Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.) and Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) have called on Federal Trade Commission chair Lina Khan to take enforcement actions against abusive practices by virtual private networks (VPNs).

VPNs are billed as secure (encrypted) private networks that use the public internet.

The legislators tied that call for action to concerns, in the wake of the overturning of Roe v. Wade, about protecting the personal information of women seeking abortions. They said they were particularly concerned about "deceptive advertising and data collection practices."

The FTC has authority over deceptive ads and practices via its Sec. 5 authority.

Eshoo and Wyden said that among the VPNs’ abusive practices are promoting false claims about their service, selling data or providing user activity logs to law enforcement despite promises of “total anonymity.”

“As the recent Supreme Court decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization has amplified concerns about digital reproductive privacy, people seeking abortion are increasingly told that installing a VPN is an important step for protecting themselves when seeking information on abortion in states that have outlawed and criminalized abortion,“ the lawmakers said. But they said there are no practical tools or independent research to identify VPNs that are secure.

In addition to taking enforcement actions against bad actors, they want the FTC to develop a handbook for “abortion-seekers” on protecting their data, including the benefits and risks of VPNs. ■

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) is seeking information from Google about its relationship with Barry Diller's IAC/InteractiveCorp. and others over paying companies like IAC to change default search engine settings in consumer Web browsers to generate traffic referral fees.

That came in a letter to Google CEO Sundar Pichai.

Wyden has been investigating the practice and says that a request back in February for a briefing from Google on its relationship with IAC and other browser extension companies did not result in a briefing, or a response to a series of such requests over the succeeding several months.

Wyden cited a Wall Street Journal story that according to a Google internal audit, the company's own investigation concluded that IAC's behavior was "egregious" and its web extensions should be removed from the Chrome Web Store, but that had not happened.

Wyden said Google's continued financial relationship with IAC raised serious questions that he wanted answered.

Among those questions are how much IAC spent on Google ads directing users to download its extensions, how many extension installations did that generate, and what percentage of Google's search traffic comes from users whose default search engine has been chosen for them by a web browser, operating system or extension that Google has paid for.

An IAC spokesperson said the company had no comment on the letter, but did comment on the larger issue of the internal audit and what it said was Google's effort to "quash" their browser business.

"Google has chosen not to share its audit of our products or the results with us, only the Wall Street Journal," saids the spokesperson. "Google exercises significant control over what we do with these products. Last year we collaborated closely with Google on an extensive review and approval of our entire Chrome product line — including how products are advertised and installed, down to the font size—and all our products were again confirmed and approved this year in conjunction with their renewal of our partnership agreement.

"Google has taken hundreds of millions of dollars from us to advertise and distribute these products in the Chrome Store. There’s nothing new here — Google has used their position to reduce our browser business to the last small corner of the internet, which they’re now seeking to quash."

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

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

Related: Senate to Vet Edge Provider Liability Bill 

The bill passed out of the committee earlier this month. 

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

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

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

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

Sen. Ron Wyden (R-Ore.) has introduced a bill that would help pay for keeping low-income families connected to broadband during the ongoing pandemic, which appears to be getting a second wind. 

Internet service providers' pledge to the FCC to do that -- all the majors and many smaller ISPs signed up -- expires June 30 and FCC Chairman Ajit Pai has asked Congress to take up the financial mantle if possible, while asking ISPs to continue to help through deferred payment plans past June 30. 

FCC's Pai Says Congress Needs to Take Up Keep Americans Connected Pledge

The bill, the Emergency Broadband Connections Act, would also boost the FCC's existing low-income subsidy, which is a tad under $10 per month, and other things. 

Specifically, the bill would:  

● "Entitle households in which a member has been laid off or furloughed to a $50 benefit (or $75 on tribal lands) to put toward the monthly price of internet service and require ISPs to serve eligible households at a price reduced by an amount up to the emergency benefit; 

● "Trigger eligibility based on qualification for the Lifeline program, the National School Lunch Program (NSLP), or Federal Pell Grants; 

● "Provide devices such as laptop or desktop computers or tablets to eligible households to ensure these families have the devices they need to look for a job, complete online homework assignments, or receive telehealth service;  

● "Require Lifeline service providers to make unlimited minutes and data available to those that currently rely on the Lifeline program to stay connected to phone or internet service, and provide additional support; and 

● "Provide funding to states to facilitate the linking of their SNAP databases with the FCC’s National Lifeline Verifier database, which will allow recipients of that program to automatically qualify for Lifeline." 

