A new media technologist focused on equitable solutions for a just society.
You are currently browsing the Politics blog category.
July 8, 2011
U.S. House of Representatives
Committee on the Judiciary
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security
Washington, D.C.
Re: H.R. 1981 – Protecting Children From Internet Pornographers Act of 2011
To The Honorable Members of Congress:
I would like to take this opportunity to submit my thoughts and concerns on H.R. 1981, Protecting Children from Internet Pornographers Act of 2011. I was contacted by committee staff on this matter so that I could provide the perspective of a small, family-run, cable business as my family runs Full Channel here in Rhode Island. Full Channel was started in 1965 by my grandfather John Donofrio. His vision for an expansive landscape of information delivered to the living rooms and fingertips of ordinary Americans was groundbreaking. In 1982, after nearly 20 years of preparations and government hearings, he was the only individual businessperson to be awarded a cable television franchise in the State of Rhode Island. By the turn of the millennium, Full Channel remained as the only independent cable and broadband provider in the state and continues to serve the local needs of its three communities, employing local residents and supporting schools, charities and local governments.
Today Full Channel remains a valued local provider, serving homes and businesses in Bristol County, Rhode Island, by delivering digital television, broadband Internet and phone services. The company employs more than 20 local residents as sales and service representatives, technicians and engineers. Public access personnel deliver municipal government meetings, community events and other public service programming through Full Channel’s three local television channels allocated to the communities. In 2009 the company was lauded as a “Top Operator” by the industry trade publication CableFAX. This summer, the Town of Bristol’s council chairman thanked Full Channel in a written statement for bringing “greater transparency to government” by delivering local meetings to the TV sets of residents.
To be perfectly clear, I personally, and Full Channel as an organization, are champions of protecting children from all forms of abuse and exploitation, and we support the very reasonable ideals of H.R. 1981. There is no doubt that protecting our children online continues to provide a challenge in every family, and it is timely and appropriate for Congress to consider what role the Federal government can play in that effort. However, I have serious doubts about the proposed language in that it may open a wide door to conducting electronic surveillance on every Internet-subscribing American citizen in a manner that is redundant to other statutory requirements such as the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA), may prove too costly to small businesses implement and may expand the data that companies are compiling in ways that go beyond child pornography and really touches upon broader privacy issues.
H.R. 1981 is a bill aimed at the distribution of child pornography, a sin that is on the short list of the most heinous offenses in our modern society. Intelligent, well-respected individuals may argue the merits and dangers of gun control, net neutrality, same-sex marriage and even abortion and come out unscathed relative to a witness emerging from a testimony even remotely tainted by the topic of the exploitation of children.
In 2007, Full Channel and the rest of the nation’s Internet service providers began to implement CALEA, which codified the implementation of modern day digital wiretapping. CALEA gives Federal and local law enforcement protocols for the speedy access to live data from a suspect’s digital connections with proper court documentation (i.e., a warrant or subpoena). When a provider is subpoenaed by a law enforcement agency to retain electronic records under CALEA they must comply.
The systems to support CALEA were expensive for small companies like Full Channel to implement; however, they have functioned seamlessly when called into action. Since its inception, Full Channel has had very few requests for information relating to crimes against children. Using these existing CALEA protocols, our staff is able to quickly respond to a subpoena and provide data. However, these instances are clearly infrequent. Adding a new statutory obligation for small businesses that will result in new costs doesn’t seem merited with this in mind. I am not sure where the “problem” with existing data collection and wiretapping law exists.
With that in mind, it concerns me that this bill asks that we collect our customers’ historical personally identifiable information for 18 months on the remote chance that they may have engaged in the transfer or distribution of child pornography. This seems to be an impingement on the privacy of everyday citizens.
