474 posts categorized "Federal / U.S. Government" Feed

Any Half-Decent Hacker Could Break Into Mar-a-Lago

[Editor's Note: Today's guest blog post is by the reporters at ProPublica. The article explores the security issues about key locations the President visits repeatedly and does business at. It was originally published yesterday, and is reprinted with permission.]

by Jeff Larson and Julia Angwin, ProPublica; and by Surya Mattu, Gizmodo

Two weeks ago, on a sparkling spring morning, we went trawling along Florida's coastal waterway. But not for fish.

We parked a 17-foot motor boat in a lagoon about 800 feet from the back lawn of The Mar-a-Lago Club in Palm Beach and pointed a 2-foot wireless antenna that resembled a potato gun toward the club. Within a minute, we spotted three weakly encrypted Wi-Fi networks. We could have hacked them in less than five minutes, but we refrained.

A few days later, we drove through the grounds of the Trump National Golf Club in Bedminster, New Jersey, with the same antenna and aimed it at the clubhouse. We identified two open Wi-Fi networks that anyone could join without a password. We resisted the temptation.

We have also visited two of President Donald Trump's other family-run retreats, the Trump International Hotel in Washington, D.C., and a golf club in Sterling, Virginia. Our inspections found weak and open Wi-Fi networks, wireless printers without passwords, servers with outdated and vulnerable software, and unencrypted login pages to back-end databases containing sensitive information.

The risks posed by the lax security, experts say, go well beyond simple digital snooping. Sophisticated attackers could take advantage of vulnerabilities in the Wi-Fi networks to take over devices like computers or smart phones and use them to record conversations involving anyone on the premises.

"Those networks all have to be crawling with foreign intruders, not just ProPublica," said Dave Aitel, chief executive officer of Immunity, Inc., a digital security company, when we told him what we found.

Security lapses are not uncommon in the hospitality industry, which -- like most industries and government agencies -- is under increasing attack from hackers. But they are more worrisome in places where the president of the United States, heads of state and public officials regularly visit.

U.S. leaders can ill afford such vulnerabilities. As both the U.S. and French presidential campaigns showed, hackers increasingly exploit weaknesses in internet security systems in an effort to influence elections and policy. Last week, cyberattacks using software stolen from the National Security Agency paralyzed operations in at least a dozen countries, from Britain's National Health Service to Russia's Interior Ministry.

Since the election, Trump has hosted Chinese President Xi Jinping, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and British politician Nigel Farage at his properties. The cybersecurity issues we discovered could have allowed those diplomatic discussions -- and other sensitive conversations at the properties -- to be monitored by hackers.

The Trump Organization follows "cybersecurity best practices," said spokeswoman Amanda Miller. "Like virtually every other company these days, we are routinely targeted by cyberterrorists whose only focus is to inflict harm on great American businesses. While we will not comment on specific security measures, we are confident in the steps we have taken to protect our business and safeguard our information. Our teams work diligently to deploy best-in-class firewall and anti-vulnerability platforms with constant 24/7 monitoring."

The White House did not respond to repeated requests for comment.

Trump properties have been hacked before. Last year, the Trump hotel chain paid $50,000 to settle charges brought by the New York attorney general that it had not properly disclosed the loss of more than 70,000 credit card numbers and 302 Social Security numbers. Prosecutors alleged that hotel credit card systems were "the target of a cyber-attack" due to poor security. The company agreed to beef up its security; it's not clear if the vulnerabilities we found violate that agreement. A spokesman for the New York attorney general declined comment.

Our experience also indicates that it's easy to gain physical access to Trump properties, at least when the president is not there. As Politico has previously reported, Trump hotels and clubs are poorly guarded. We drove a car past the front of Mar-a-Lago and parked a boat near its lawn. We drove through the grounds of the Bedminster golf course and into the parking lot of the golf course in Sterling, Virginia. No one questioned us.

Both President Obama and President Bush often vacationed at the more traditional presidential retreat, the military-run Camp David. The computers and networks there and at the White House are run by the Defense Information Systems Agency.

In 2016, the military spent $64 million on maintaining the networks at the White House and Camp David, and more than $2 million on "defense solutions, personnel, techniques, and best practices to defend, detect, and mitigate cyber-based threats" from hacking those networks.

Even after spending millions of dollars on security, the White House admitted in 2015 that it was hacked by Russians. After the hack, the White House replaced all its computer systems, according to a person familiar with the matter. All staffers who work at the White House are told that "there are people who are actively watching what you are doing," said Mikey Dickerson, who ran the U.S. Digital Service in the Obama administration.

By comparison, Mar-a-Lago budgeted $442,931 for security in 2016 -- slightly more than double the $200,000 initiation fee for one new member. The Trump Organization declined to say how much Mar-a-Lago spends specifically on digital security. The club, last reported to have almost 500 members paying annual dues of $14,000 apiece, allotted $1,703,163 for all administration last year, according to documents filed in a lawsuit Trump brought against Palm Beach County in an effort to halt commercial flights from flying over Mar-a-Lago. The lawsuit was dropped, but the FAA now restricts flights over the club when the president is there.

It is not clear whether Trump connects to the insecure networks while at his family's properties. When he travels, the president is provided with portable secure communications equipment. Trump tracked the military strike on a Syrian air base last month from a closed-door situation room at Mar-a-Lago with secure video equipment.

However, Trump has held sensitive meetings in public spaces at his properties. Most famously, in February, he and the Japanese prime minister discussed a North Korean missile test on the Mar-a-Lago patio. Over the course of that weekend in February, the president's Twitter account posted 21 tweets from an Android phone. An analysis by an Android-focused website showed that Trump had used the same make of phone since 2015. That phone is an older model that isn't approved by the NSA for classified use.

Photos of Trump and Abe taken by diners on that occasion prompted four Democratic senators to ask the Government Accountability Office to investigate whether electronic communications were secure at Mar-a-Lago.

In March, the GAO agreed to open an investigation. Chuck Young, a spokesman for the office, said in an interview that the work was in "the early stages," and did not offer an estimate for when the report would be completed.

So, we decided to test the cybersecurity of Trump's favorite hangouts ourselves.

Our first stop was Mar-a-Lago, a Trump country club in Palm Beach, Florida, where the president has spent most weekends since taking office. Driving past the club, we picked up the signal for a Wi-Fi-enabled combination printer and scanner that has been accessible since at least February 2016, according to a public Wi-Fi database.

An open printer may sound innocuous, but it can be used by hackers for everything from capturing all the documents sent to the device to trying to infiltrate the entire network.

To prevent such attacks, the Defense Information Systems Agency, which secures the White House and other military networks, forbids installing printers that anyone can connect to from outside networks. It also warns against using printers that do more than printing, such as faxing. "If an attacker gains network access to one of these devices, a wide range of exploits may be possible," the agency warns in its security guide.

We also were able to detect a misconfigured and unencrypted router, which could potentially provide a gateway for hackers.

To get a better line of sight, we rented a boat and piloted it to within sight of the club. There, we picked up signals from the club's wireless networks, three of which were protected with a weak and outmoded form of encryption known as WEP. In 2005, an FBI agent publicly broke this type of encryption in minutes.

By comparison, the military limits the signal strength of networks at places such as Camp David and the White House so that they are not reachable from a car driving by. It also requires wireless networks to use the strongest available form of encryption.

From our desks in New York, we were also able to determine that the club's website hosts a database with an insecure login page that is not protected by standard internet encryption. Login forms like this are considered a severe security risk, according to the Defense Information Systems Agency.

Without encryption, spies could eavesdrop on the network until a club employee logs in, and then steal his or her username and password. They then could download a database that appears to include sensitive information on the club's members and their families, according to videos posted by the club's software provider.

This is "bad, very bad," said Jeremiah Grossman, chief of Security Strategy for cybersecurity firm SentinelOne, when we described Mar-a-Lago's systems. "I'd assume the data is already stolen and systems compromised."

A few days later, we took our equipment to another Trump club in Bedminster, New Jersey. During the transition, Trump had interviewed candidates for top administration positions there, including James Mattis, now secretary of defense.

We drove on a dirt access road through the middle of the golf course and spotted two open Wi-Fi networks, TrumpMembers and WelcomeToTrumpNationalGolfClub, that did not require a password to join.

Such open networks allow anyone within range to scoop up all unencrypted internet activity taking place there, which could, on insecure sites, include usernames, passwords and emails.

Robert Graham, an Atlanta, Georgia, cybersecurity expert, said that hackers could use the open Wi-Fi to remotely turn on the microphones and cameras of devices connected to the network. "What you're describing is typical hotel security," he said, but "it's pretty concerning" that an attacker could listen to sensitive national security conversations.

Two days after we visited the Bedminster club, Trump arrived for a weekend stay.

Then we visited the Trump International Hotel in Washington, D.C., where Trump often dines with his son-in-law and senior adviser Jared Kushner, whose responsibilities range from Middle East diplomacy to revamping the federal bureaucracy. We surveyed the networks from a Starbucks in the hotel basement.

From there, we could tell there were two Wi-Fi networks at the hotel protected with what's known as a captive portal. These login screens are often used at airports and hotels to ensure that only paying customers can access the network.

However, we gained access to both networks just by typing "457" into the room number field. Because we provided a room number, the system assumed we were guests. We looked up the hotel's public IP address before logging off.

From our desks in New York, we could also tell that the hotel is using a server that is accessible from the public internet. This server is running software that was released almost 13 years ago.

Finally, we visited the Trump National Golf Club in Sterling, Virginia, where the president sometimes plays golf. From the parking lot, we recognized three encrypted wireless networks, an encrypted wireless phone and two printers with open Wi-Fi access.

The Trump club websites are hosted by an Ohio-based company called Clubessential. It offers everything from back-office management and member communications to tee time and room reservations.