Key provisions of the legislation are included in the HEROES Act, which passed the House of Representatives in May, Wyden noted. Rep. Marc Veasey, a Texas Democrat,  (TX-33) has introduced companion legislation in the House, Wyden said.

Broadband access advocates were lining up to back the effort. 

“Consumer Reports strongly supports the Emergency Broadband Connections Act authored and introduced bySenator Wyden today," said Jonathan Schwantes, senior policy counsel at Consumer Reports. "This bill represents a direct, meaningful and effective way to help our most vulnerable Americans affected by the COVID-19 pandemic stay connected to the internet."  

“The Emergency Broadband Connections Act will provide needed access to broadband services for many students, older adults, people with low incomes, and those that have been impacted by the financial crisis," said American Civil Liberties Union senior legislative counsel Kate Ruane.  

"The flexible supports in the Emergency Broadband Connections Act of 2020 would increase the choices people have to get and stay online, providing a true lifeline during this time of social distancing and deepened economic hardship," said Matt Wood, VP of policy for Free Press Action. 

“For months, millions of Americans have suffered through the COVID-19 pandemic without internet connectivity," said Joshua Stager, senior counsel for New America's Open Technology Institute. "It’s unconscionable that Congress hasn’t passed any laws to help these people get access to the internet. We applaud Senator Wyden for stepping up and introducing this bill. We are especially grateful that he added Pell Grant recipients to the bill, ensuring that low-income college students—many of whom have lost their housing and work-study jobs—don’t fall through the cracks.”

Two legislators familiar to media execs have introduced House and Senate versions of a bill to combat online child exploitation, saying it would reverse "a decade of underfunding key enforcement and prevention efforts." 

The Invest in Child Safety Act, from Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.) and Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), would provide $5 billion in "mandatory funding" to investigate online pedophiles who create and share child pornography online and to fund programs to keep children from becoming victims. 

Related: Senate Mulls Sec. 230 Limits

It would create an Office to Enforce and Protect Against Child Sexual Exploitation, within the White House Executive Office of the President to coordinate efforts across federal agencies. They say that is needed after the Department of Justice declined to do such coordination and reporting as directed in a 2008 law. 

They say the DOJ has cut more than $60 million from child exploitation prevention programs while trying to create encryption backdoors that could weaken online security for everyone. 

“Dogged reporting put a spotlight on the failures of the executive branch and Congress to respond to disgusting crimes against children that are shared online,” Wyden said in a statement. “Our bill will finally provide agencies with enough investigators and prosecutors to confront this menace, fund the organizations who help protect at-risk kids from becoming victims, and provide aid to survivors.” 

The bill would:  

1. "Quadruple the number of prosecutors and agents in DOJ’s Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section from 30 FTEs to 120 FTEs; 

2. "Add 100 new agents and investigators for the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Innocent Images National Initiative, Crimes Against Children Unit, Child Abduction Rapid Deployment Teams, and Child Exploitation and Human Trafficking Task Forces; 

3. "Fund 65 new NCMEC analysts, engineers, and mental health counselors, as well as a major upgrade to NCMEC’s technology platform to enable the organization to more effectively evaluate and process CSAM reports from tech companies; 

4. "Double funding for the state Internet Crimes Against Children (ICAC) Task Forces;  

5. "Double funding for the National Criminal Justice Training Center, to administer crucial Internet Crimes Against Children and Missing and Exploited Children training programs;

6. "Increase funding for evidence-based programs, local governments and non-federal entities to detect, prevent and support victims of child sexual abuse, including school-based mental health services and prevention programs like the Children’s Advocacy Centers and the HHS’ Street Outreach Program;   

7. "Require tech companies to increase the time that they hold evidence of CSAM, in a secure database, to enable law enforcement agencies to prosecute older cases;  

8. "Establish an Office to Enforce and Protect Against Child Sexual Exploitation, within the Executive Office of the President, to direct and streamline the federal government’s efforts to prevent, investigate and prosecute the scourge of child exploitation; 

9. "Require the Office to develop an enforcement and protection strategy, in coordination with HHS and GAO; and  

10. "Require the Office to submit annual monitoring reports, subject to mandatory Congressional testimony to ensure timely execution."

“The technology industry is committed to working together with law enforcement to protect children online,” said Jason Oxman, president of tech association ITI. “The Invest in Child Safety Act is another welcome step to strengthen our ability to prevent and prosecute online child sexual abuse. This measure would take meaningful and focused action to address these vile criminal acts by providing additional resources for law enforcement, thereby enabling more robust response to the millions of reports of abusive material technology companies make to authorities every day.”

