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.
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.
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.
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.
This is my response to FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski’s recent announcement in which he backpedals from his initial promise to support Net Neutrality. It seems that the term the FCC has coined “Open Internet” is what he is lobbying for now. This so-called “Open Internet” falls very short of the free speech protections needed to ensure continued growth from all sectors, not just media conglomerates.
Mr. Genachowski:
As vice president of a small cable operator and Internet service provider, I often find myself swimming upstream against the cable industry tides. Again, I find that my opinion is in opposition to that of most cable and phone companies, but I have not hidden my position on Net Neutrality from my industry colleagues.
The value of high-speed Internet service is based on the existence of an open and free network. Without that freedom, the Internet will become the nightmarish legal quagmire that cable and satellite TV tiers have become: a corporation-controlled landscape of confidential deals and force-fed consumers.
I am concerned about the recent developments that threaten free speech on the Internet. Less than five years ago, congress was poised to attack the cable networks’ programming tier model by mandating a-la-carté offerings. Today, amidst the political distractions of our nation’s other, seemingly more pressing woes, the Internet is edging closer and closer toward a locked-down oligarchical model and a disastrous future for consumers and small businesses alike. My challenge has been convincing other small and medium sized cable operators to see that it makes good business sense for them to support a neutral Internet, as a network under any other structure will stifle free speech under the control of the largest of the media giants.
I urge you, Mr. Chairman, to reconsider and take a stronger position in favor of Network Neutrality. As an advocate for the American people you owe it to them to protect online freedom of speech, which in the 21st century, is as important as any other.
Levi C. Maaia
Vice President, Full Channel
Warren, R.I.
You might have noticed that the K6LCM Weather Camera has been offline quite a bit recently. I have been having some difficulty keeping a connection to the Wunderground FTP webcam server with the DCS-920 WiFi camera. Out of the box, the camera has an FTP client that can be configured to automatically send still images periodically to an FTP server.
I had originally configured this client to send images every 90 seconds to Wunderground. This would work for 2-3 hours and then quit, giving me an error that it could no longer connect to the server. Only restarting the camera would allow it to reconnect. I thought that there might be something wrong with my aging LAN router so I replaced that. No dice! After exchanging the camera for a new one I am still experiencing the problem. One thing that has me suspicious is that the DCS-920′s FTP client doesn’t seem to have a problem with any other FTP server except webcam.wunderground.com. I have no problem uploading images for days without interruption to my own FreeBSD-based maaia.com server.
If anyone out there in Blogland has any suggestions, I am open to them. Right now I have reduced the number of image uploads to once every 360 seconds. Maybe I was overloading the system (shot in the dark).
Updates to follow …
UPDATE November 5, 2010: While the DCS-920′s internal FTP client seems to be unreliable when set to the Weather Underground FTP server, the FTP client built into the software package EvoCam 3.6.9 ($30) is able to maintain a reliable image upload schedule. After two weeks of using the wireless DCS-920 with EvoCam I have had good results. EvoCam gives you many additional options including the ability to save time-lapse movies, add time and date stamps as well as record video when motion is detected. View live video from my camera at the K6LCM weather page.
After several months of mental planning I finally set up a companion weather webcam for my personal weather station. Over the summer I ran a few tests with a cheap USB webcam pointed out the front window, but the view of the yard proved to be rather uninteresting. What I really wanted to do was to capture the mountain-view I noticed from the roof while setting up the weather instruments. This view is not available from any interior portions of the house so I set out to design an outdoor wireless camera system for less than $100.
There are several options for outdoor cameras online. A simple Amazon.com search revealed many choices, but all of the all-weather WiFi units fell outside of the budget that I had restricted myself to. My requirements were that the camera and weatherproof housing be under $100. Given that the unit was to be mounted on the garage and the computer and wired Internet connections are in the main house I was also limited to a WiFi solution. I decided on the D-Link DCS920 Wireless-G Internet Camera, as it is a free-standing unit that can actually handle the scheduled capture and uploading of the images without the help of a computer. Many retailers have the DCS920 in the $80-$90 range.
The DCS920 is not an outdoor camera so I needed an enclosure that would both keep rain out and allow the camera lens to poke through. Camera in hand, I set off to Home Depot where a helpful employee knew right away what to use to keep it dry. He directed me to the electrical department and the Cantex Inc. 6 X 6 X 4 Junction Box. I was able to drill the necessary holes to mount the camera, make the power connection, and allow the lens to see the light of day. An additional make-shift clear plastic covering lets the lens see out, without letting water in. Home Depot also stocks a extension cord which was a near-match for the beige house color and made a less conspicuous power source than a traditional orange extension cord. The camera’s power adapter fit nicely inside the Cantex box alongside the camera, concealing the electrical connection from the rain as well.