In a 2014 presentation, a company sales director warned that the club industry as a whole is "too lax" in managing and protecting passwords. There has been a "rising number of attacks on club websites over the last two years," according to the presentation. Clubessential "performed [an] audit of security in the club industry" and "found thousands of sensitive documents from clubs exposed on [the] Internet," such as "lists of members and staff, and their contact info; board minutes, financial statements, etc."

Still, the club software company has set up a backend server accessible on the internet, and configured its encryption incorrectly. Anyone who reaches the login page is greeted with a warning that the encryption is broken. In its documentation, the company advises club administrators to ignore these warnings and log in regardless. That means that anybody snooping on the unprotected connection could intercept the administrators' passwords and gain access to the entire system.

The company also publishes online, without a password, many of the default settings and usernames for its software 2014 essentially providing a roadmap for intruders.

Clubessential declined comment.

Aitel, the CEO of Immunity, said the problems at Trump properties would be difficult to fix: "Once you are at a low level of security it is hard to develop a secure network system. You basically have to start over."

ProPublica is a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative newsroom. Sign up for their newsletter.


60 Minutes Re-Broadcast Its 2014 Interview With FBI Director Comey

60 Minutes logo Last night, the 60 Minutes television show re-broadcast its 2014 interview with former Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Director James Comey. The interview is important for several reasons.

Politically liberal people have criticized Comey for mentioning to Congress just before the 2016 election the FBI investigation of former Secretary of State Hilary Clinton's private e-mail server. Many believe that Comey's comments helped candidate Donald Trump win the Presidential election. Politically conservative people criticized Comey for not recommending prosecution of former Secretary Clinton.

The interview is a reminder of history and that reality is often far more nuanced and complicated. Back in 2004, when the George W. Bush administration sought a re-authorization of warrant-less e-mail/phone searches, 60 Minutes explained:

"At the time, Comey was in charge at the Justice Department because Attorney General John Ashcroft was in intensive care with near fatal pancreatitis. When Comey refused to sign off, the president's Chief of Staff Andy Card headed to the hospital to get Ashcroft's OK."

In the 2014 interview, Comey described his concerns in 2004 about key events:

"... [the government] cannot read your emails or listen to your calls without going to a federal judge, making a showing of probable cause that you are a terrorist, an agent of a foreign power, or a serious criminal of some sort, and get permission for a limited period of time to intercept those communications. It is an extremely burdensome process. And I like it that way... I was the deputy attorney general of the United States. We were not going to authorize, reauthorize or participate in activities that did not have a lawful basis."

During the interview in 2014 by 60 Minutes, then FBI Director Comey warned all Americans:

"I believe that Americans should be deeply skeptical of government power. You cannot trust people in power. The founders knew that. That's why they divided power among three branches, to set interest against interest... The promise I've tried to honor my entire career, that the rule of law and the design of the founders, right, the oversight of courts and the oversight of Congress will be at the heart of what the FBI does. The way you'd want it to be..."

The interview highlighted the letter Comey kept on his desk as a cautionary reminder of the excesses of government. That letter was about former FBI Director Herbert Hoover's investigations and excessive surveillance of the late Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Is Comey the bad guy that people on both sides of the political spectrum claim? Yes, history is far more complicated and nuanced.

So, history is complex and nuanced... far more than a simplistic, self-serving tweet:

Many have paid close attention for years. After the Snowden disclosures in 2013 about broad, warrantless searches and data collection programs by government intelligence agencies, in 2014 Comey urged all USA citizens to participate in a national discussion about the balance between privacy and surveillance.

You can read the full transcript of the 60 Minutes interview in 2014, watch this preview on Youtube, or watch last night's re-broadcast by 60 Minutes of the 2014 interview.


FCC Says Denial-Of-Service Attacks Caused Its Site To Crash Sunday Morning

Federal communications Commission logo Last weekend, the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) website crashed during a key period when the public relied upon it to submit feedback about proposed changes to net neutrality rules. Dr. David Bray, the FCC Chief Information Officer, released a statement on Monday that the crash was due to a distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attack:

"Beginning on Sunday night at midnight, our analysis reveals that the FCC was subject to multiple distributed denial-of-service attacks (DDos). These were deliberate attempts by external actors to bombard the FCC’s comment system with a high amount of traffic to our commercial cloud host. These actors were not attempting to file comments themselves; rather they made it difficult for legitimate commenters to access and file with the FCC. While the comment system remained up and running the entire time, these DDoS events tied up the servers and prevented them from responding to people attempting to submit comments. We have worked with our commercial partners to address this situation and will continue to monitor developments going forward."

The FCC’s , Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) is the site the public users to submit and review feedback about proposed changes. Bray's statement did not identify the "bad actors" responsible for the DDoS attack, did not state the countries or locations of the illegitimate site traffic, nor offer much in the way of any substantial details.

A DDoS attack is when hundreds or thousands of internet-connected devices, often coordinated by malware and/or criminals, overwhelm a targeted website by trying to access it simultaneously. This type of attack prevents legitimate users from accessing the targeted site to perform desired tasks (view/buy products, register for services, view videos, get help, contact representatives, etc.). This can easily disable the targeted website for hours, days, or weeks. It can also disrupt businesses, and cause financial losses.

This blog and its hosting service experienced a DDoS attack in 2014 when offshore advertisers retaliated after the hosting service implemented stronger measures to block illegitimate traffic. An October, 2016 DDoS attack against Dyn, a major DNS provider, interrupted many popular websites and services including Spotify, Reddit, and Twitter. Some DDoS attacks are about politics or censorship. A September, 2016 DDoS attack disabled the Krebs On Security blog.

Generally, security experts are concerned about botnets, collections of internet-connected devices used to perform DDoS attacks. These devices can include home WiFi routers, security cameras, and unprotected computers infected with malware. Often, home devices are used without consumers' knowledge nor consent.

Others were skeptical of the FCC's explanation. Some people attributed the crash to John Oliver, the host of the "This Week Tonight" show on HBO. In 2014, the show's viewers crashed the FCC site trying to submit feedback about net neutrality. Oliver published a similar video this past weekend in support of net neutrality.

Broadcasting & Cable reported:

"Fight for the Future is calling on the FCC to release logs on the attack to an independent third party—a security researcher or media outlet—to independently verify the attack. "The agency has a responsibility to maintain a functioning website to receive large numbers of comments and feedback from the public," said Evan Greer campaign director for Fight for the Future. "They can't blame DDoS attacks without proof, they need to fix this problem and ensure that comments on this important issue are not lost."

MediaPost reported that at least two U.S. Senators have demanded answers:

"Senators Ron Wyden (D-Oregon) and Brain Schatz (D-Hawaii) are also seeking answers from the FCC. "As you know, it is critical to the rulemaking and regulatory process that the public be able to take part without unnecessary technical or administrative burdens," the lawmakers write. "Any potentially hostile cyber activities that prevent Americans from being able to participate in a fair and transparent process must be treated as a serious issue."

They are asking the FCC to provide details about any malicious traffic, including how many devices sent malicious traffic to the agency. The lawmakers also have asked the FCC whether it requested investigatory assistance from other federal agencies, and whether it uses any commercial protection services."

A reasonable demand for the FCC to provide proof. If the DDoS attack was a new form of 21st-centry censorship to stop concerned citizens (e.g., voters) from submitting feedback in support of net neutrality, then we all need to know. And, we need to know what the FCC is doing to protect its systems.


Update: Net Neutrality, Adminstrative Law, The Courts, And Next Steps

Federal communications Commission logo A lot has happened since Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Ajit Pai disclosed his plan last week to kill net neutrality. While the FCC commissioners will vote on May 18 about the rules changes, a federal law could affect the outcome. First, Wired reported:

"A 1946 law called the Administrative Procedure Act bans federal agencies making “capricious” decisions. The law is meant, in part, to keep regulations from yo-yoing back and forth every time a new party gained control of the White House. The FCC successfully argued in favor of Title II reclassification in federal court just last summer. That effort means Pai might have to make the case that things had changed enough since then to justify a complete reversal in policy."

Read the text of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). Learn more here.

The recent actions (e.g., privacy, net neutrality) by the Republican-led FCC have definitely resulted in both uncertainty and a yo-yoing of rules. At times, it feels like watching a tennis match. While Pai and other advocates of killing net neutrality have claimed that infrastructure investment has declined due to the reclassification by the FCC, the reality:

"During a hearing earlier this year, senator Edward Markey (D-Massachusetts) pointed to US Census Bureau estimates that broadband investment increased slightly from $86.6 in 2014 to $87.2 billion in 2015..."

Data for 2016 isn't available yet. As I mentioned in a prior post, telecommunications companies made conscious decisions and could have diverted money from other spending to infrastructure. They didn't and chose this legislation path instead. Again from Wired's analysis:

"Other business considerations could also play into changes in telecom spending on network infrastructure, such as a desire to wait and let previous investments pay for themselves before making new ones. The CEO of Verizon, for example, told shareholders that Title II didn’t affect the company’s investment plans. And Martin points out that a recent auction in which companies spent $19.8 billion to buy rights to use more of the wireless spectrum doesn’t exactly look like an industry shy of investing."

"If the infrastructure argument doesn’t fly, Pai could also argue that the rules are unnecessary because proverbial fast and slow lanes for the internet never existed. The problem is that’s not true. The Bush-era FCC ordered Comcast to stop throttling BitTorrent traffic in 2008... Under a secret agreement with AT&T, Apple blocked iPhone users from making Skype calls over the carrier’s network until the FCC pressured the companies into reversing the policy in 2009..."

Read the entire Wired analysis. It makes it crystal clear how corporate ISPs are trying to rig the system for themselves and against consumers.