Some Oregon content creators have a big bone to pick with one of their senators, Democrat Ron Wyden. That is because he has put a hold on a bill that they argue would make it easier for them to protect their copyrighted material, a big issue in a world of easy archiving and sharing of copyrighted images and video.

For his part, the Senator argues that the bill as currently drafted creates "an extrajudicial, virtually unappealable tribunal that could impose damages of up to $30,000 on someone who posts a couple of memes on social media" and says he is working on a way to protect both creators and due process.

A hold is when a senator indicates he does not want a particular bill to get a vote on the floor.  The majority leader does not have to comply, though usually does, since a hold puts him or her on notice the senator could filibuster an attempted vote.

The Oregon Professional Photographers Association (OPPA) plans to put up the billboard ad below in downtown Portland by Jan. 15 to call out the senator for holding up consideration of the bill.

The House last October overwhelmingly passed the Copyright Alternative in Small-Claims Enforcement [CASE] Act of 2019 (410 to 6), which would create a small claims court for copyright infringement cases.

The CASE Act, which was introduced in the House last May by Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.), would establish the Copyright Claims Board in the U.S. Copyright Office. The legislation is billed as giving independent creators an easier and cheaper (than federal district court litigation) way to defend their intellectual property. 

Related: Wyden Says Days of Considering Edge Platforms Neutral Are Over

The bill's architect had been confident of passage. A staffer in Jeffries' office told Multichannel News at the time of its passage that they expected it to pass the Senate and be signed by the President. They said that while the Google-backed Electronic Frontier Foundation and other computer companies oppose the legislation, they have bipartisan momentum on their side on the Hill and likely the support of Jared Kushner, senior adviser to his father-in-law, President Donald Trump, for the presidential sign-off. 

But Wyden sees the bill quite differently, according to a statement from his office summarizing the senator's concerns.

"Senator Wyden’s office has had a number of conversations with CASE Act supporters on how to protect creators without the unintended side-effects to free expression and due process that are present in this bill," read the e-mailed statement. "Senator Wyden believes that the CASE Act, as currently drafted, does not strike the right balance between protecting artists and creators and fostering innovation, freedom of expression and education. He has heard concerns from The ACLU, the Association of Research Libraries, and others.

The legislation would create an extrajudicial, virtually unappealable tribunal that could impose damages of up to $30,000 on someone who posts a couple of memes on social media — even if they caused no economic harm to the creator. A judgment of $30,000 is enough to bankrupt many American families and it is a far greater amount than Americans can recover in most state small-claims courts. With virtually no judicial review, even the threat of such a judgment could stifle the legitimate fair use of content and lead to abuse of the system by bad actors who harass and threaten innocent internet users to win settlements."

Wyden argues the CASE Act could chill free expression. "He is actively working to find a solution that will protect Americans’ due process rights and First Amendment values while ensuring that authors, photographers, graphic designers and other creators can protect their works and earn a living," his office said.

Among the groups supporting the bill are the News Media Alliance, SAG-AFTRA, Authors Guild, RIAA, and the Copyright Alliance. Opponents, in addition to the ACLU and EFF, include fair use standard-bearer Public Knowledge, the Consumer Technology Association, whose members make the technology that allows for the distribution of intellectual property, fair use and foul, and the Computer & Communications Industry Association, whose edge provider members are often the targets of copyright infringement claims.  

A trio of Democratic senators are grilling mobile carriers about allegations they were throttling internet traffic. 

The FCC last fall eliminated the rule against throttling traffic as part of its Restoring Internet Freedom (RIF) order, though ISPs said they had no plans to do so, and if they did they would have to inform the FCC and the public per the transparency requirement in the RIF order. 

In letters to AT&T, Verizon, Sprint and T-Mobile, Sens. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) said "all online traffic should be treated equally, and internet service providers should not discriminate against particular content or applications for competitive advantage purposes or otherwise,” citing reports they had throttled content from Netflix, YouTube, Amazon, and NBC Sports, and wanted answers to the following questions: "Has your company put into practice policies to throttle or prioritize internet traffic for consumers? What is the purpose of these policies?

"Are consumers able to opt-in or opt-out of traffic differentiation? Does a customer’s choice change the price or affect their service, such as data allocation or requiring a different plan?

