "Ring refuses to commit to not selling users’ biometric data
• "Ring has no oversight/compliance mechanisms in place to ensure that users don’t collect footage from beyond their property
• "Ring has no oversight/compliance mechanisms in place to ensure that users don’t collect footage of children
• "Ring has no compliance mechanisms in place to prohibit law enforcement from requesting and obtaining footage that does not comply with Ring’s Terms of Service."

To check out Amazon's responses as part of the Markey investigation click here and here. 

“Ring users place their trust in us to help protect their homes and communities, and we take that responsibility very seriously," said a Ring spokesperson. "Ring does not own or otherwise control users’ videos, and we intentionally designed the Neighbors Portal to ensure that users get to decide whether or not to voluntarily provide their videos to the police. Details about how we work with law enforcement and how we protect user privacy can be found in the following blog post by Jamie Siminoff, Founder of Ring.”

Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) has stopped just short of asking the FCC to deny Charter's request that the FCC declare that AT&T's AT&T TV Now over-the-top video service qualifies as effective competition to Charter cable systems in Massachusetts, freeing those systems from basic rate regulation. 

In a letter to FCC Chairman Ajit Pai, Markey said he had serious concerns about granting the petition, including about the unintended consequences. 

Pai signaled earlier this month that he planned a vote at the Oct. 25 meeting to approve the petition, which would appear to set the precedent that streaming services qualify as “effective competition” to multichannel video programming distributors sufficient to trigger basic rate deregulation. 

The FCC has said the presence in a market of direct-broadcast satellite service (DirecTV or Dish Network) can trigger an effective competition finding, but this would be the first time a virtual MVPD — in this case AT&T TV Now — filled the bill. 

Markey said he was worried such a decision would lead to increased prices, pointing out that rates are higher in unregulated markets and in regulated ones, and citing Charter's plans to raise its rates--cable ops argue that the rate regs have kept charges artificially low. 

Markey said a price increase in the franchise areas affected--32 communities--would harm "vulnerable populations" who subscribe to cable, citing high unemployment rates in those areas higher than the state average. 

Markey urged the FCC to "strongly consider" the petitions' implications for consumers and "not take any steps" that will "subject them" to higher prices or "threaten competition." 

Markey also said he was worried about setting the precedent that over-the-top video services are effective competition "without sufficient analysis of the potential unintended consequences," though he did not cite any. 

Historically, cable providers have cited the ubiquity of satellite as justification for removing rate regulations. But in this test case of sorts, Charter and the smaller, independent operators represented by ACA Connects are basing that OTT competition call on the availability of AT&T TV Now, the former DirecTV Now. 

To avoid a return to basic cable regulations, cable operators are looking to establish the precedent now as cord-cutting continues to cut into subscriber counts for traditional competitors and as over-the-top becomes the video delivery system of choice for former satellite customers. 

Cable companies fear that if the subscriber counts for DirecTV or Dish Network go south, local franchise authorities could cite that as a reason they were no longer subject to effective competition and reinstate basic rate regulations. 

A finding of effective competition lifts basic-cable price regulation, which has now been eliminated in all but that handful of systems. Cable operators deemed subject to effective competition also do not have to provide broadcast TV signals on the basic tier. 

“Adopting this order would be a major step toward the commission recognizing the realities of the modern video marketplace, and the increasingly important role that streaming services are playing in it,” Pai said in announcing the planned vote. 

The FCC has yet to rule on whether OTT video providers should be defined as MVPDs for the purposes of program access and carriage regs. 

The Charter ruling could rekindle that debate given that the cable industry has made it clear that broadband video is the future of the business and also given that the current definition of the effective competition trigger is “at least two unaffiliated [MVPDs], each of which offers comparable video programming to at least 50% of the households in the franchise area.”

The FCC’s Charter order says OTT fits all of the definitions of competitive video provider for purposes of the effective competition trigger — comparable services, offered direct to home. The item says a provider does not have to have its own facilities to be a comparable video service.

Pai has said the FCC should not redefine OTT providers as MVPDs subject to FCC program-access regulations. But that was back in 2015.

His predecessor, FCC chairman Tom Wheeler, proposed redefining linear over-the-top providers (with day-and-date channel lineups similar to those of traditional cable and satellite) as MVPDs, but got pushback from some OTT providers. as well as from cable operators.

Wheeler was looking to give OTT providers FCC-enforced access to vertically integrated programming and thus foster video competitors to cable, something that has happened anyway thanks to Netflix, Hulu and others' willingness to invest in their own exclusive programming.

Hill Democrats are continuing to push back on FCC Chairman Ajit Pai's proposal to cap the Universal Service Fund, which are the subsidies for phone and broadband underwritten by ratepayers on their monthly bills, saying it would harm healthcare, broadband deployment and education. 