Furthermore, H.R. 1981 discriminates between service providers, applying to those who deliver communications services via landline, but not to those who do so wirelessly, leaving gaping holes in this new so-called “security” system. In fact, the bill provides a full exemption from the data retention requirements for wireless providers like cellular giants AT&T Mobility and Verizon Wireless, publically-accessible WiFi hotspots (i.e., Starbucks, college campuses and libraries) and new WiMax installations popping up throughout the U.S. If all of the nation’s providers – wireline and wireless alike – are not held to the same standard of data retention, the burden borne by small companies like Full Channel to implement these systems will be in vein because criminal predators will easily connect to nearby cellular data networks or a neighboring resident’s or business’ open WiFi connection, which are all exempt from the proposed requirements.
The few brief lines in H.R. 1981 that address digital communications not only serve to create gaping holes in the bill’s objective, but also serve to create a competitively unfair environment where landline providers, especially small businesses like Full Channel, are at a distinct economic disadvantage by being held to a higher standard than wireless providers. In an era when the federal government is scrambling to repurpose much of the citizens’ wireless spectrum for the deployment of wireless broadband, it only seems prudent to hold traditional landline and wireless broadband providers to the same level of accountability and responsibility. To do otherwise hurts small business and will have a chilling effect on the deployment and expansion of broadband, especially in underserved and rural areas. By forcing only landline providers like Full Channel to shoulder these new regulatory burdens, it is effectively a regressive tax. This tax may be spread across millions of subscribers in larger organizations; however, small businesses like Full Channel will be hit especially hard by these financial constraints, with the profound effect of having to pass along the government implemented costs to consumers.
I urge the committee to reconsider the data retention requirements in H.R. 1981 because they are inequitable and ineffective on a number of fronts. The tools to apprehend predators are already in the hands of law enforcement under CALEA. I would argue that more resources should be devoted directly to the men and women of law enforcement dedicated to protecting children, rather than on the implementation of carte blanche data collection on the entire population of American landline Internet users.
Respectfully submitted,
Levi C. Maaia
Vice President
Full Channel TV, Inc.
Posted July 8, 2011 at 10:30. Add a comment
Steve Jobs claims “we haven’t been tracking anybody,” but the Apple CEO sure seems to have been collecting quite a bit of information about me! Having heard all of the media buzz about location information being stored in a secret iPhone file, I decided to run a Mac OS application called iPhone Tracker. Running the program on the same Mac that runs the iTunes library that is synced with my iPhone 3GS resulted in the graphic below.
As you can see, I have spent a time in California, New England, the Mid-Atlantic and Hawaii over the past year and my iPhone has recorded the whole escapade! Even a couple quick connections through Denver International Airport have been recorded (I had to think about how that spot got on there, I’ve never really spent any time in Colorado other than to change planes).
The location data that iPhone Tracker was able to pull only went back one year. I am not certain if more back-data exists in the hidden iPhone file. The program is very basic and has few options but it gets the data and visualizes it, which is impressive. I would not have a problem with this information being stored if I had opted into it. It concerns me, however, that Apple is gathering this data in a hidden file that we are only now discovering and know little about. With reports of Michigan State Police using forensic data downloaders to extract the contents of citizens’ phones without a search warrant during ordinary traffic stops, it is troubling to think about what else we carry around each day might end up in the wrong hands.
Apple claims that all will be fixed in an upcoming update to its mobile operating system iOS. How Apple will address the data collection issue, either through an opt-in process or its total elimination is unknown. The implications of the full-data-download by law enforcement also remains to be seen. The ACLU is suing the Michigan State Police, charging the department violated data collection laws.
Posted May 2, 2011 at 00:05. Add a comment
After extensive research, negotiations and technical preparations, Full Channel has made Bristol County, R.I. the fourth U.S. cable TV market to offer Al Jazeera English to its viewers. The Qatar-based news outlet launched an Arabic-language channel in 1996 and for years Al Jazeera was widely misunderstood by western audiences. After 9/11, many Americans falsely associated Al Jazeera with Osama Bin Laden and other Middle Eastern terrorist outfits. This reputation is due in a large part to remarks made by former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld who claimed Al Jazeera was “inexcusably biased.”