Second, a recent decision by a federal court rejected big telecom's petition to have the existing FCC's net neutrality rules overturned. On Monday, Ars Technica reported:

"The US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit denied the broadband industry's petition for a rehearing of a case that upheld net neutrality rules last year. A three-judge panel ruled 2-1 in favor of the FCC in June 2016, but ISPs wanted an en banc review in front of all of the court's judges. The request for an en banc review was denied in the order issued today."

What to make of this? The bottom line is that the circuit court decided to uphold the reclassification of broadband ISPs as common carriers and the FCC's net neutrality rules. While big telecom could appeal the decision with the Supreme Court, that seems unlikely since they know that the FCC, led by Chairman Ajit Pai, a Republican, has a majority of Republican commissioners who will vote to overturn net neutrality rules on May 18. And, Chairman Pai will have to overcome any challenges with the APA.

In response to the court decision, FCC Chairman Pai issued this statement:

"In light of the fact that the Commission on May 18 will begin the process of repealing the FCC’s Title II regulations, it is not surprising, as Judges Srinivasan and Tatel pointed out, that the D.C. Circuit would decide not to grant the petitions for rehearing en banc. Their opinion is important going forward, however, because it makes clear that the FCC has the authority to classify broadband Internet access service as an information service..."

Chairman Pai seems hell-bent upon ignoring the historical problems in the broadband industry that plagued consumers, in order to change the rules in favor of big telecom. Those problems led to the reclassification by the FCC. A prior blog post listed some of those problems:

"The lack of ISP competition in key markets meant consumers in the United States pay more for broadband and get slower speeds compared to other countries. Rural consumers and low-income areas lacked broadband services. There were numerous complaints by consumers about usage Based Internet Pricing. There were privacy abuses and settlement agreements by ISPs involving technologies such as deep-packet inspection and 'Supercookies' to track customers online, despite consumers' wishes not to be tracked. Many consumers didn't get the broadband speeds ISP promised. Some consumers sued their ISPs, and the New York State Attorney General invited residents to check their broadband speed with this tool. Tim Berners-Lee, the founder of the internet, cited in March three reasons why the Internet is in trouble. His number one reason: consumers had lost control of their personal information... Some consumers found that their ISP hijacked their online search results without notice nor consent. An ISP in Kansas admitted in 2008 to secret snooping after pressure from Congress."

Third, big telecom is engaged in some savvy, deceptive maneuvering. Ars Technica discussed bizarre claims by Verizon:

"... Verizon's general counsel, Craig Silliman, wants you to believe that Verizon never opposed net neutrality rules, even though it sued the FCC to eliminate them. He's also making the claim that the FCC isn't even talking about eliminating the net neutrality rules, even though FCC Chairman Ajit Pai is proposing to do exactly that."

Watch the Verizon video with Verizon's Silliman. When Silliman said, "changing the legal footing," he is referring to comments by others that the FTC should regulate broadband services, and not the FCC. That places the burden on consumers and the FTC to sue when broadband providers don't deliver the services promised; assuming that broadband providers disclose in their terms-of-service and privacy policies what they will deliver. With regulation by the FCC, consumers would have been in charge of their privacy, big telecom would have been forced to be transparent and explain what they were doing, and big telecom couldn't slice up the internet into slow and fast lanes forcing consumers to pay more to access certain sites.

During the last fight about neutrality in 2014, about about 90 tech companies sent a letter to FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler (Adobe PDF) encouraging the FCC to support for a free and open internet, where consumers decide where to go online with the broadband services purchased. Several notable companies signed that 2014 letter: Amazon, Dropbox, Ebay, Facebook, Gawker, Google, Microsoft, Mozilla, Netflix, Twitter, Vonage, and Yahoo. I did not see Verizon (nor Comcast) in the list of signers.

That's some brilliant and deceptive maneuvering. Big telcom can appear reasonable and deny talking about killing net neutrality rules while knowing that their representative, Chairman Pai and his fellow Republican commissioners at the FCC, will do it for them. Again, from Ars Technica:

"No major Internet service provider has done more to prevent implementation of net neutrality rules in the US than Verizon. After years of fighting the rules in courts of law and public opinion, Verizon is about to get what it wants as the FCC—now led by a former Verizon lawyer—prepares to eliminate the rules and the legal authority that allows them to be enforced."

Fourth, the FCC released its Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM): Proceeding 17-108, "Restoring Internet Freedom" - April 26, 2017 (Adobe PDF). Just as before in 2014 - 15, the new rule is open to public comments. This means, it is time for citizens and voters to take action.

FCC Chairman Pai and others claim that the Internet was working well before, and net neutrality rules are unnecessary and a government intrusion. Ordinary broadband customers can have a great impact. It is time for consumers to submit comments to the FCC. About 25,578 people have already submitted comments. For example, a comment by Darion from Austin, Texas:

"The FCC Open Internet Rules (net neutrality rules) are extremely important to me. I urge you to protect them. Most Americans only have one choice for true high speed Internet access: our local cable company. Cable companies (and wireless carriers) are actively lobbying Congress and the FCC for the power to: i) Block sites and apps, to charge them "access fees;" ii) Slow sites and apps to a crawl, to establish paid "fast lanes" (normal speed) and slow lanes (artificially low speeds); and iii) Impose arbitrarily low data caps, so they can charge sites to escape those caps, or privilege their own services ("zero rating").
They're doing it so they can use their monopoly power to stand between me and the sites I want to access, extorting money from us both. I'll be forced to pay more to access the sites I want, and sites will have to pay a kind of protection money to every major cable company or wireless carrier—just to continue working properly!

The FCC's Open Internet Rules are the only thing standing in their way. I'm sending this to letter to my two senators, my representative, the White House, and the FCC. First, to the FCC: don’t interfere with my ability to access what I want on the Internet, or with websites' ability to reach me. You should leave the existing rules in place, and enforce them.

To my senators: you have the power to stop FCC Chair Ajit Pai from abusing the rules by refusing to vote for his reconfirmation. I expect you to use that power. Pai, a former Verizon employee, has made it clear he intends to gut the rules to please his former employer and other major carriers, despite overwhelming support for the rules from voters in both parties... To the White House: Ajit Pai, a former Verizon employee, is acting in the interests of his former employer, not the American people. America deserves better... To my representative: please publicly oppose Ajit Pai's plan to oppose the rules... I would be happy to speak more with anyone on your staff about the rules and why they’re so important to me. Please notify me of any opportunities to meet with you or your staff."

Be brief. Use your own words. Submit your comments soon, since the deadline fast approaches. Also, tell your elected officials. Participate in local marches and protests. Join the Fight For The Future. Support the EFF.


The Top Complaints About Financial Services. One Complaint Type Grew 325 Percent

Logo for Consumer Financial Protection Bureau After encountering unresolved issues with financial services, many consumers file complaints with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). After each complain, the CFP works hard to get each consumer a reply within 15 days. This process allows the CFPB to track which issues affect most consumers, and to identify emerging problems.

According to its April Monthly Complaint Report, debt collection issues generated the most complaints on average, and complaints about student loans grew the fastest:

"As of April 1, 2017, the CFPB has handled approximately 1,163,200 complaints, including approximately 28,000 complaints in March 2017... Student loan complaints showed the greatest percentage increase from January - March 2016 (773 complaints) to January - March 2017 (3,284 complaints), representing about a 325 percent increase. Part of this year-to-year increase can be attributed to the CFPB updating its student loan complaint form to accept complaints about Federal student loan servicing in late February 2016. The CFPB also initiated an enforcement action against a student loan servicer during this time period."

CFPB Monthly Compalint Report. April, 2017. Table 1. Click to view larger version

The top five categories of complaints about during March, 2017:

  1. Debt collection: 8,711
  2. Credit reporting: 5,498
  3. Mortgages: 3,965
  4. Credit cards: 2,522
  5. Bank account or service: 2,476

Also during March: debt collection complaints represented about 31 percent of complaints; debt collection, credit reporting and mortgage were the top three most-complained-about consumer financial products and services. Together, these three categories represented 65 percent of complaints during March.

The top five categories of complaints since the CFPB began:

  1. Debt collection: 316,810
  2. Mortgages: 272,153
  3. Credit reporting: 195,826
  4. Credit cards: 118,732
  5. Bank account or service: 115,055

The CFPB began accepting complaints for different products and services at different times:

There were regional differences in complaint volume:

"Montana (54 percent), Georgia (46 percent), and Wyoming (45 percent) experienced the greatest complaint volume percentage increase from January - March 2016 to January - March 2017. New Mexico (-20 percent), Iowa (-5 percent), and Kansas (-0.7 percent) experienced the greatest complaint volume percentage decrease... Of the five most populated states, Texas (35 percent) experienced the greatest complaint volume percentage increase and Florida (8 percent) experienced the least complaint volume percentage increase from January - March 2016 to January - March 2017."

The report also tracks complaints by company:

CFPB Monthly Complaint Report. April, 2017. Figure 1. Click to view larger version

The CFPB reported additional details about student loan complaints:

"Approximately 32,700 (or 74 percent) of all student loan complaints handled by the CFPB from July 21, 2011 through March 31, 2017 were sent by the CFPB to companies for review and response. The remaining complaints have been found to be incomplete (7 percent), referred to other regulatory agencies (19 percent), or are pending with the CFPB or the consumer (0.5 percent and 0.4 percent, respectively)... The most common issues identified by consumers are problems dealing with their lenders or servicers (64 percent) and being unable to repay their loans (33 percent)."

"Federal student loan borrowers reported that when contacting their loan servicers regarding financial distress, servicers provided them with information on hardship forbearance or deferment, instead of potentially more beneficial repayment options like income-driven repayment plans... loan borrowers complained of difficulty enrolling in income-driven repayment plans. Borrowers reported lost documentation, extended application processing times, and unclear guidance when seeking to switch from one income-driven repayment plan to another."