Related: OTI Brands USF Cap Threat to Closing Digital Divide 

Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and more than two dozen more Senate Democrats--including presidential candidates Cory Booker, Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris, Amy Klobuchar, and Bernie Sanders--are calling on the FCC to scrap its proposal to put a budget on the overall fund, as well as a combined "sub-cap" on the E-rate and Rural Health Care funds. The USF comprises four funds: Those two and a Lifeline and Connect America Fund. The former is for low-income residents, the latter to migrate phone funding to broadband. 

That came in a letter to Pai dated Thursday, Sept. 19. 

Back in May, Pai circulated a proposal to cap the USF fund at $11.42 billion, which backers of that cap point out is "well-above current disbursement levels," and leaves a nearly $2 billion cushion for potential spending. 

"I believe we must set an upper limit of what we’re willing to take from hardworking American consumers to support these subsidies," said on of those fans, FCC Commissioner Michael O'Rielly at the time. "Determining this maximum level is also a necessary precondition to any effort to reform the FCC’s method for assessing USF contributions[ currently phone service, but not broadband service. is assessed]." 

“Each program that is a part of USF plays an indispensable role in achieving the ultimate goal of USF, access to communication services for every American,” write the Senators in their letter to FCC Chairman Ajit Pai. “The proposal to place a universal cap on these programs is a direct assault on the FCC’s mission of bridging the digital divide. The proposal to combine the sub-caps for the E-Rate and Rural Health Care funds is particularly troubling. None of the USF programs should be pitted against each other and forced to vie for a piece of the pie.” 

Also signing on to the letter were Sens. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Chris Van Hollen (D-M.D.), Tom Udall (D-N.M.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Patty Murray (D-Wash.), Doug Jones (D-Ala.), Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), Tina Smith (D-Minn.), Ben Cardin (D-M.D.), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Maggie Hassan (D-N.H.), Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisc.), Kamala Harris (D-Calif.), Jack Reed (D-R.I.), Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Bob Casey, Jr. (D-Penn.), Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.), Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.), Jacky Rosen (D-Nev.), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), and Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.). 

Some Democrat senators are trying to get the FCC to reverse course on its plan to vote Aug. 1 to count non-monetary considerations in cable franchise agreements toward the 5% cap on franchise fees.

They are concerned that allowing cable companies to assign a monetary value to franchise requirements related to schools, libraries, public safety or PGE (public, educational and government) channels will force localities to choose between PEG and other services, and both might lose out in that choice.

Related: Mayors Unite Against Franchise Fee Reforms

“[PEG] stations connect Americans to their communities, catalyze civic engagement, and keep us up to date on the local issues and activities that affect our lives,” the Senators wrote in a letter to FCC chair Ajit Pai. “Your proposal would force local governments to decide between supporting PEG stations and supporting other important services for critical community institutions like schools and public safety buildings. We strongly urge the Commission to avoid any policy changes that will harm PEG channels and limit needed services to the communities we represent.”

Pai almost certainly has the votes of his Republican majority to require the changes, which cable operators have asked for.

NCTA-the Internet & Television Association, has told the FCC that despite clear direction from Congress, local franchise authorities (LFAs) have been abusing the prices through excessive fees and in-kind "contributions," which include but are not limited to "courtesy equipment, I-Net construction, network capacity, channels, grants, sponsorships, specially created programming, local retail facilities, cash 'contributions,' and free advertising," NCTA has said.

Given the stranded investment of built-out systems, cable providers lack power to refuse the LFA demands, NCTA told the FCC in comments on the proposed reforms.

Signing on to the Markey letter were Sens. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisc.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Tina Smith (D-Minn.), Ben Cardin (D-Md.), Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), Maggie Hassan (D-N.H.), Pat Leahy (D-Vt.), Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), and Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn). 

According to a new Pew Research Center analysis of every video posted to "high-subscriber" channels in the first week of this year found that children's content and content featuring children was most viewed than any other type of video, with videos about video games topping the list. 

That is according to Pew's analysis of postings on over 43,000 channels, each with at least 250,000 subs.  

RELATED: FTC Settles With Web Site Over Children's Privacy Protection

According to Pew, "videos aimed at children were highly popular, as were those that featured children under the age of 13 – regardless of their intended audience." 

Pew says only a small percentage of the videos, all English-language, posted on the channels were "explicitly intended" for children it said (based on the conclusion's of Pew's human reviewers). 

But the ones that were intended for kids "tended to be longer, received more views, and came from channels with a larger number of subscribers relative to general-audience videos." 

Related: YouTube Sports a New Look

In addition, videos that featured a child or children appearing to be younger than 13 averaged almost three times the views of other videos.  

Video game videos were the post popular on the channels Pew polled, with about 18% of English-language videos posted "related to video games or gaming." 