"How do you determine which network traffic receives faster or slower treatment? Is it based on content, behavior, or IP address?"

Asked about the senators' letter and the allegations of throttling, FCC chair Ajit Pai said that his understanding that the data that went into that throttling conclusion (the study was based on data collected from an app called “Wehe," according to the senators) had not been made available for vetting, but that any issues could be addressed by the Federal Trade Commission to the extent someone wanted to invoke its authority and that process was sufficient to protect consumers and competition.

CTIA, which represents telcom ISPs, said when the Wehe study first gained attention that it had "failed to account for basic wireless network engineering, consumer preference, and how mobile content is distributed over the internet."

CTIA says that what the app is actually detecting is "is basic wireless network management and operators delivering the service consumers choose," or it is measuring data management by content providers which, it says, "have data practices in place – outside the control of providers – that reduce video resolution of data traffic flowing through their sites or apps depending on the consumer’s mobile device."

Trying to determine online friend from foe, and who makes that call, is an enormous, perhaps impossible task, and implicates both online and traditional news and information outlets. But the problem starts with non-neutral social media platforms.

That was a big takeaway from the Hill Wednesday (Aug. 1).

"I just want to be clear, as the author of Sec. 230 [of the Communications Decency Act], the days when these 'pipes' are considered neutral are over because the whole point of 230 was to have a shield and a sword, and the sword hasn't been used," Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) said at a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing Wednesday. 

Section 230 provides liability carve-outs for the content posted on social media platforms like Twitter and Facebook (the "pipes" in this case a designation more often reserved for ISPs, which are regulated) under the theory they were simply the online public square for those ideas and that to make them liable would blow up their business model. 

The witnesses for the Intelligence Committee hearing on "foreign influence operations and their use of social media platforms" did not include any of the major social platforms being discussed. They were instead academics and researchers: Dr. Todd Helmus, senior behavioral scientist, RAND Corp.; Renee DiResta, director of research, New Knowledge; John Kelly, CEO, Graphika; Laura Rosenberger, director, Alliance for Securing Democracy at The German Marshall Fund of the United States; and Dr. Philip Howard, director, Oxford Internet Institute.

Rosenberger echoed the idea of edge provider non-neutrality: "These platforms are not neutral pipes. Information is not being served up without some kind of algorithm deciding, for most of the platforms, what is served up at the top."

Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.), chair of the committee, said nothing less than the integrity of democratic institutions is at stake. Burr summed up the challenge, asking, "How do you keep the good while getting rid of the bad?" 

Video: UK Politicians Say Facebook Creating 'Crisis in Democracy'

Burr said that was the fundamental question before not just the committee but the American people. He called it a complex problem that "intertwines" First Amendment freedoms, corporate responsibility, regulations, and the right of innovators to profit from their innovation.

Sen. James Risch (R-Idaho) said he thought the takeaway from all the testimony was how difficult the problem is. "We know the problem," he said. "We have bad [foreign] actors putting out bad information. The difficulty is segregating those people from Americans who have the right to do this, whether or not it is disgusting or untrue or with a bad motive. It is protected by the First Amendment."

Who decides who are the bad actors, he asked, and how do you protect the anonymity of, say, activists in authoritarian regimes while trying to fight bad actors? 

"How in the world do you do this?" Risch said. "The takeaway here has got to be that this is just an enormous, if not an impossible, thing."

Related: Pew Survey Finds Users Distrust Social Media Platforms

Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) pointed out that the traditional media were also part of the problem, unwittingly amplifying fake news and social media posts.

Rosenberger agreed. She pointed out that a Twitter account created by Russian meddler IRA focused on the NFL "take a knee" controversy had been cited by more than a dozen major news outlets, including the BBC, Huffington Post and Wired.

Collins said reading about such posts in credible sources make people more likely to believe them.

Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.), vice chair of the Intelligence Committee, took aim at the edge, as well, but took some of the edge off.

Related: Sen. Warner Says Facebook Page Deletions Show Ongoing Election Meddling Threat

"All the evidence this Committee has seen to date suggests that the platform companies – namely, Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Google and YouTube – still have a lot of work to do," Warner said, but then added, sounding like a parent disciplining an unruly child, "I’ve been hard on them – that’s true. But it’s because I know they can do better to protect our democracy. They have the creativity, expertise, resources and technological
capability to get ahead of these malicious actors."