Federal student loan borrowers described their experiences when trying to obtain guidance in completing annual income recertification for their income-driven repayment plan. Borrowers reported receiving insufficient information from their servicers to meet recertification deadlines and lengthy processing times. Some federal student loan borrowers stated their payments were misapplied. Borrowers reported overpayments were not applied to specified accounts but rather applied to all accounts managed by the servicer. Additionally, some borrowers’ overpayments—intended to reduce principal balance—were credited to the account as an early payment, resulting in their ac count reflecting a paid ahead status..."

To read more, download the full "April 2017: CFPB Monthly Complaint Report: Vol. 22" (Adobe PDF).


Speech By FCC Chairman. Time For Citizens To Fight To Keep Net Neutrality Protections

Federal communications Commission logo Earlier today, Ajit Pai, the Chairman of the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC), gave a speech titled, "The Future Of Internet Freedom" at the Newseum in Washington, DC. He discussed the history of the Internet, regulation, business investment, innovation, and jobs. He also shared his views on regulation and a desire for the FCC's to pursue a "light touch" regulatory approach:

"First, we are proposing to return the classification of broadband service from a Title II telecommunications service to a Title I information service—that is, light-touch regulation drawn from the Clinton Administration.  As I mentioned earlier, this Title I classification was expressly upheld by the Supreme Court in 2005, and it’s more consistent with the facts and the law.

Second, we are proposing to eliminate the so-called Internet conduct standard. This 2015 rule gives the FCC a roving mandate to micromanage the Internet... The FCC used the Internet conduct standard to launch a wide-ranging investigation of free-data programs. Under these programs, wireless companies offer their customers the ability to stream music, video, and the like free from any data limits. They are very popular among consumers, particularly lower-income Americans... Following the presidential election, we terminated this investigation before the FCC was able to take any formal action. But we shouldn’t leave the Internet conduct standard on the books for a future Commission to make mischief.

And third, we are seeking comment on how we should approach the so-called bright-line rules adopted in 2015. But you won’t just have to take my word about what is in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. I will be publicly releasing the entire text of the document tomorrow afternoon..."

This should not be a surprise. We've heard much of this before from Congresswoman Blackburn, the author of the recently passed House legislation to roll back consumers' online privacy protection. Blackburn said the same about FCC reclassification; that it was bad, and that the internet wasn't broken. Well it was broken prior to to 2014, and in several specific ways.

The lack of ISP competition in key markets meant consumers in the United States pay more for broadband and get slower speeds compared to other countries. Rural consumers and low-income areas lacked broadband services. There were numerous complaints by consumers about usage Based Internet Pricing. There were privacy abuses and settlement agreements by ISPs involving technologies such as deep-packet inspection and 'Supercookies' to track customers online, despite consumers' wishes not to be tracked. Many consumers didn't get the broadband speeds ISP promised. Some consumers sued their ISPs, and the New York State Attorney General invited residents to check their broadband speed with this tool. Tim Berners-Lee, the founder of the internet, cited in March three reasons why the Internet is in trouble. His number one reason: consumers had lost control of their personal information. With all of this evidence, how can Pai and Blackburn claim the internet wasn't broken?

There are more examples. Some consumers found that their ISP hijacked their online search results without notice nor consent. An ISP in Kansas admitted in 2008 to secret snooping after pressure from Congress. Given all of this, something had to be done. The FCC stepped up to the plate and acted when it was legally able to; and reclassified broadband after open hearings. Then, the FCC adopted new privacy rules in November, 2016. Proposed rules were circulated prior to adoption. It was done in the open. It made sense.

Meanwhile, the rollback of FCC broadband privacy rules is very unpopular among consumers. Comments by Pai and Blackburn seem to ignore both that and key events (listed above) in broadband history. That is practicing the "revisionist history" Pai said in his speech he disliked. That leaves me questioning whether they can be trusted to develop reasonable solutions that serve the interests of consumers.

With their victory last month to roll back the FCC's online privacy protections, pro-big-telecom advocates claim they are acting in consumers' best interests. What bull. With that rollback, consumers are no longer in control of their information. (The opt-in and other controls were killed.) Plus, we live in a capitalist society where the information that describes us is valuable property. That's why so many companies want to collect it. Consumers should be in control of their online privacy and the information that describes them, not corporate ISPs.

Corporate ISPs' next target is "net neutrality." Pai referred to it in the "bright lines" portion of his speech. For those who don't know or have forgotten, net neutrality is when consumers are in control -- consumers choose where to go online with the broadband they've purchased, and when ISPs must treat all content equally. That means no blocking, no throttling, and no paid prioritization. Net neutrality means consumers stay in control of where they go online.

Pai claimed this was unclear. Again, more bull. The FCC's no blocking, no throttling, and no paid prioritization position was crystal clear.

Without net neutrality, ISPs decide where consumers can go online, which sites you can visit, and which sites you can visit only if you pay more. ISPs would likely group web sites into tiers (e.g., slow vs. fast "lanes"), similar to premium cable-TV channels. Do you want your monthly internet bill as confusing, complicated, and expensive as your cable-TV bill? I don't, and I doubt you do either.

Pai and Blackburn claim that net neutrality (and privacy) kills innovation. I guess that depends how you define "innovation." If you define innovation as the ability of ISPs to carve up the internet to maximize they profits where consumers pay more, then it should be killed. That's not innovation. That's customer segmentation by price and paid prioritization.

In his speech, Pai provided an appealing explanation about how ISPs spent less on infrastructure. He neglected to mention that decreased infrastructure spending was a choice by ISPs. They could have cut expenses elsewhere and continued infrastructure spending, but they didn't. Instead, ISPs chose the path we see: utilize a compliant, sympathetic Republican-led Congress and White House to get what they wanted -- the ability to charge higher broadband prices -- and use slick, misleading language to appear to be consumer friendly.

Take action today to defend net neutrality protections. Fight For The Future The Pai-led FCC isn't consumer friendly. The GOP-led Congress isn't, either. Regardless of how they spin it. Don't be fooled.

Anyone paying attention already knows this. Concerned citizens fought for and won net neutrality in 2014. Sadly, we might fight the net neutrality fight again.

It will be an uphill fight for two reasons. First, Republicans control the White House, House of Representatives, and Senate. Second, the Trump Administration is working simultaneously on rollbacks for several key issues (e.g., health care, immigration, wall along Mexican border, tax reform, environment, education, terrorism, etc.), making it easier to distract opponents with other issues (and with outrageous midnight tweets). Yet, people demonstrated last week at an open FCC meeting. (Video is also available here.) Now is the time for more concerned citizens to rise, speak up, and fight back. Write to your elected officials. Tell your friends, classmates, coworkers, and family members. Use this action form to contact your elected officials. Participate in local marches and protests. Join the Fight For The Future. Support the EFF.

Some elected officials have already committed to defend net neutrality protections:

What about your elected officials? Have they made a commitment to defend net neutrality? Ask them. Don't be silent. Now is not the time to sit on the sideline and wait for others to do the fighting for you.


LeapLab And Other Defendants Settled With FTC

Recently, a reader wrote via e-mail with feedback about this December 2014 blog post which discussed a lawsuit filed by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) against a data broker, LeapLab, and other defendants. The suit alleged that the defendants sold consumers' sensitive personal information to fraudsters.

The reader was unhappy because he was unable to submit a comment on that blog post. The policy of this blog is to close comments on all blog posts after a year. The reader seemed to interpret that policy as a slight against one of the defendants. No. The closing of comments after a year is equal, consistent treatment.

The reader was also unhappy with comments posted by other readers to that 2014 blog post. Like other blogs, readers freely share their opinions and feedback in the comments section. Like other blogs, I am not responsible for readers' comments. Nor do I censor comments for content. I remind everyone to read the Terms of Service.

The reader's e-mail feedback claimed the blog post was incomplete and one sided. Today's blog post reports the rest of the story.

LeapLab and the other defendants settled the lawsuit with the FTC in February, 2016. The February 18, 2016 FTC announcement stated:

"A group of defendants have settled Federal Trade Commission charges that they knowingly provided scammers with hundreds of thousands of consumers’ sensitive personal information – including Social Security and bank account numbers. The proposed federal court orders prohibit John Ayers, LeapLab and Leads Company from selling or transferring sensitive personal information about consumers to third parties. The defendants will also be prohibited from misleading consumers about the terms of a loan offer or the likelihood of getting a loan. In addition, the settlements require the defendants to destroy any consumer data in their possession within 30 days.

The orders include a $5.7 million monetary judgment, which is suspended based on the defendants sworn inability to pay. In addition to the settlement orders, the court entered an unsuspended $4.1 million default judgment with similar prohibitions against SiteSearch, the remaining defendant in the case."

You can follow the above links to the settlement agreements between each defendant and the FTC, which were approved by the court. Links are also available on the FTC-Leaplab proceedings page.

As a solo blogger with limited resources, I do my best to get it right. There's plenty of privacy news to cover, and I should have reported the above settlement agreements sooner. Hopefully, today's blog post corrects that oversight. I sincerely thank all readers for their feedback and comments.


Security Experts State Privacy Issues With Proposed NHTSA Rules For Vehicle Automation

The Center For Democracy & Technology (CDT) and four cryptographers have stated their security and privacy concerns regarding proposed rules by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) for vehicle automation and communications. In a CDT blog post, Chief Technologist Lorenzo Hall stated that the group's concerns about NHTSA's:

"... proposed rulemaking to establish a new Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS), No. 150, which intends to mandate and standardize vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) communications for new light vehicles... Our comments highlight our concern that NHTSA’s proposal standard may not contain adequate measures to protect consumer privacy from third parties who may choose to listen in on the Basic Safety Message (BSM) broadcast by vehicles. Inexpensive real-time tracking of vehicles is not a distant future hypothetical. Vehicle tracking will be exploited by a multitude of companies, governments, and criminal elements for a variety of purposes such as vehicle repossession, blackmail, gaining an advantage in a divorce settlement, mass surveillance, commercial espionage, organized crime, burglary, or stalking.