Pew pointed out that YouTube "explicitly states that the platform is not intended for children under the age of 13," and provides its own YouTube Kids platforms with parental controls. It also added the caveat that, since the study, "YouTube has made changes to its policies about the kinds of content that are acceptable to publish." 

The survey comes as YouTube is widely expected to be the subject of a settlement with the Federal Trade Commission over how it handles content directed to children. The company has also been the subject of complaints over the assertion that some content is not targeted to kids and is thus not subject to the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act. 

Earlier this year, FTC chair Joseph Simons told Democratic Massachusetts Sen. Ed Markey (who backed the complaints and co-authored the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act that YouTube had allegedly violated) that if YouTube were indeed saying that a toy-review video was not directed toward kids, as Markey said was the case, the FTC would have a problem with that. 

A bipartisan trio of senators is seeking answers from the Federal Trade Commission about its reported $5 billion fine against Facebook over its sharing of user data with Cambridge Analytica.

“It is clear that a $5 billion fine alone is a far cry from the type of monetary figure that would alter the incentives and behavior of Facebook and its peers,” wrote the Senators in a letter to the five FTC commissioners. “The public expects the Commission to put consumers first and to take all necessary steps in your power to remedy Facebook’s privacy problems. We are highly disappointed to learn that the Commission has apparently failed to reach a strong, bipartisan agreement, sending the wrong message to tech companies.”

Firing off the letter were Sens. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) and Josh Hawley (R-Mo.).

Related: Senators Hawley, Cruz Seek FTC Investigation Into Conservative 'Censorship'

They want answers to the following questions:

1. "What was the FTC’s process for determining the size of the monetary fine in this settlement? Please describe in detail the FTC’s method for determining the revenue Facebook was able to generate as a result of its violations of user privacy.

2. "Did the FTC interview Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg and require disclosure of documents from Mr. Zuckerberg during its investigation into Facebook’s privacy practices? If not, why not?

3. "Will the FTC name Mr. Zuckerberg and any other member of Facebook management in its new settlement?

4. "Will the FTC impose new restrictions on how Facebook collects, uses, and discloses data about its users as part of this settlement? If not, why not?

5. "Will the FTC impose restrictions on Facebook’s upcoming cryptocurrency offering, Libra, as part of this settlement? If not, why not?"

6. "Will the FTC impose restrictions on Facebook's integration of messaging service offerings as part of this settlement? If not, why not?

7. "Will the FTC require Facebook to institute new rules and practices specifically designed to protect children and teens who use Facebook offerings? If not, why not?"

The FTC has not yet released the fine or accompanying settlement. 

Privacy groups are warning the Federal Trade Commission about not taking the right steps to rein in YouTube if it finds reason to strike a consent decree with the site over its handling of children's personal info.

In a letter to the FTC, the Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood (CCFC) and the Center for Digital Democracy (CDD), which complained about children's content on the social media video site, said that any remedies of the alleged violation of the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) should not include leaving children's content on the site by " shift[ing] the burden of responsibility to content creators to opt out of 'interest-based' advertising."

It is a follow-up to a letter last month on the same issue.

"It is crucial that any proposed consent decree with YouTube or Google require the structural separation of the child-directed channels and videos, substantial civil penalties, and other relief requested in our letter of June 25, 2019," CFCC and CDD wrote in their follow up letter.

They told the FTC in the most recent letter that COPPA anticipates that more than one party can be liable for collecting personal information from a child in violation of COPPA, and YouTube and parent Google fit the bill. 

"As we explained in our request to investigate, Google and YouTube are operators in at least two different senses. First, YouTube operates a website, youtube.com, a significant portion of which is directed at children....Second, Google operates the Google Marketing Platform (GMP), which...incorporates both the DoubleClick advertiser products and the Google Analytics 360 Suite. DoubleClick and other Google ad networks place trackers on child-directed channels on YouTube..."

Related: Sen Markey Says Kids Need Online Privacy Constitution

The FTC has not confirmed reports it is investigating YouTube, but CCFC and CDD filled a formal complaint against the site in April 2018, seeking potentially tens of billions of dollars in fines for what they said has been the company’s collection and sharing of children’s information.

FTC chair Joseph Simons told Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), who backed the complaint and co-authored COPPA,  that if YouTube were indeed saying that a toy-review video was not directed toward kids, as Markey said was the case, the FTC would have a problem with that. But he would not comment on any possible investigation of the company over such issues. Markey then wrote the FTC with his own wish list of possible remedies. 

To which the privacy groups have added.

Another day, another boulder catapulted from the Hill at a huge target in the Valley (as in Silicon). Or, "Why is that thumb still pointed up?"

Sens. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) have called on Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg to "end friendly fraud on Facebook" (say that three times fast). 