And while Wednesday's hearing focused on academics and researchers, Warner said executives from Facebook, Twitter and Google will be in attendance for a hearing Sept. 5 to provide "the plans they have in place, to press them to do more, and to work together to address this challenge."

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), a member of the Select Committee on Intelligence, wants to know how many "backdoor" searches of e-mails and other communications the government has conducted.

He is concerned about warrantless searches the attorney general can authorize of information collected from or about U.S. citizens if it also involves a person from another country or agent of a foreign power.

He also wants to know if the intelligence community can conduct searches of that information without an individual warrant and what limits there are in searching the information if that person is not the target--the target has to be a foreign power or agent on the other side of that communication collected under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).

Wyden is also concerned about the lack of public awareness of the breadth of the data collection and limits on oversight, as well as what he says is the vagueness of government procedures for collection and use.

Wyden asked for the information in a letter to acting assistant attorney general for national security Dana Boente.

A pair of Democratic senators has asked FCC chair Ajit Pai for more information on what the FCC has said were multiple DDoS attacks on its website that affected comments being posted there.

Related: FCC CIO Says Agency Hit by DDoS Attack

FCC chief information officer David Bray said the attacks "made it difficult for legitimate commenters to access and file with the FCC."

The key docket in terms of activity that could have been interrupted is net neutrality, where the FCC still managed to post more than a half a million comments since last week, attack or no. Among the senators' questions was whether any comments were prevented from being submitted and, if so, how many.

Sens. Ron Wyden of Oregon and Brian Schatz of Hawaii, the latter ranking member of the Senate Communications Subcommittee, sent a letter to Pai about the May 8 attack (which came in the wee hours of the morning following the May 7 airing of John Oliver's call, during HBO's Last Week Tonight, for a flood of comments in support of net neutrality.

Related: John Oliver Takes On Pai, Net Neutrality, Take II

They asked about the FCC's defenses against such an attack should it be repeated and wanted Pai to ensure the FCC provides other ways to comment as a workaround, such as a dedicated e-mail account.

“Any potentially hostile cyber activities that prevents Americans from being able to participate in a fair and transparent process must be treated as a serious issue,” the senators said.

Specifically, they requested the following information by June 8:

1. “Please provide details as to the nature of the DDoS attacks, including when the attacks began, when they ended, the amount of malicious traffic your network received, and an estimate of the number of devices that were sending malicious traffic to the FCC. To the extent that the FCC already has evidence suggesting which actor(s) may have been responsible for the attacks, please provide that in your response.
2. “Has the FCC sought assistance from other federal agencies in investigating and responding to these attacks? Which agencies have you sought assistance from? Have you received all of the help you have requested?
3. “Several federal agencies utilize commercial services to protect their websites from DDoS attacks. Does the FCC use a commercial DDoS protection service? If not, why not? To the extent that the FCC utilizes commercial DDoS protection products, did these work as expected? If not, why not?
4. “How many concurrent visitors is the FCC’s website designed to be able to handle? Has the FCC performed stress testing of its own website to ensure that it can cope as intended? Has the FCC identified which elements of its website are performance bottlenecks that limit the number of maximum concurrent visitors? Has the FCC sought to mitigate these bottlenecks? If not, why not?
5. “Did the DDoS attacks prevent the public from being able to submit comments through the FCC’s website? If so, do you have an estimate of how many individuals were unable to access the FCC website or submit comments during the attacks? Were any comments lost or otherwise affected?
6. “Will commenters who successfully submitted a comment — but did not receive a response, as your press release indicates — receive a response once your staff have addressed the DDoS and related technical issues?

While the letter did not question whether such an attack had happened, others have, including activist group Fight for the Future. 

"We think it's more than just coincidence that the FCC would cite a DDoS attack at the same time that John Oliver's call to make public comment on the FCC website in favor of net neutrality went viral," said Rashad Robinson, executive director of Color Of Change, a big Title II fan. "That said, we certainly hope to see a full investigation into what happened in order to ensure the integrity and full transparency of a key federal agency. But the unfortunate reality is that, after everything this administration has done to steal our rights as Americans, we wouldn't be surprised if this was merely an attempt to label the democratic exercise of free speech as a cyberattack.”

Some Hill Democrats were praising the FCC's report finding that some zero-rating plans may run afoul of network-neutrality rules.

Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) had led calls for tough action on "harmful zero-rating offerings" thought to run afoul of the rules and led the applause at the findings.