Our concern is that the privacy protections currently proposed for V2V communications may be easily circumvented by any party determined to perform large-scale real-time tracking of multiple vehicles at once. This poses a serious costs for both individual privacy and society at large..."

FMVSS Standards include regulations automobile and vehicle manufacturers must comply with. Read the proposed FMVSS Rule 150 in the Federal Register. The proposed rule specifies how vehicles will automatically broadcast Basic Safety Messages (BSM).

The group's detailed submission (Adobe PDF) to the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) described specific privacy concerns. One example:

"2.1 Linking a vehicle to an individual
The NPRM proposes that vehicle location accurate to within 1.5 meters be included in every BSM. Such high accuracy is sufficient to identify a vehicle’s specific parking spot. Assuming a suburban environment where the parking spot is a driveway, this information is enough to identify the owners or tenants... Vehicles can be further disambiguated among members of a household or people sharing parking spots by when they leave and where they go. For instance, shift workers, 9-to-5 office workers, high school students, and stay-at-home parents will all have different, distinguishable patterns of vehicle use. Even among office commuters, the first few turns after leaving the driveway will be very useful for disambiguating people working at different locations..."

So, when you leave home and the route you take can easily identify individuals. You don't have to be the registered owner of the car. Yes, your smartphone broadcasts to the nearest cellular tower and that identifies your location, but not as precisely. Privacy is needed because the bad guys -- stalkers, criminals -- could also use BSMs to spy upon individuals.

The security experts found the proposed BSM privacy statement by NHTSA to be one-sided and incomplete:

"The examples of third-party collection provided in paragraph (b) of the privacy statement mention only benign collection for beneficial purposes, such as accident avoidance, transit maintenance, or valuable commercial services. They selectively highlight the socially beneficial uses of V2V information without mentioning commercial services [which] may not [be] valuable for consumers; or other potential, detrimental, or even criminal uses. This is especially troubling..."

The CDT and security experts recommended that due to the privacy risks described:

"... we firmly believe that, unless a considerably more privacy-conscious proposal is put forward, consumers should be given the choice to opt-in or opt-out (without a default opt-in), and should be made clearly aware of what they are opting in to..."

I agree. A totally sensible and appropriate approach. The group's detailed submission also compared several vehicle tracking methods:

"... physically following a car or placing a GPS device on it, do not allow for mass tracking of most vehicles in a given area. Some options, such as cellphone tracking or toll collection history, require specialized access to a private infrastructure. Cellular data does not provide precise position information to just anyone who listens in... Moreover, cellular technology is evolving rapidly — today it provides more privacy than in the past... license-plate-based tracking requires a line of sight to a given vehicle, and thus is usually neither pervasive nor real-time. A vehicle can be observed driven or parked, but not tracked continuously unless followed. Only a few vehicles can be observed by a camera at any given time. Thus, license-plate-based tracking provides only episodic reports of locations for most vehicles. In contrast, because receiving the BSM does not require a line of sight and the BSM is transmitted ten times per second, multiple vehicles can be tracked simultaneously, continuously, and in real time.

The Privacy Technical Analysis Report concluded that the only option other than BSMs that may be viable for large-scale real-time tracking without any infrastructure access is via toll transponders."

License-plate tracking and the cameras used are often referred to as Automated License Plate Readers (ALPR). Law enforcement uses four types of ALPR technologies: mobile cameras, stationary cameras, semi-stationary cameras, and ALPR databases.

So, BSM provides large-scale real-time tracking. And, while toll transponders provide consumers with a convenient method to pay and zoom through tolls, the technology can be used to track you. Read the full CDT blog post.


Tax Day Protest in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Protesters Demand President Releases His Tax Returns

Rallies and marches in more than 190 cities and towns were held on Saturday April 15 to demand more transparency and fairness related to taxes. The transparency demand is for the 45th President of the United States. During the 2016 presidential campaign, candidate Trump promised to release his tax returns after an Internal Revenue Service (IRS) audit was completed. After winning the election and entering office, President Trump refused to release his tax returns.

The issue is partisan. A Yougov survey in May 2016 found that 61 percent of Americans, 81 percent of Democrats, 60 percent of Independents, and 38 percent of Republicans wanted candidate Trump to release his detailed tax returns.

An estimated 2,500 persons attended the greater Boston area event held on the Cambridge Commons in Cambridge, Massachusetts. The emcee was Mike Connolly, a Massachusetts State representative for Somerville and Cambridge. Several local organizers spoke, including calls for fairness with taxes and the federal budget. The entire rally paused for a moment of silence to remember the victims in the Boston Marathon bombing four years ago.

Future rallies are scheduled to support science, public education, and recognition of climate change. Learn more about today's event at #TaxDayMarch and at #TaxMarchBoston. Photographs of today's event in Cambridge appear below.

Greater Boston area Tax Rally. April 15, 2017

Greater Boston area Tax Rally. April 15, 2017

Greater Boston area Tax Rally. April 15, 2017

Greater Boston area Tax Rally. April 15, 2017

Greater Boston area Tax Rally. April 15, 2017

Greater Boston area Tax Rally. April 15, 2017

Greater Boston area Tax Rally. April 15, 2017

Greater Boston area Tax Rally. April 15, 2017

Greater Boston area Tax Rally. April 15, 2017

Greater Boston area Tax Rally. April 15, 2017

Greater Boston area Tax Rally. April 15, 2017

Greater Boston area Tax Rally. April 15, 2017

Greater Boston area Tax Rally. April 15, 2017

Greater Boston area Tax Rally. April 15, 2017


Poll Finds Republicans Rollback of Broadband Privacy Very Unpopular

A recent poll found that the Republican rollback of broadband privacy rules is very unpopular. Very unpopular. The poll included 1,000 Americans, and the results cut across age, gender, and political affiliations. Despite this, President Trump signed the privacy-rollback legislation on April 3. Since then, many consumers have sought online tools to protect their privacy.

Vox reported the survey results:

Image of Yougov poll results about Republican rollback of broadband privacy. Click to view larger version

Late last week, several Republicans in the House of Representatives sent a letter (Adobe PDF) to Ajit Pai, the Chairman of the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC), urging the FCC to regulate broadband service providers. The letter read, in part:

"We write to ensure that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) stands ready to protect consumer privacy... The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has long been the standard bearer for striking the right balance of consumer protection with a pro-innovative construct that encourages consumer choice, opportunities, and new jobs... An FCC approach that mirrors the FTC will continue to protect consumers in this tumultuous time... Until such time as the FCC rectifies the Title II reclassification that inappropriately removed ISPs from the FTC's jurisdiction, we urge the FCC to hold Internet service providers (ISPs) to their privacy promises..."

The letter was signed by Greg Walden (Chairman, Committee on Energy & Commerce), Marsha Blackburn (Chairman, Subcommittee on Communications & Technology), and 48 other representatives.

Tumultuous times? The tumult was created by the rollback of privacy rules -- a situation created by Republicans. All would have been fine if they'd left the FCC's broadband privacy rules in place; rules consumers clear want -- rules that keep users in control of their online privacy.

Representative Blackburn and her fellow Republicans either doesn't know history or have chosen to ignore it. Several problems have plagued the industry: a lack of ISP competition in key markets, consumers in the United States pay more for broadband and get slower speeds compared to other countries, and numerous privacy violations and lawsuits:

Clearly, the FCC had to act, it did, it held hearings, and then finalized improved broadband privacy rules to help consumers. Now, the Congress and President undid all of that creating the tumult they now claim to want to solve.

Clearly, Representative Blackburn and others are happy to comply with the wishes of their corporate donors -- who don't want broadband classified as a utility. Internet access is a basic consumer need for work, entertainment, and school -- just like water, electricity, and natural gas (for cooking). Internet access is a utility, like it or not. The FCC under Chairman Wheeler had the right consumer-friendly approach, despite the spin by Blackburn and others.

What are your opinions?


President Trump Signed Legislation Revoking FCC's Broadband Privacy Rules. Lots Of Consequences

Late yesterday, President Trump signed legislation revoking broadband privacy rules adopted by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). The rules would have kept consumers in control of their information online. Instead, internet service providers (ISPs) are free to collect, archive, and share at will without notice nor consent information about consumers' online activities (e.g., far more than browsing histories).

The legislation narrowly passed both in the Senate (50 - 48) and in the House (210 - 205). Proponents of the legislation claimed duplicate legislation. Representative Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), who introduced the legislation in the House, said plenty recently according to Breitbart News:

"What we are doing is recalling a privacy rule that the FCC issued right at the end of the Obama administration, and the reason we are doing this is because it is additional and duplicative regulation... What the FCC did was clearly overreach. It gives you two sets of regulators that you’re trying to comply with, not one. So we are recalling the FCC’s rule, and that authority will go back to the FTC...”

"What the Obama administration did... they reclassified your Internet service as Title II, which is a common carrier classification. It is the rule that governs telephone usage... Those rules were put on the books in the thirties. So what the Democrats did... they reclassified Internet, which is an information service, as a telephone service, and then put those 1930s-era rules on top of your Internet service... They did that so they could tax it, so they could begin to regulate it..."

"You don’t need another layer of regulation. It’s like flashing alerts: We don’t need net neutrality. We don’t need Title II. We don’t need additional regulations heaped on the Internet under Title II. The Internet is not broken. It has done just fine without the government controlling it."

Not broken? The founder of the internet, Tim Berners-Lee gave three solid reasons why the internet is broken. His number one reason: consumers have lost control over their personal information.

And, Representative Blackburn either doesn't know history or has chosen to ignore it. Several problems have plagued the industry: a lack of ISP competition in key markets, consumers in the United States pay more for broadband and get slower speeds compared to other countries, and numerous privacy violations and lawsuits:

Clearly, the FCC had to act, it did, it held hearings, and then finalized improved broadband privacy rules to help consumers. Now, the Congress and President undid all of that.