That came in yet another letter from legislators to the beleaguered social media giant, this one in response to what they say was the evidence that third-party game developers manipulated kids into spending their parents' money--in-app purchases. 

That evidence was provided by the Center for Investigative Reporting, which filed a complaint against the comany with the Federal Trade Commission and said Facebook knew kids were spending that money without their parents' say-so. 

The senators said Facebook still has not instituted policy changes to address that complaint. They first wrote to Zuckerberg about the issue in January, and were not happy with Facebook's initial answers. 

"Facebook’s actions thus far have failed to demonstrate a commitment to ending friendly fraud on your platform," they wrote in their latest epistle. They said it appears that Facebook is "unwilling to address the problem of young users spending their families’ money without parental awareness or consent," adding: "Profiting off the mistakes and deception of children can never be considered fair.” 

If it is not fair, the Federal Trade Commission can step in using its authority against unfair or deceptive practices. 

WASHINGTON — Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) has some advice for the Federal Trade Commission if it happens to take action against YouTube, joined by longtime children's privacy advocates.

The FTC has not confirmed there is an investigation, per custom, but that was not stopping the Senator from getting ahead of the issue in case it is doing so. FTC Chairman Joseph Simons told Markey in a hearing that if YouTube were indeed saying that a toy-review video was not directed toward kids, as Markey said was the case, the FTC would have a problem with that. But he would not comment on any possible investigation of the company over such issues.

Markey, who has registered concerns about the social media platform's treatment of children, sent a letter to the FTC in response to reports it was investigating YouTube over its collection of children's data. Markey said he was concerned YouTube had violated the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA), of which Markey was author.

Various privacy groups had filed a formal complaint against YouTube in April 2018, seeking potentially tens of billions of dollars in fines for what they said has been the company’s collection and sharing of children’s information in violation of federal law. "As the House author of COPPA, I believe these are credible allegations and urge the Commission to investigate them as soon as possible," Markey said at the time. 

RELATED: Markey: Kids Need Online Privacy Constitution

In his letter, Markey said that, assuming the FTC did come out with a consent decree —essentially a settlement of charges with accompanying conditions and actions for YouTube — it should include "deleting all data under Google's control collected from children under 13 (even if that user is now 13 or older); instituting mechanisms to identify on an ongoing basis any YouTube users under 13; and prohibiting Google from launching any new child-directed product or service in the future until the product or service has been reviewed and approved by an independent panel of experts, including child development and privacy experts, to be appointed by the FTC."

Markey also wants YouTube parent Google to warn parents that no one under 13 should even use YouTube, as well as to "establish a fund to produce and amplify noncommercial, quality content for children."

“Companies of all types have strong business incentives to gather and monetize information about children,” Markey told the FTC. “Personal information about a child can be leveraged to hook consumers for years to come, so it is incumbent upon the FTC to enforce federal law and act as a check against the ever increasing appetite for children’s data.”

The Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood and the Center for Digital Democracy which complained to the FTC about Youtube, had their own list of potential conditions, which they spelled out in their own letter to the FTC.

Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) says he will be introducing legislation that targets what he says are coercive Web site designs meant to attract children.

That came following a Washington Post report that the Federal Trade Commission is investigating YouTube for potentially violating children's online privacy.

Markey said he was pleased if that were the case, but "much more" needed to be done, like his bill.

"I will introduce legislation that will combat online design features that coerce children and create bad habits, commercialization and marketing that manipulate kids and push them into consumer culture, and the amplification of inappropriate and harmful content on the internet," he said. "It’s time for the adults in the room to step in and ensure that corporate profits no longer come before kids’ privacy.”

The senator was a driving force behind the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act, which established baseline protections, and wants those extended to young teens--13-15.

A host of online privacy groups last year filed a complaint with the FTC against YouTube and parent, Google, seeking potentially tens of billions of dollars in fines for what they said has been the company’s collection and sharing of children’s information in violation of federal law.

Markey was supportive of that effort: "As the House author of COPPA, I believe these are credible allegations and urge the Commission to investigate them as soon as possible," Markey had said at the time.

As expected, Senate Democrats will push Tuesday (June 11) for a Senate floor vote on the House-passed Save the Internet Act, which would reregulate internet access. 

That will come on the first anniversary of the effective date of the current FCC's deregulatory Restoring Internet Freedom order, which eliminated rules against blocking, throttling and paid prioritization, plus a general conduct standard to get at ISP conduct not covered by those rules.  

Given that the Senate calendar is controlled by Republican Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), the push is more likely an effort to make a point on that anniversary than to make legislation. 

The plan is for Sens. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), Ed Markey (D-Mass.), and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) to make that Senate floor call for a vote at about 11:30 a.m. 

Elsewhere, net neutrality activists plan to deliver a petition to McConnell's office Tuesday urging him to hold the vote. 