RELATED > FCC: DirecTV Now Plan Appears to Violate Net Neutrality Order

Zero-rating offerings exempt some services, including video streaming services, from counting toward a user's broadband data plan. In some cases, the service pays the ISP to exempt its content.

“In response to our inquiry, the FCC has issued clear guidelines on how to protect consumers from harmful zero-rating plans that violate the core tenants of net neutrality,” Markey said. “These guiding principles will help the FCC, industry, and the public evaluate zero-rating offerings and identify plans that distort competition, stifle innovation, and hamper user choice and free speech. I will continue to work with my colleagues to encourage the commission to enforce these guidelines and ensure that the internet remains a permission-less environment where anyone with an idea or voice can participate.”

The FCC's senior Republican, Ajit Pai, signaled that the FCC under new management did not share the report's opinion.

But Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.), a big network-neutrality fan, and among those who joined in a letter to the FCC last November asking for the review, shared the FCC's concerns.

"A free and open Internet has been a crucial engine for innovation and economic growth," Franken said. "That's why I'm pleased to see that the FCC has heeded our call and released a framework for evaluating zero-rating plans, which can often harm competitors and consumers. This report evaluating whether zero rating plans violate net neutrality will help make sure the internet remains the free and open platform that it's always been. Keeping the internet open is critical to our democracy.”

The FCC under Republican control is widely expected to roll back the FCC's approach to network neutrality, likely including the "general conduct standard" review under which the FCC concluded that AT&T's DirecTV Now sponsored data and Verizon's FreeBee Data 360 zero-rating plans were problematic.

Sens. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) were also signatories to the letter and added their applause. 

“Despite clever branding gimmicks, so called ‘free data’ or zero-rating plans like those offered by AT&T and Verizon are a scheme to manipulate consumers and transfer money from their pockets to a company’s bottom line,” Wyden said. “This report lays the framework for ensuring zero-rating plans don’t betray net neutrality and is a step in the right direction towards maintaining a free and open Internet.”

Blumenthal added: “I commend the commission for undertaking this careful and thorough report on how zero-rating offerings may negatively affect consumers and competition. As wireless carriers look for creative ways to differentiate themselves, it would serve them well to take heed of this report’s findings and address any red flags in their own offerings. This report confirms my concerns that some zero-rating offerings not only subvert the spirit of net neutrality, but also unfairly distort competition, disadvantage consumers, and decrease choice.”

Yet another front has opened in the tug-of-war among computer companies, Congress and the Obama Administration over cybersecurity versus privacy.

Sens. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and Rand Paul (R-Ky.) were feeling the love from tech companies and others Thursday (May 19) for introducing the Stopping Mass Hack Act, which is targeted not at shady offshore Web denizens but U.S. law enforcement.

The senators introduced the bill to block recently approved changes to government surveillance rules that would allow the government, with a single warrant, to "hack an unlimited number of computers" if those computers had been "affected by criminals," even without letting the computer owners know the government was accessing their computers. Sens. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisc.), Steve Daines (R-Mont.) and Jon Tester (D-Mont.) are original co-sponsors of the bill.

The senators say those changes should have been debated by Congress. They go into effect Dec. 1 unless Congress steps in.

The Justice Department requested the change to Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, which the Supreme Court approved. The main changes, according to the Senators, are the single warrant for multiple -- potentially millions -- of searches, and allowing remote searches when law enforcement doesn't know the location of a device.

“The government hacking proposal that will automatically go into effect unless Congress passes the Stopping Mass Hacking Act represents a serious expansion of law enforcement powers," said Kevin Bankston, director of New America’s Open Technology Institute, "yet Congress has never had a chance to consider the complex issues raised by such a significant change to the law. Unless Congress acts now, these new government hacking rules will grant the Justice Department dangerous and unprecedented authority to hack millions of Americans, many of whom may only be guilty of being the victim of a malicious cyber attack themselves.”

Ross Schulman, Open Technology Institute senior counsel, added, “We thank Senators Wyden and Paul for introducing this important bill." New America funders include Google, Netflix, Comcast and Dish.

“We welcome Senators Wyden and Paul’s efforts to prevent this highly controversial rule change from taking effect," said Computer and Communications Industry Association president Ed Black. "They recognize that the far-reaching implications of the government’s proposed changes merit the full attention of their colleagues in Congress. There are constitutional, international, and technological questions that ought to be addressed transparently before such a broad rule change.

CCIA's members, in addition to Google, Netflix and Dish, include Amazon, Yahoo, eBay, Microsoft, and Sprint.