There are plenty of consequences. To regain some online privacy lost due to the new legislation, many consumers have considered Virtual Private Networks (VPNs) and other online tools to prevent ISPs from spying on them. VPNs are not a cure-all. ISPs can still block or throttle consumers' VPN connection, and VPNs won't protect e-mail nor internet-of-things devices installed in homes.

Basically, there is no substitute for consumers being in control of their online privacy with transparent notice by ISPs. The impact upon consumers: less online privacy and higher internet prices. Consumers are forced to spend more money on VPN and other tools.

Blackburn and others claimed that the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) should regulate ISPs. Regulation by the FTC is not a slam-dunk. AdAge reported:

"If the FTC does regain its oversight, the result is likely to be weaker privacy protections than what the FCC intended with its rules, as well as a relatively clear path for telcos to pursue their data-revenue-generating goals... One legal peak to climb: precedent set by a U.S district court ruling siding with AT&T against the FTC last year which carved out an exemption for companies that provide bundled phone and ISP services which effectively protected AT&T from FTC regulations protecting consumers from unfair or deceptive practices.

Even if the FTC eventually garners ISP jurisdiction, argued [Gigi Sohn, a senior counselor to former FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler], "it will lead to some privacy protection but much weaker than what people just lost." She pointed to FTC Chairman Ohlausen's high bar for showing harm against consumers before actions against companies are taken, noting, "She wants to see harm first. Well, rules protect you before you're harmed." "

Despite the claims by Blackburn and others, the bottom line is:

"... what we're left with is a period of uncertainty where the carriers may do certain things but it's unclear. Does the FCC have jurisdiction or does the FTC have jurisdiction?"

The Los Angeles Times reported:

"The FTC is empowered to bring lawsuits against companies that violate its privacy guidelines, but it has no authority to create new rules for industry. It also cannot enforce its own guidelines against Internet providers because of a government rule that places those types of companies squarely within the jurisdiction of the FCC and out of the reach of the FTC. As a result, Internet providers exist in a "policy gap" in which the only privacy regulators for the industry operate at the state, not federal, level, analysts say."

Ambiguity. Lack of clarity. Policy gap. None of those are good for business, or for consumers.

Read more about President Trump's signing of the legislation at C/Net and Reuters.


Congress Passed Joint Resolution To Revoke New Online Privacy Rules By The FCC. Plenty of Consequences

On Tuesday, the U.S. House of Representatives approved legislation to revoke new online privacy rules the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) adopted in 2016 to protect consumers by govern the data collection and sharing of consumers' personal information by Internet Service providers (ISPs). Several cable, telecommunications, and advertising lobbies sent a letter in January asking Congress to remove the new broadband privacy rules, which they viewed as burdensome.

Congress quickly complied. The new legislation consisted of two companion bills: Senate Joint Resolution 34 (S.J. Res. 34) and House Joint Resolution 86 (H.J. Res. 86). The House vote was close: 210 to 205 with 215 Republican representatives voting for S.J. Res. 34. 190 Democratic and 15 Republican representatives voted against it. Consumers can view H.J. Res. 86 votes by their elected officials.

Representative Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) introduced the legislation in the House. Blackburn said plenty in an interview published on Breitbart News:

"What we are doing is recalling a privacy rule that the FCC issued right at the end of the Obama administration, and the reason we are doing this is because it is additional and duplicative regulation... What the FCC did was clearly overreach. It gives you two sets of regulators that you’re trying to comply with, not one. So we are recalling the FCC’s rule, and that authority will go back to the FTC...”

"What the Obama administration did... they reclassified your Internet service as Title II, which is a common carrier classification. It is the rule that governs telephone usage... Those rules were put on the books in the thirties. So what the Democrats did... they reclassified Internet, which is an information service, as a telephone service, and then put those 1930s-era rules on top of your Internet service... They did that so they could tax it, so they could begin to regulate it..."

"You don’t need another layer of regulation. It’s like flashing alerts: We don’t need net neutrality. We don’t need Title II. We don’t need additional regulations heaped on the Internet under Title II. The Internet is not broken. It has done just fine without the government controlling it."

Not broken? Really? The founder of the internet, Tim Berners-Lee gave three solid reasons why the internet is broken. His number one reason on his list: consumers have lost control over their personal information.

Plus, Representative Blackburn either doesn't know history or has chosen to ignore it. Several problems have plagued the industry: a lack of ISP competition in key markets, consumers in the United States pay more for broadband and get slower speeds compared to other countries, and numerous privacy violations and lawsuits:

Clearly, the FCC had to act; and it did. Congress held hearings, too.

Advertisement in the New York Times newspaper after the Senate vote. Click to view larger version The Senate passed S.J. Res. 34 about a week before the House vote Tuesday. The Senate vote was also close: 50 to 48. Senator Jeff Flake (R-Arizona) introduced the legislation in the Senate, and he repeated the same over-reach claims:

"The FCC’s midnight regulation has the potential to limit consumer choice, stifle innovation, and jeopardize data security by destabilizing the internet ecosystem. Passing my resolution is the first step toward restoring a consumer-friendly approach to internet privacy regulation that empowers consumers to make informed choices on if and how their data can be shared. It will not change or lessen existing consumer privacy protections.”

Consumers can view S.J. Res 34 votes by their elected officials. The press release by Senator Flake's office also stated:

"Flake’s resolution, S.J.Res. 34, would not change or lessen existing consumer privacy regulations. It is designed to block an attempt by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to expand its regulatory jurisdiction and impose prescriptive data restrictions on internet service providers. These restrictions have the potential to negatively impact consumers and the future of internet innovation."

Federal communications Commission logo Flake's spin of "midnight regulation" is unfair and inaccurate. The new FCC privacy rules were proposed in April 2016, and enacted in October. That provided plenty of time for discussion and input from consumers, experts, and companies. In March 2016, the FCC released a broadband privacy Fact Sheet, which explained the need for the new privacy rules:

"Telephone networks have had clear, enforceable privacy rules for decades, but broadband networks currently do not... An ISP handles all of its customers’ network traffic, which means it has an unobstructed view of all of their unencrypted online activity – the websites they visit, the applications they use. If customers have a mobile device, their provider can track their physical and online activities throughout the day in real time. Even when data is encrypted, broadband providers can still see the websites that a customer visits, how often they visit them, and the amount of time they spend on each website. Using this information, ISPs can piece together enormous amounts of information about their customers – including private information such as a chronic medical condition or financial problems. A consumer’s relationship with her ISP is very different than the one she has with a website or app. Consumers can move instantaneously to a different website, search engine or application. But once they sign up for broadband service, consumers can scarcely avoid the network for which they are paying a monthly fee."

To distinguish spin from facts, it is critical to read the FCC announcement of its new broadband privacy rules from last year:

"Opt-in: ISPs are required to obtain affirmative “opt-in” consent from consumers to use and share sensitive information. The rules specify categories of information that are considered sensitive, which include precise geo-location, financial information, health information, children’s information, social security numbers, web browsing history, app usage history and the content of communications.

Opt-out: ISPs would be allowed to use and share non-sensitive information unless a customer “opts-out.” All other individually identifiable customer information – for example, email address or service tier information – would be considered non-sensitive and the use and sharing of that information would be subject to opt-out consent, consistent with consumer expectations.

Exceptions to consent requirements: Customer consent is inferred for certain purposes specified in the statute, including the provision of broadband service or billing and collection. For the use of this information, no additional customer consent is required beyond the creation of the customer-ISP relationship.

Transparency requirements that require ISPs to provide customers with clear, conspicuous and persistent notice about the information they collect, how it may be used and with whom it may be shared, as well as how customers can change their privacy preferences;

A requirement that broadband providers engage in reasonable data security practices and guidelines on steps ISPs should consider taking, such as implementing relevant industry best practices, providing appropriate oversight of security practices, implementing robust customer authentication tools, and proper disposal of data consistent with FTC best practices and the Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights.

Common-sense data breach notification requirements to encourage ISPs to protect the confidentiality of customer data, and to give consumers and law enforcement notice of failures to protect such information."

Sounds clear, reasonable, and appropriate. Not perfect, but an improvement of what was before. Addressed transparency concerns, too. To summarize, the new FCC broadband privacy rules kept consumers in control of their sensitive personal information. By revoking those rules, Congress is effectively telling consumers they shouldn't be in control of their own information and ISPs should be in control.

Do you want to be in control of your personal information online? I do, and I suspect you do, too.

Think about the consequences. Once the legislation is signed by President Trump, ISPs will be free to collect, use, and share information describing your online activities. Your ISP is in a unique position because it can scan all un-encrypted data flowing through your internet connection. That typically includes: a) the websites you visit and apps you use; b) which items in "a" you use repeatedly, when and how long; c) the searches you perform online at search engine sites, and via personal assistants, d) activity generated by appliances, televisions, thermostats, security systems, and other devices connected to your home WiFi; and d) the geo-location or where in the physical world your perform online activities. (Besides your smartphone, several devices including your car, fitness bands, smart watches, and wearables collect and share your geo-location data.) Perhaps most importantly, your ISP won't need your consent and probably won't tell you what it is sharing and with whom.

Think about the consequences.

It's not just porn. Your online activities reveal plenty: 1) appointment confirmation emails from your doctor reveal the type of doctor and imply certain medical conditions or procedures; 2) online visits to your bank(s) reveal the types of money and the location of your bank accounts; 3) online activities by your CHILDREN reveal much, including the types of toys and devices they use; 4) work-from-home can reveal proprietary information your employer does not want disclosed; and 5) simple curiosity becomes dangerous. Example: a rash appears on your skin, so you surf over to WebMD to read about symptoms and what it might be. Or, maybe you're reading about a condition of an elderly parentor family member. Problem is: your ISP can infer from your online activities conditions and diseases relate to you, even though they may not. Another example: health care organizations have to comply with HIPPA regulations to protect patients' privacy. Many patients use online healthcare portals by their hospital to coordinate care by several doctors and surgeons. Will your ISP honor HIPPA regulations? They probably won't.