A handful of Democratic senators have asked FCC chair Ajit Pai to put the new T-Mobile-Sprint conditions offered up this week out for public comment before voting on the deal.  

Pai said this week that the conditions, including spinning off Boost Mobile, holding down prices and pledging 5G buildouts, made the deal in the public interest and he planned to circulate an order approving it, which his fellow Republican commissioners, comprising a majority, indicated they would support. 

In the letter, the senators, who opposed the deal as previously constituted, said they still oppose it and asked both the FCC and Justice Department to reject it.  

Related: FCC Poised to OK T-Mobile-Sprint Merger

They cited the behavioral conditions, but made no mention of the Boost spin-off. 

They said the conditions are mostly unrelated to merger-specific harms and thus the type of condition the chairman has criticized in the past. They also said they were worried about the process and that the conditions appeared without public input or "visibility." 

As a result, they said, the FCC should give the public 30 days to weigh in on the conditions, though they did not need that long to say they don't think they make the deal palatable.  

Signing on to the letter were Sens. Tom Udall (D-N.M.), Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Elizabeth Warren and Ed Markey (both D-Mass.) and Cory Booker (D-N.J.). 

A bipartisan bill has been introduced that would create a $700 million fund to help telecoms remove Huawei equipment from their networks, push the FCC to finalize its proposal to ban telecoms using suspect tech from Universal Service Fund broadband subsidies, and making it U.S. policy not to use Huawei, ZTE or their affiliates in 5G networks. 

The bill is at the intersection of the Trump Administration and Congress's push to win the race to 5G with the concern that Chinese telecoms are both key players in those new networks and security threats because of their connections to the Chinese government and its mandate that industry abet spying. 

While there have been numerous efforts to prevent future nets from containing suspect Chinese tech, scrubbing it from current nets could be expensive, particularly from the smaller telecoms for whom the Chinese telecoms subsidized low prices were a cost-effective alternative. The fund would help address that concern.  

Related: Huawei Says Executive Order Will Handicap U.S. in 5G Race

The United States 5G Leadership Act of 2019 is co-sponsored by Sens. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.), chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), Mark Warner (D-Va.), Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska). 

Specifically, the bill:  

1. "Establishes U.S. policy to promote the deployment of secure commercial 5G networks and the development of the Information and Communications Technology (ICT) sector in the U.S. 

2. "Establishes U.S. policy that American 5G networks should not include equipment or services provided by Huawei, ZTE, or their affiliates.

3. "Requires the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to finalize its rulemaking that would prohibit the use of Universal Service Fund subsidies to buy equipment or services from providers who pose a national security risk."

 "4. "Establishes the Supply Chain Security Trust Fund grant program to help U.S. communications providers remove Huawei equipment from their networks — makes available up to $700 million from future spectrum auctions for this purpose."

5. "Requires a report on steps that the Federal government is taking to ensure the secure deployment and availability of 5G networks.

6. "Establishes an interagency program – led by the Department of Homeland Security – to share information regarding security, risks, and vulnerabilities with U.S. communications providers.

7. "Prioritizes funding to enhance U.S. representation at international 5G standards setting bodies, such as the International Telecommunications Union."

Senate Communications Subcommittee Chairman John Thune (R-S.D.) and Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) say that recent drone sightings in "safety-sensitive" areas--like the Boston Red Sox' Fenway Park, says Markey--have put an exclamation point on their call for FAA to publish a proposed rule to let the public know who is flying where.

Drones are used for, among many other things, TV and movie production, as well as live sports and news.

In a letter to Department of Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao, the senators cite various sightings, including during the baseball game and one at Newark Liberty Airport that led to flights being halted.

They point out that Congress directed the FAA to come up with drone-identification standards in 2016, with a two-year deadline that passed nearly a year ago, and that the legislation is key to insuring privacy as well as safety.

The senators say the rules would allow the public, the FAA, law enforcement, and others to track drones and identify their operators.

Related: Sen, Markey Says Privacy Regs Should Precede Drone Rules

The FCC proposed to loosen its commercial drone rules to allow commercial drones to be flown over people and at night "under certain conditions." Markey said identification rules should be a linchpin of any rule allowing drone flights over people.

A number of TV and movie producers have been granted waivers of general drone flight rules.

Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) is taking another shot at the privacy Bill of Rights he, and a former Democratic Administration, had pushed for. This effort includes by making sure that the digital equivalent of a lunch counter can't discriminate against its patrons.

The legislation, which would cover privacy on and offline, would require the Federal Trade Commission to mandate readable privacy policies and limit data collection. It also gets at issues for algorithmic discrimination by classifying online businesses as public accommodations, as are brick and mortar businesses.