The DCS920 has a Web interface that can be setup via Ethernet beforehand in order to enable the wireless connection to a secure 802.11g network. The interface is very basic, and does not readily allow one to keep local archives of images easily (there is an option to email a photo as well as upload it to one FTP server). Aftermarket software is available that allows for greater flexibility over nearly any webcam including the ability to add on-screen captions and time stamps, however I have opted to keep it simple for now.
After plugging in the settings for my Wunderground.com account my weather camera was up and running with a view of the Santa Ynez Mountain range above Santa Barbara. You will find time-lapse videos of the images gathered in the Wunderground archive.
Update October 2, 2010: It should be noted that the D-Link manual notes the following environmental specifications:
Operating temperature: 0°C to 40°C (32°F to 104°F)
Storage temperature: -20°C to 70°C (-4°F to 158°F)
Operating relative humidity: 20% to 80% non-condensing
Update November 5, 2010: The DCS-920′s internal FTP client seems to be unreliable when set to the Weather Underground FTP server, however the FTP client built into the software package EvoCam 3.6.9 ($30) is able to maintain a reliable image upload schedule. After two weeks of using the wireless DCS-920 with EvoCam I have had good results. EvoCam gives you many additional options including the ability to save time-lapse movies, add time and date stamps as well as record video when motion is detected. View live video from my camera at the K6LCM weather page.
The Internet has quickly evolved into one of our most important national resources. However, a recent court decision may change what you have access to through your online connection. UC Santa Barbara communication researcher and network neutrality expert KK Holland talked with Tim and I this morning about the pros and cons of the issue. Listen to the show.
I read the now (in)famous Steve Jobs “Open Letter to Adobe Flash” last week. Jobs did an excellent job explaining his position. I agree that the insecure and proprietary system that seemed poised to dominate the web 8 years ago was misguided. The best sites on the Web don’t rely heavily on Flash (except for maybe YouTube, which may soon adopt HTML 5 video tags) and most of us browsers are sent searching for the “skip intro” button as soon as we see some lengthy splash page animation. Madison Avenue has finally come to realize that Flash frustrates and have dialed it back. That and the push for compatibility with mobile devices has stemmed some of Flash’s growth.
However, I find it ironic for Steve Jobs to compare Flash’s proprietary model to that of the iPhone/iPad, yet go on to say that being proprietary is ok for us (Apple) but not for them (Adobe). His crusade against Flash, while it has some merit, seems more like corporate bullying. These are the same or similar tactics that Bill Gate’s tried early on in the browser wars of the last decade in a format held over from before the PC (see Gate’s Open Letter to Hobbyists which attacked open source before the term “open source” existed).
While I don’t agree with what I believe to be Job’s mostly self-serving motivations, I am happy to see the creative ways that hackers and coders have make other technologies work for them in place of Flash. On the Full Channel site that I maintain we have had a Flash slideshow on the main page for some time. It has been an easy way to keep the site fresh and visually interesting, something we would not have been able to easily do without Flash just a few years ago. However, our slideshow began showing up as a mystery box on more and more devices that did not support Flash.
With the release of the iPad and the ever-increasing sight of passersby engrossed in their iPhones it seemed that this Flash-disabled audience was reaching critical mass. So, today I retired the site’s increasing incompatible .swf slideshow in favor of Jon Raasch’s very simple and elegant jQuery Slideshow. I like that jQuery’s motto is “write less do more.” jQuery is a lighter duty alternative to memory-intensive Flash and it works on many mobile devices including Apple’s. That and I feel a special kinship with Raasch as he too must also be spending a lifetime explaining that in fact there are two “A’s” in his last name.
This dual may not be over between Apple and Adobe. The fervor over Job’s letter is just beginning.
For more on this: Ars Technica has a nice piece today arguing that “Apple is presenting users with a false choice between Adobe’s proprietary software and Apple’s walled garden.”
Dr. Giovanni Vigna, one of the UC Santa Barbara researchers who recently took down one of the largest online criminal networks talked with Tim and me on the radio this morning. He explained how he and the UCSB Computer Security Group foiled the Torpig Botnet which had nearly 200,000 zombie computers trolling for banks account numbers, passwords and personal data. Hear the conversation on this week’s podcast.
RT @tednesi: Sirius will air the Super Bowl in Spanish, Chinese, Japanese, German, Hungarian, Portuguese, Russian, Dutch and French: htt ... [read tweet]2012/02/04
If campaigns are spending billions on advertising, why do local broadcasters charge viewers more than ever? http://t.co/xhXNRCCD[read tweet]2012/02/04
HIAWATHA BRAY’S article “
, as it is a free-standing unit that can actually handle the scheduled capture and uploading of the images without the help of a computer. Many retailers have the DCS920 in the $80-$90 range.