Think about the consequences.

All of that information collected about your online activities could be used against you someday... when you apply for a job, when you sign up for insurance, when you apply for a loan, when you try to adopt a baby or child. Remember, two huge industries exist to help companies buy, sell, and trade information (data brokers); the second (data mining) to help companies merge, manipulate, and analyze the data they've collected and bought.

Comcast logo Think about the consequences. Your ISP may not allow you to decline (e.g., opt out of) the data collection, tracking, usage, and sharing. Or your ISP may charge more fees for online privacy. Don't think that can't happen. Comcast and industry lobbyists have already stated that they want "pay-for-privacy" schemes. So, with Congress' latest action, consumers may soon see price increases and higher monthly internet and wireless bills.

Some consumers are worried, and are exploring technical solutions to thwart ISPs that snoop. The problem: there is no cure-all solution. Some people are angry. To show lawmakers how terrible their decision was, a crowd-funding campaign was started to raise money to buy (and then publish publicly) the internet histories of leading Republicans (e.g., Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, House Speaker Paul Ryan, House Representative Marsh Blackburn) and FCC members who voted for and support the privacy-busting legislation. So, we may then learn which members of Congress watch the most porn.

Lawmakers in some states are already responding to voters' online privacy concerns. In Illinois, lawmakers have introduced two items of legislation: the Geolocation Privacy Protection Act (GPPA) and the Right To Know Act (RTKA). Lawmakers in Nevada introduced geolocation privacy legislation. More states will likely follow.

With the FCC broadband privacy rules revoked, there are five creepy things your ISP could do. What are your opinions of Congress revoking FCC broadband privacy rules?

[Editor's note: this blog post was revised on Friday, March 31 with links to new legislation in Illinois and Nevada.]


We Fact-Checked Lawmakers' Letters To Constituents on Health Care

[Editor's Note: today's guest post, by the reporters at ProPublica, explores the problem of "fake news" and whether elected officials contribute to the problem while discussing health care legislation. The article was originally published yesterday, and is reprinted with permission. Interested persons wanting to help ProPublica's ongoing fact-checking efforts can share with ProPublica messages you have received from your elected officials.]

by Charles Ornstein, ProPublica

When Louisiana resident Andrea Mongler wrote to her senator, Bill Cassidy, in support of the Affordable Care Act, she wasn't surprised to get an email back detailing the law's faults. Cassidy, a Republican who is also a physician, has been a vocal critic.

"Obamacare" he wrote in January, "does not lower costs or improve quality, but rather it raises taxes and allows a presidentially handpicked 'Health Choices Commissioner' to determine what coverage and treatments are available to you."

There's one problem with Cassidy's ominous-sounding assertion: It's false.

The Affordable Care Act, commonly called Obamacare, includes no "Health Choices Commissioner." Another bill introduced in Congress in 2009 did include such a position, but the bill died 2014 and besides, the job as outlined in that legislation didn't have the powers Cassidy ascribed to it.

As the debate to repeal the law heats up in Congress, constituents are flooding their representatives with notes of support or concern, and the lawmakers are responding, sometimes with form letters that are misleading. A review of more than 200 such letters by ProPublica and its partners at Kaiser Health News, Stat and Vox, found dozens of errors and mis-characterizations about the ACA and its proposed replacement. The legislators have cited wrong statistics, conflated health care terms and made statements that don't stand up to verification.

It's not clear if this is intentional or if the lawmakers and their staffs don't understand the current law or the proposals to alter it. Either way, the issue of what is wrong -- and right -- about the current system has become critical as the House prepares to vote on the GOP's replacement bill today.

"If you get something like that in writing from your U.S. senator, you should be able to just believe that," said Mongler, 34, a freelance writer and editor who is pursuing a master's degree in public health. "I hate that people are being fed falsehoods, and a lot of people are buying it and not questioning it. It's far beyond politics as usual."

Cassidy's staff did not respond to questions about his letter.

Political debates about complex policy issues are prone to hyperbole and health care is no exception. And to be sure, many of the assertions in the lawmakers' letters are at least partially based in fact.

Democrats, for instance, have been emphasizing to their constituents that millions of previously uninsured people now have medical coverage thanks to the law. They say insurance companies can no longer discriminate against millions of patients with pre-existing conditions. And they credit the law with allowing adults under age 26 to stay on their parents' health plans. All true.

For their part, Republicans criticize the law for not living up to its promises. They say former President Obama pledged that people could keep their health plans and doctors and premiums would go down. Neither has happened. They also say that insurers are dropping out of the market and that monthly premiums and deductibles (the amount people must pay before their coverage kicks in) have gone up. All true.

But elected officials in both parties have incorrectly cited statistics and left out important context. We decided to take a closer look after finding misleading statements in an email Senator Roy Blunt (R-Missouri) sent to his constituents. We solicited letters from the public and found a wealth of misinformation, from statements that were simply misleading to whoppers. More Republicans fudged than Democrats, though both had their moments.

An aide to Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-California) defended his hyperbole as "within the range of respected interpretations."

"Do most people pay that much attention to what their congressman says? Probably not," said Sherry Glied, dean of New York University's Robert F. Wagner Graduate School of Public Service, who served as an assistant Health and Human Services secretary from 2010 to 2012. "But I think misinformation or inaccurate information is a bad thing and not knowing what you're voting on is a really bad thing."

We reviewed the emails and letters sent by 51 senators and 134 members of the House within the past few months. Here are some of the most glaring errors and omissions:

Rep. Pat Tiberi (R-Ohio) incorrectly cited the number of Ohio counties that had only one insurer on the Affordable Care Act insurance exchange.

What he wrote: "In Ohio, almost one third of counties will have only one insurer participating in the exchange."

What's misleading: In fact, only 23 percent (less than one quarter) had only one option, according to an analysis by the Kaiser Family Foundation.

His response: A Tiberi spokesperson defended the statement. "The letter says 'almost' because only 9 more counties in Ohio need to start offering only 1 plan on the exchanges to be one third."

Why his response is misleading: Ohio has 88 counties. A 10 percent difference is not "almost."

Representative Kevin Yoder (R-Kansas) said that the quality of health care in the country has declined because of the ACA, offering no proof.

What he wrote: "Quality of care has decreased as doctors have been burdened with increased regulations on their profession."

Why it's misleading: Some data shows that health care has improved after the passage of the ACA. Patients are less likely to be readmitted to a hospital within 30 days after they have been discharged, for instance. Also, payments have been increasingly linked to patients' outcomes rather than just the quantity of services delivered. A 2016 report by the Commonwealth Fund, a health care nonprofit think tank, found that the quality care has improved in many communities following the ACA.

His response: None.

Representative Anna Eshoo (D-California) misstated the percentage of Medicaid spending that covers the cost of long-term care, such as nursing home stays.

What she wrote: "It's important to note that 60 percent of Medicaid goes to long-term care and with the evisceration of it in the bill, this critical coverage is severely compromised."

What's misleading: Medicaid does not spend 60 percent of its budget on long-term care. The figure is closer to a quarter, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a liberal think tank. Medicaid does, however, cover more than 60 percent of all nursing home residents.

Her response: Eshoo's office said the statistic was based on a subset of enrollees who are dually enrolled in Medicaid and Medicare. For this smaller group, 62 percent of Medicaid expenditures were for long-term support services, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.

What's misleading about the response: Eshoo's letter makes no reference to this population, but instead refers to the 75 million Americans on Medicaid.

Representative Chuck Fleischmann (R-Tennessee) pointed to the number of uninsured Americans as a failure of the ACA, without noting that the law had dramatically reduced the number of uninsured.

What he wrote: "According to the U.S. Census Bureau, approximately thirty-three million Americans are still living without health care coverage and many more have coverage that does not adequately meet their health care needs."

Why it's misleading: The actual number of uninsured in 2015 was about 29 million, a drop of 4 million from the prior year, the Census Bureau reported in September. Fleischmann's number was from the previous year.

Beyond that, reducing the number of uninsured by more than 12 million people from 2013 to 2015 has been seen as a success of Obamacare. And the Republican repeal-and-replace bill is projected to increase the number of uninsured.

His response: None.

Rep. Joseph P. Kennedy III (D-Massachusetts) overstated the number of young adults who were able to stay on their parents' health plan as a result of the law.

What he wrote: The ACA "allowed 6.1 million young adults to remain covered by their parents' insurance plans."

What's misleading: A 2016 report by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, released during the Obama administration, however, pegged the number at 2.3 million.

Kennedy may have gotten to 6.1 million by including 3.8 million young adults who gained health insurance coverage through insurance marketplaces from October 2013 through early 2016.

His response: A spokeswoman for Kennedy said the office had indeed added those two numbers together and would fix future letters.

Representative Blaine Luetkemeyer (R-Missouri.) said that 75 percent of health insurance marketplaces run by states have failed. They have not.

What he said: "Nearly 75 percent of state-run exchanges have already collapsed, forcing more than 800,000 Americans to find new coverage."

What's misleading: When the ACA first launched, 16 states and the District of Columbia opted to set up their own exchanges for residents to purchase insurance, instead of using the federal marketplace, known as Healthcare.gov.

Of the 16, four state exchanges, in Oregon, Hawaii, New Mexico and Nevada, failed, and Kentucky plans to close its exchange this year, according to a report by the House Energy and Commerce Committee. While the report casts doubt on the viability of other state exchanges, it is clear that 3/4 have not failed.

His response: None.

Representative Dana Rohrabacher (R-California) overstated that the ACA "distorted labor markets," prompting employers to shift workers from full-time jobs to part-time jobs.