“America’s laws have failed to keep pace with the unprecedented use of consumers’ data and the consistent cadence of breaches and privacy invasions that plague our economy and society,” said Markey, essentially echoing a bipartisan sentiment on Capitol Hill these days if a raft of hearings, bill proposals, and requests for more information from edge providers is any gauge.

Related: Sen. Markey Looks to Update COPPA

Specifically, Markey's Bill of Rights bill:

1. "Prohibits companies from using individuals’ personal information in discriminatory ways

2. "Requires companies to protect and secure the personal information that they hold

3. "Establishes a centralized FTC website that tells consumers about their privacy rights and requires companies to use easy to read short-form notices provided directly to consumers

4. "Ensures companies collect only the information they need from consumers in order to provide the requested services

5. "Enables State Attorneys General to protect the interest of their residents and bring action against companies that violate the privacy rights of individuals. Individuals will also have a private right of action empowering them to defend their own privacy rights."

Back in 2012, The Obama Administration backed a privacy Bill of Rights but did not get much traction on Capitol Hill.

The timing may be better this time around what with the general push from both political sides for some kind of privacy middle ground that protects consumers and politicians and everyone else from having their data manipulated or their identities stolen, or from being played by foreign powers.

The political will seems to be there for some kind of legislation that would give online users--which is most of us--more control over data and a better sense of how it is being used and monetized. One byproduct could well be having to pay for some of the information that has been free given that the sharing of data for targeted advertising underpins the free content model online.

Related: Dems Call for Privacy Bill of Rights

"Discriminatory data practices have disproportionate impacts on people of color, women, the LGBTQ community, immigrants, religious minorities and other marginalized communities," said Free Press Action Policy Counsel Gaurav Laroia. "By collecting huge swaths of personal information and feeding it into algorithms designed to profile individuals for ad targeting and engagement, tech companies are facilitating a new era of segregation and discrimination.

“By classifying online businesses as public accommodations, the bill rightfully applies the same kinds of anti-discrimination protections that desegregated lunch counters and shops during the Civil Rights Movement. By giving people the right to take companies to court for violating their rights, the bill gives people the means to fight exploitation of their data and would prevent companies from building tools that reinforce discrimination."

The Hill is getting serious about cracking down on illegal robocalls. FCC chair Ajit Pai has made that a priority, but the Senate was signaling he needed some help.

The Senate Commerce Committee Wednesday (April 3) passed the bipartisan Telephone Robocall Abuse Criminal Enforcement and Deterrence (TRACED) Act, which was introduced by Sens. John Thune (DR-S.D.) and Ed Markey (D-Mass.).

The bill boosts the FCC's authority to fine telemarketers, gives it more time to identify them and take action, and requires carriers to adopt call ID technologies.

Thune said more needed to be done to combat the scourge of unwanted calls. "I’m glad the committee recognized the importance of this legislation to combat this problem, which is now the top consumer complaint submitted to the Federal Trade Commission," he said.

The bill:

1. "Broadens the authority of the Federal Communications Commission to levy civil penalties of up to $10,000 per call on people who intentionally flout telemarketing restrictions.

2. "Extends the window for the FCC to catch and take civil enforcement action against intentional violations to three years after a robocall is placed. Under current law, the FCC has only one year to do so, and the FCC has told the committee that “even a one-year longer statute of limitations for enforcement” would improve enforcement against willful violators.

3. Brings together the Department of Justice, FCC, Federal Trade Commission (FTC), Department of Commerce, Department of State, Department of Homeland Security, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and other relevant federal agencies, as well as state attorneys general and other non-federal entities to identify and report to Congress on improving deterrence and criminal prosecution at the federal and state level of robocall scams.

4. "Requires voice service providers to adopt call authentication technologies, enabling a telephone carrier to verify that incoming calls are legitimate before they reach consumers’ phones.

Directs the FCC to initiate a rulemaking to help protect subscribers from receiving unwanted calls or texts from callers."

Cable operators said they appreciated the effort and NCTA-The Internet & Television Association said it would work with other members for full Senate passage.

“Combatting illegal robocalls is a serious and complex problem. NCTA appreciates the bipartisan leadership of Senators Thune and Markey on the Telephone Robocall Abuse Criminal Enforcement and Deterrence (TRACED) Act to keep consumers safe from scammers," NCTA said.

Charter suggested it was already hard at work weeding out the calls, but appreciated the help.

“Like everyone else, Charter wants annoying robocalls calls to end and we’re working hard to stopping these unwanted and illegal calls that are not only a nuisance but can also be a security threat," the company said. "Charter is committed to offering our customers a broad range of tools including call blocking, screening, and identification features like the Nomorobo app to help them control the calls they receive. Like other voice providers, we’re also implementing the call authentication protocol known as SHAKEN/STIR. We support legislation by Senators Thune and Markey that proposes meaningful timeframes around that effort and significantly enhances consumer protections.”