In 2003, the BBC signed an agreement with Al Jazeera for sharing facilities, information and news footage. And in 2006 Al Jazeera launched an English-language network targeting the Western world. This year in particular, Al Jazeera English has received accolades and praise from politicians and journalists alike who applaud the network’s propensity to report the under-reported as it provided often exclusive coverage of the turmoil in the Middle East and North Africa. During testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in March, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called AJE “real news” as she criticized U.S.-based news networks for spending too much time on trivial news items such as Charlie Sheen’s breakdown and American Idol winners.
As of this week, Full Channel joins the three only other U.S. TV markets to provide Al Jazeera English: Washington D.C., Ohio and Burlington, Vt. The story has been covered by Providence Business News, WPRI-TV and Multichannel News.
Full Channel viewers will find AJE on channel 168. If you don’t live in one of these four markets you can watch a live feed of AJE online on YouTube or AlJazeera.net.
Posted April 29, 2011 at 01:12. Add a comment
A few weeks back I sent a quick note to Rep. Anna G. Eshoo (D-Calif.) commending her for a great op-ed in support of Net neutrality, which appeared in the San Francisco Chronicle on February 6, 2011. I received this very personal reply from her today. Nice to see that Rep. Eshoo is so responsive, even to citizens living and working outside of her district.
Posted March 3, 2011 at 15:10. Add a comment
This Letter To FCC Chairman Genachowski Regarding Retransmission was filed on February 23, 2011 regarding the Commission’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to Amend The Commission’s Rules Governing Retransmission Consent; MB Docket No. 10-71.
Dear Chairman Genachowski:
Full Channel strongly agrees that the time has come for the Commission to review retransmission consent rules in light of recent disputes affecting millions of consumers, many of whom were unprepared for the sudden loss of broadcast network content precipitated by local TV station blackouts. Media Bureau Chief William Lake put his finger on the problem in his speech to the Media Institute last December when he stated: “When a retrans deal expires today, there can be high drama.”
With the Commission preparing to examine the marketplace in which retransmission consent is negotiated, I wanted to bring to your attention an unsettling episode involving Univision affiliate WUNI-TV and my company, Full Channel, a family-owned cable operator in Warren, R.I., with about 7,000 customers. WUNI, owned by Entravision Communications Corp., pulled its signal on Feb. 18 after Full Channel refused to accept a 33 percent increase for retransmission consent and costly demands for multicast channel and high-definition delivery.
In my view, this dispute illustrates the need for new retransmission consent rules that rectify the imbalance of power between an affiliate of the country’s dominant Spanish-language broadcaster and a small cable operator that serves a tiny fraction of TV households within the Providence, R.I.-New Bedford, Mass. designated market area.
Clearly, WUNI’s strategy of granting retransmission consent only in exchange for an exorbitant price hike and other costly demands is aided by several regulations that prevent Full Channel from negotiating as something akin to an equal on the other side of the bargaining table. This artificial imbalance hurts Full Channel’s customers, who are innocent third parties, and it should be addressed as the Commission reconsiders what exactly is acceptable conduct under the statutory requirement that broadcasters and multichannel video programming distributors (MVPDs) bargain for retransmission consent in good faith.
Full Channel believes it is vital for the Commission to provide new guidance that will yield greater certainty to the marketplace and result in fewer failed deals and dropped signals. Full Channel stands ready to assist the Commission’s search for policy outcomes that protect the interest of consumers when they are victimized by the heavy-handed tactics of a broadcaster like WUNI, which seems to have a rather strained understanding of what it means to serve in the public interest.
Sincerely,
Levi C. Maaia
Vice President, Full Channel
Warren, R.I.