“For years, USTelecom and our members have been hard at work tracking down illegal robocallers, leading the way in the deployment of new call authentication standards to accelerate the fight against the robocall epidemic and thwart efforts to defraud American consumers," said Patrick Halley, SVP of law and policy. "The TRACED Act will bolster our shared goal of bringing illegal robocallers to justice with enhanced government prosecution, including criminal prosecution.”

“We thank Senators Thune and Markey for developing a balanced, bipartisan approach to combatting illegal and unwanted robocalls and applaud today’s action on the TRACED Act in the Senate," said CTIA, the wireless association. "This bipartisan legislation enhances the FCC’s ability to protect American consumers and acknowledges the important role the wireless industry has to play in implementing call authentication.”

Huawei continues to try to head off the momentum for banishing its tech product from U.S. 5G networks.

In a filing at the FCC, the Chinese tech company said the government's "overriding" telecom policy goal should be to get mobile broadband to as many consumers as possible as quickly as possible in the race to 5G, whose benefits will accrue "regardless of who manufactures the network equipment."

U.S. intelligence agencies have collectively told Congress they are concerned about Chinese tech in U.S. systems due to the companies alleged cozy relationship with the Chinese government, which is the U.S.'s chief competitor in the race to 5G. Huawei president Ren Zhengfei said his company does not spy or provide technological back doors to its products.

Congress responded by adding a phase-out of Huawei tech in government contracts to the Defense Authorization Act.

But Huawei earlier this month challenged that restriction in a Texas district court (Huawei Technologies USA is based in Texas).

Separately the FCC is considering its own limitations on Huawei, potentially denying networks with Huawei tech access to broadband subsidy money, which has prompted the Huawei pushback.

"Huawei is ready to help build real 5G network in the U.S., through real competition," the company told the FCC. "As it has stated in previous comments in this docket, Huawei recognizes that supply chain security in the face of a wide range of potential threats is and should be a high priority throughout the U.S. Government. But, as Huawei has also demonstrated in its comments, all equipment used by U.S. telecommunications carriers is potentially vulnerable to threats from multiple vectors. To be perfectly clear, Huawei is not claiming that its equipment is immune to potential vulnerabilities. But there is not, and never has been, any evidence that Huawei has engaged in or abetted any deliberate weakening of security or any effort at eavesdropping or penetration of U.S. (or any other) networks."

Related: T-Mobile's Legere: No Huawei Tech Going in 5G Net, Period

As for the FCC effort to limit its tech, the company was talking tough:

"While Huawei has been working with other governments in deploying most advanced and increasingly secure networks, the FCC has yet to take any useful action. A policy that seeks to exclude particular equipment from the market based on the identity of its manufacturer is both futile, because even the most “trusted” manufacturer may have vulnerabilities, and counterproductive, because it could prevent Americans from receiving the widely-anticipated benefits of 5G deployment," it said.  

FCC chair Ajit Pai back in March 2018 proposed to ban the use of money from the FCC's Universal Service Fund for equipment or services from "companies that pose a national security threat to United States communications networks or the communications supply chain."

The FCC proposal in part stemmed from a Dec. 20 letter from Congress expressing concerns about Chinese companies Huawei and ZTE, plus a follow-up intelligence briefing, both of which were described as impetuses to the effort to monitor the supply chain, senior FCC officials speaking on background said.

The technology includes everything from phones, tablets and smart watches to mobile hot spots, broadband routers, switchers and servers.

Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's Security subcommittee, was asked in an interview for C-SPAN's Communicators series last week whether he would use a Huawei phone. He said he would be hesitant to use a Huawei manufactured device. He said there was clearly a "close working relationship" between Chinese private sector companies and the Chinese government and army. 

Google was the edge player arguably in Washington's sites--or at least one new Senator's sites--most prominently this past week, though that is becoming a harder title to claim as Amazon and Facebook take their turns in the spotlights of bipartisan Hill disapproval.

Senator and Presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) was an equal opportunity critic, signaling her plan last week to break up the Biggest Tech if she becomes President, but freshman Senator Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) was looking to stake out Big Tech attacks as his signature issue, sending out at least three e-mails to reporters to point to his tough talk.

When pressed by Hawley during a Hill hearing last week, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Joseph Dunford agreed with Hawley that Google's relationship with China is problematic.

Related: Sen. Hawley Says Big Tech Sweetheart Deal Must End

"We watch with great concern when industry partners work in China knowing there is that indirect benefit, and frankly ‘indirect’ may be not a full characterization of the way it really is," he said. "It’s more of a direct benefit to the Chinese military."