Posted February 28, 2011 at 18:02. Add a comment
HIAWATHA BRAY’S article “FCC OK’s Internet service rules’’ (Dec. 22, 2010 Boston Globe Business) showed some promise for those in favor of Net neutrality, however, the FCC’s vote to approve new rules governing the Internet fell far short of President Obama’s campaign promise to protect online free speech and commerce … [read the entire letter at boston.com]
This opinion piece originally appeared in the Boston Globe on Dec. 28, 2010.
Posted January 27, 2011 at 10:08. Add a comment
This is the second and final installment of my blog’s gubernatorial endorsement series.
RHODE ISLAND — LINCOLN CHAFEE
In 1999, then-Mayor Lincoln Chafee was thrust into 
national politics when he was appointed by Governor Lincoln Almond (yes, two Lincolns) to the U.S. Senate seat vacated by the death of Chafee’s father, veteran Republican Senator John Chafee. Although the junior Chafee maintained his affiliation with the G.O.P., he continually bucked party expectations and voted as a moderate on many key issues. Calling himself a “traditional conservative” Chafee was the only Republican (and was among the few Senate Democrats) to vote against the invasion of Iraq. He declined to vote for President George W. Bush during his re-election and endorsed then-Senator Barack Obama’s candidacy for President. In 2007, Chafee officially left the Republican Party to become an independent.
The 2010 gubernatorial election is the first time since 1786 that one of Rhode Island’s two leading candidates for governor is an independent. Unlike his Democratic challenger, Lincoln Chafee is not polished or slick or smooth, but the record shows that he is honest. Honest not only to his constituents, but honest to himself. He sat alone at the lunch table (quite literally–see his interview with Jon Stewart) as the independent man, determined to vote his conscience on principles he believed were best for Rhode Island. While he has taken some heat from his opponent for it, he is the only candidate brave enough to propose concrete and viable fiscal reform, even if part of that reform means introducing a modest and temporary sales tax on presently-exempt items (a sales tax increase is generally agreed to be the least harmful to economic growth). Chafee’s opponent, Rhode Island General Treasurer and Democrat Frank Caprio, has harped on Chafee for his sales tax proposal. However, as a Rhode Island state senator, Caprio himself voted to increase sales tax from six percent to seven percent, along with votes for increases to dozens of fees on businesses and taxpayers, including taxes and fees on over-the-counter drugs, drinking water and motor vehicle registration.
Lincoln Chafee’s candidacy has been endorsed by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, numerous environmental groups, and teacher and nurses unions among others. While his opponents claim these endorsements put him in the pockets of special interests, Chafee clearly owes his own vote to no one, as evidenced when he bucked his former party in U.S. Senate and stared down the G.O.P. on several divisive issues.
Posted October 21, 2010 at 22:39. 1 comment
If you have been following my Twitter feed or Facebook wall for the past couple months you have undoubtedly seen the links I have passed along for the Jerry Brown campaign in California and the Lincoln Chafee campaign in Rhode Island. As November 2 draws nearer, I thought it was important for me to share why I have chosen to support these candidates so vocally. This is the first entry in a two-part multi-state governor’s endorsement series.
CALIFORNIA — JERRY BROWN
California faces crises on virtually all fronts. 
The nation’s most populous state has highly unbalanced tax policies, increasing unemployment and a state budget slinking ever closer to bankruptcy. Both major party candidates for governor have made some variation of the phrase “getting California working” a campaign slogan, and have stumped on the issue.
Current California Attorney General, Democrat Jerry Brown will bring 40 years of statewide political experience to the governor’s office. As the first governor to succeed Ronald Reagan, Brown was considered, even by many on the right, to be more fiscally conservative than Reagan. Although he is currently endorsed by the Democratic Party, he is fiercely independent. During his campaign as an independent for the mayor’s office in Oakland, he called the two-party political system “deeply corrupted.” In a state where a two-thirds majority vote required to pass a budget in the State Assembly (the issue of votes needed for budget passage is before voters in November as Proposition 25), his independence, experience and political savvy could help advance the stalemate that has brought legislative progress in California to a near-standstill under Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.