Hawley responded: "[We have an American company that does not want to do work with our Defense Department, which is one thing, but they’re happy to help the Chinese, at least the Chinese government that is, the Chinese military at least indirectly. I think that’s just extraordinary."

The reference to not helping the U.S. was Google's decision not to work with the Defense Department on an artificial intelligence project because it could aid in the making of war, which violated its corporate ethics. 

Then there was an exchange with Google Senior Privacy Counsel Will DeVries after DeVries said Google's data collection was "complicated."

“Actually it’s not complicated," Hawley retorted. "What’s complicated is you don’t allow consumers to stop your tracking of them. You tell them that you do, you would anticipate that they do, a consumer would have a reasonable expectation based on what you’ve told them that they’re not being tracked but in fact you’re still tracking it. You’re still gathering the information and you’re still using it.”

That was in addition to Hawley's co-sponsorship last week of a bill with Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) that would boost children's online data protections and the letter he sent to the chairman of the Federal Trade Commission calling on the agency to better oversee edge giants like Google and Facebook. It has enforceable consent decrees with both related to their online practices. .

"With so much disturbing news this week about the business tactics of one of the world’s most powerful companies [Googe], you can expect to see more from Senator Hawley on this," said Hawley's office, adding: "Stay tuned."

Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) had more than one bone to pick with Facebook this week, writing CEO Mark Zuckerberg Friday (Feb. 22) seeking an explanation of Burmese groups it had banned from its platform, which came after he had called for an FTC investigation into complaints about Facebook in-app purchases.

Markey, a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, asking Zuckerberg to explain why Facebook had banned four "ethnic armed groups"-–the Arakan Army, the Myanmar National Democratic Alliance Army (MNDAA), Kachin Independence Army (KIA) and the Ta’ang National Liberation Army (TNLA)."

He said that those groups involved with the attempt to bring peace to that country. Markey acknowledged Facebook's efforts to combat online hate speech in Burma that has led to atrocities in the conflict, but that this ban "risks undermining efforts to promote ethnic reconciliation."

That is because, says Markey, "[b]anning the pages of these armed groups, which rely predominantly on Facebook to communicate with outside audiences, would cut off their external communications. It would prevent these groups from engaging with ethnic civil society, government negotiators, international observers (including the United States) facilitating the peace process, and international humanitarian groups accessing areas under their control, isolating them from any national reconciliation efforts.”

He also says that Facebook's "unclear" explanation of the ban "opens the door to serious misinterpretation" of its hate speech policy.

Markey wants that cleared up with answers to a bunch of questions (by March 1), including why those groups and not the Burmese military or government or other armed ethnic groups were banned and who made the ultimate decision to ban the groups.

The letter is an example of the competing pressures on social media platforms in Washington both to become more involved in content calls and not to censor or micromanage speech.

Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.) and Sen Ed Markey (D-Mass.) have teamed up on House and Senate versions of the Truth-In-Billing, Remedies, and User Empowerment over Fees (TRUE Fees) Act, which would require cable, internet and phone providers to include all charges in advertised prices, and provides remedies for wrongful charges.

The bill would also allow subs to end contracts without early termination fees if their provider raises prices, prevents increases in equipment prices unless that equipment is improved, and requires bills or notifications that bills are available must be e-mailed or the "functional eqivalent" that does not require viewing an online account.

It will also prohibit arbitration clauses for wrongful billing errors.

Mandatory arbitration clauses are contractual requirements that a sub seek private arbitration, rather than lawsuits (particularly class action suits)--to settle disputes with their cable or Internet service provider.

“For too long customers have been surprised each month to find that their cable, phone and internet bills are much higher than the advertised price," said Markey. "The TRUE Fees Act would put an end to these advertising practices that only confuse consumers about the true costs."

“Customers deserve to know exactly what they’re paying for in their monthly cable and Internet service bills," said Eshoo. "All too often they’re sold a service for one price, only to be blindsided by higher bills at the end of the month from tacked on ‘service’ or ‘administrative’ fees. These fees add up to hundreds of millions of dollars each year for cable and Internet providers at the expense of consumers who have little to no option than to pay up."

“Below-the-line fees are one of the most persistent and universal frustrations with communications services,” said John Bergmayer, senior counsel at Public Knowledge, which is a big supporter of the legislation. “This bill is a great way to address them. With this bill, Rep. Eshoo and Sen. Markey are empowering consumers to make smarter choices by giving subscribers the information they need to decide what service to buy.”

The Senate bill is co-sponsored by Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), Ben Cardin (D-Md.), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), and Tina Smith (D-Minn.). The House version is co-sponsored by Reps. Mark Takano, Eleanor Holmes Norton, Tim Ryan, Earl Blumenauer, Jamie Raskin, Joe Courtney, Donald S. Beyer, Jr., Janice D. Schakowsky, and Mike Thompson.