Brown’s endorsements run the gamut from woman’s rights groups to environmental groups to county sheriffs to nurses and teachers. Even the hometown newspaper of the Republican challenger Meg Whitman has endorsed Jerry Brown’s candidacy. Whitman, the former eBay C.E.O., argues that her business sense, rather than government experience, will help her lead more effectively. But Whitman has so little government experience that she did not even register to vote until eight years ago at the age of 46. By that age Bill Clinton was already President of the United States. Whitman’s claim that her business experience, and nothing more will turn California around is simply wishful thinking. California isn’t a business. It is so big it barely qualifies as a state. The Golden State is more like a mini … make that a medium-sized nation. A nation that Jerry Brown’s experience, tempered yet liberal ideals and outspoken character is better fit to lead.
Posted October 21, 2010 at 22:38. Add a comment
The IEEE has a great article online about the radio spectrum shortage we are facing as demand increases for mobile broadband products. Here is a quick response:
The article mentions the glaring inefficient use of radio spectrum by broadcast digital TV (DTV). Even after the DTV transition, broadcast TV still occupies nearly 300 MHz of radio spectrum to directly deliver signal to just 10% of TV viewers. However, most cable and satellite operators also get signals from local TV stations over the air and then retransmit them through their respective systems. This is an abysmally inefficient way of delivering video to consumers and a waste of valuable spectrum. Our current scenario is a point-to-point delivery (TV station to cable provider) using a wide-area broadcast model which blankets the region with signals that few actually tune directly.
We need to develop a cost-effective point-to-point delivery system (either microwave or IP) for cable and satellite operators if we are to replace the out-dated model of VHF/UHF broadcast TV. Given that nearly no one receives mobile DTV and less than 10% of TV viewers watch fixed DTV from their home, it makes sense to begin to reclaim this spectrum for broadband applications. The best solution would be to require stations to share multicast frequencies and begin the process of spectrum reclamation. Begin this reclaimation slowly at first and then as the 10% shrinks even further, get more aggressive. Given current trends toward IP mobile video, in 5-10 years there will be nearly no one – except cable and satellite providers – receiving broadcast signals over the air.
Instead of providing low-cost DTV tuners and subsidizing the wasteful DTV transition, the Feds should be subsidizing broadband development in rural areas and providing free, very basic Internet and IPTV to qualifying homes.
Posted October 14, 2010 at 14:15. 1 comment
The 2003 Space Shuttle Columbia disaster was the second in just more than 100 flights of the shuttle fleet. (photo: Wikipedia)
After 9/11 the Bush administration’s knee-jerk reaction was to attempt to stem immigration and tighten airport security. After the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, Gov. Schwarzenegger’s reaction was to stem off-shore drilling. While I personally agree with the decision not to drill in the ocean I am not in favor of knee-jerk reactions, even if they have outcomes agreeable to me. Knee-jerk reactions that are 180 degrees from one’s original stance show poor planning and imply to me that the original decision was made in haste.
Schwarzenegger has known the risks of off-shore drilling for years, yet he continued to support its expansion. This BP spill in the Gulf didn’t change the risk ratio, it merely made it very real for many, many people. It is politically wise for politicians to withdraw support for drilling after this incident but their motivations are suspect. It reminds me of one famous CalTech physicist who discovered that the risk of catastrophic failure of the Space Shuttle was greater than 1 in 100. So-called “NASA experts” at the time had put the risk much much lower saying the shuttle was safe and that the Challenger accident had resulted in serious safety improvements, suggesting that Feynman’s estimates were grossly overstated. Space Shuttle Columbia, the second shuttle to be destroyed in a catastrophic failure was the 113th flight. Had proper research been done and warnings been heeded in the first place the second disaster might have been prevented. Draw whatever parallels you may to our current disaster in the Gulf.
Posted May 20, 2010 at 11:01. 1 comment