What he said: "It has also, through the requirement that employees that work thirty hours or more be considered full time and thus be offered health insurance by their employer, distorted the labor market."

What's misleading: A number of studies have found little to back up that assertion. A 2016 study published by the journal Health Affairs examined data on hours worked, reason for working part time, age, education and health insurance status. "We found only limited evidence to support this speculation" that the law led to an increase in part-time employment, the authors wrote. Another study found much the same.

In addition, PolitiFact labeled as false a statement last June by President Donald Trump in which he said, "Because of Obamacare, you have so many part-time jobs."

His response: Rohrabacher spokesman Ken Grubbs said the congressman's statement was based on an article that said, "Are Republicans right that employers are capping workers' hours to avoid offering health insurance? The evidence suggests the answer is 'yes,' although the number of workers affected is fairly small."

We pointed out that "fairly small" was hardly akin to distorting the labor market. To which Grubbs replied, "The congressman's letter is well within the range of respected interpretations. That employers would react to Obamacare's impact in such way is so obvious, so nearly axiomatic, that it is pointless to get lost in the weeds," Grubbs said.

Representative Mike Bishop (R-Michigan) appears to have cited a speculative 2013 report by a GOP-led House committee as evidence of current and future premium increases under the ACA.

What he wrote: "Health insurance premiums are slated to increase significantly. Existing customers can expect an average increase of 73 percent, while the average change due to Obamacare for those purchasing a new plan will be a 96 percent increase in premiums. The average cost for a new customer in the individual market is expected to rise $1,812 per year."

What's misleading: The figures seem to have come from a report issued before the Obamacare insurance marketplaces launched and before 2014 premiums had been announced. The letter implies these figures are current. In fact, premium increases by and large have been moderate under Obamacare. The average monthly premium for a benchmark plan, upon which federal subsidies are calculated, increased about 2 percent from 2014 to 2015; 7 percent from 2015 to 2016; and 25 percent this year, for states that take part in the federal insurance marketplace.

His response: None

Representative Dan Newhouse (R-Washington) misstated the reasons why Medicaid costs per person were higher than expected in 2015.

What he wrote: "A Medicaid actuarial report from August 2016 found that the average cost per enrollee was 49 percent higher than estimated just a year prior 2014 in large part due to beneficiaries seeking care at more expensive hospital emergency rooms due to difficulty finding a doctor and long waits for appointments."

What's misleading: The report did not blame the higher costs on the difficulty patients had finding doctors. Among the reasons the report did cite: patients who were sicker than anticipated and required a raft of services after being previously uninsured. The report also noted that costs are expected to decrease in the future.

His response: None

Senator Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) wrongly stated that family premiums are declining under Obamacare.

What he wrote: "Families are seeing lower premiums on their insurance, seniors are saving money on prescription drug costs, and hospital readmission rates are dropping."

What's misleading: Durbin's second and third points are true. The first, however, is misleading. Family insurance premiums have increased in recent years, although with government subsidies, some low- and middle-income families may be paying less for their health coverage than they once did.

His response: Durbin's office said it based its statement on an analysis published in the journal Health Affairs that said that individual health insurance premiums dropped between 2013 and 2014, the year that Obamacare insurance marketplaces began. It also pointed to a Washington Post opinion piece that said that premiums under the law are lower than they would have been without the law.

Why his response is misleading: The Post piece his office cites states clearly, "Yes, insurance premiums are going up, both in the health care exchanges and in the employer-based insurance market."

Representative Susan Brooks (R-Ind.) told constituents that premiums nationwide were slated to jump from 2016 to 2017, but failed to mention that premiums for some plans in her home state actually decreased.

What she wrote: "Since the enactment of the ACA, deductibles are up, on average, 63 percent. To make matters worse, monthly premiums for the "bronze plan" rose 21 percent from 2016 to 2017. 2026 Families and individuals covered through their employer are forced to make the difficult choice: pay their premium each month or pay their bills."

What's misleading: Brooks accurately cited national data from the website HealthPocket, but her statement is misleading. Indiana was one of two states in which the premium for a benchmark health plan -- the plan used to calculate federal subsidies -- actually went down between 2016 and 2017. Moreover, more than 80 percent of marketplace consumers in Indiana receive subsidies that lowered their premium costs. The HealthPocket figures refer to people who do not qualify for those subsidies.

Her response: Brooks' office referred to a press release from Indiana's Department of Insurance, which took issue with an Indianapolis Star story about premiums going down. The release, from October, when Vice President Mike Pence was Indiana's governor, said that the average premiums would go up more than 18 percent over 2016 rates based on enrollment at that time. In addition, the release noted, 68,000 Indiana residents lost their health plans when their insurers withdrew from the market.

Why her response is misleading: For Indiana consumers who shopped around, which many did, there was an opportunity to find a cheaper plan.

Senator Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) incorrectly said that the Republican bill to repeal Obamacare would cut funding for seniors in nursing homes.

What he wrote: "It's terrible for seniors. Trumpcare forces older Americans to pay 5 times the amount younger Americans will -- an age tax -- and slashes Medicaid benefits for nursing home care that two out of three Americans in nursing homes rely on."

What's misleading: Wyden is correct that the GOP bill, known as the American Health Care Act, would allow insurance companies to charge older adults five times higher premiums than younger ones, compared to three times higher premiums under the existing law. However, it does not directly slash Medicaid benefits for nursing home residents. It proposes cutting Medicaid funding and giving states a greater say in setting their own priorities. States may, as a result, end up cutting services, jeopardizing nursing home care for poor seniors, advocates say, because it is one of the most expensive parts of the program.

His response: Taylor Harvey, a spokesman for Wyden, defended the statement, noting that the GOP health bill cuts Medicaid funding by $880 billion over 10 years and places a cap on spending. "Cuts to Medicaid would force states to nickel and dime nursing homes, restricting access to care for older Americans and making it a benefit in name only," he wrote.

Why his response is misleading: The GOP bill does not spell out how states make such cuts.

Representative Derek Kilmer (D-Washington) misleadingly said premiums would rise under the Obamacare replacement bill now being considered by the House.

What he wrote: "It's about the 24 million Americans expected to lose their insurance under the Trumpcare plan and for every person who will see their insurance premiums rise 2014 on average 10-15 percent."

Why it's misleading: First, the Congressional Budget Office did estimate that the GOP legislation would cover 24 million fewer Americans by 2026. But not all of those people would "lose their insurance." Some would choose to drop coverage because the bill would no longer make it mandatory to have health insurance, as is the case now.

Second, the budget office did say that in 2018 and 2019, premiums under the GOP bill would be 15-20 percent higher than they would have been under Obamacare because the share of unhealthy patients would increase as some of those who are healthy drop out. But it noted that after that, premiums would be lower than under the ACA.

His response: None.

ProPublica is a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative newsroom. Sign up for their newsletter.


4 Charged, Including Russian Government Agents, In Massive Yahoo Hack

Department of Justice logo The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) announced yesterday that a grand jury in the Northern District of California has indicted four defendants, including two officers of the Russian Federal Security Service (FSB), for computer hacking, economic espionage and other criminal offenses related to the massive hack of millions of Yahoo webmail accounts. The charges were announced by Attorney General Jeff Sessions of the U.S. Department of Justice, Director James Comey of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Acting Assistant Attorney General Mary McCord of the National Security Division, U.S. Attorney Brian Stretch for the Northern District of California and Executive Assistant Director Paul Abbate of the FBI’s Criminal, Cyber, Response and Services Branch.

The announcement described how the defendants, beginning in January 2014:

"... unauthorized access to Yahoo’s systems to steal information from about at least 500 million Yahoo accounts and then used some of that stolen information to obtain unauthorized access to the contents of accounts at Yahoo, Google and other webmail providers, including accounts of Russian journalists, U.S. and Russian government officials and private-sector employees of financial, transportation and other companies. One of the defendants also exploited his access to Yahoo’s network for his personal financial gain, by searching Yahoo user communications for credit card and gift card account numbers, redirecting a subset of Yahoo search engine web traffic so he could make commissions and enabling the theft of the contacts of at least 30 million Yahoo accounts to facilitate a spam campaign."

The four defendants are:

  1. Dmitry Aleksandrovich Dokuchaev, 33, a Russian national and resident
  2. Igor Anatolyevich Sushchin, 43, a Russian national and resident,
  3. Alexsey Alexseyevich Belan, aka “Magg,” 29, a Russian national and resident, and
  4. Karim Baratov (a/k/a "Kay," "Karim Taloverov," and "Karim Akehmet Tokbergenov") 22, a Canadian and Kazakh national and a resident of Canada.

Several lawsuits have resulted from the Yahoo breach including a shareholder lawsuit alleging a breach of fiduciary duty by the directors of the tech company, and a class-action regarding stolen credit card payment information.

Attorney General Sessions said about the charges against four defendants:

"Cyber crime poses a significant threat to our nation’s security and prosperity, and this is one of the largest data breaches in history... But thanks to the tireless efforts of U.S. prosecutors and investigators, as well as our Canadian partners, today we have identified four individuals, including two Russian FSB officers, responsible for unauthorized access to millions of users’ accounts. The United States will vigorously investigate and prosecute the people behind such attacks..."

FBI Director said:

"... we continue to pierce the veil of anonymity surrounding cyber crimes... We are shrinking the world to ensure that cyber criminals think twice before targeting U.S. persons and interests."

Acting Assistant Attorney General McCord said:

"The criminal conduct at issue, carried out and otherwise facilitated by officers from an FSB unit that serves as the FBI’s point of contact in Moscow on cybercrime matters, is beyond the pale... hackers around the world can and will be exposed and held accountable. State actors may be using common criminals to access the data they want..."


Can Customs and Border Officials Search Your Phone? These Are Your Rights

[Editor's note: today's guest post is by the reporters at ProPublica. Past actions by CBP, including the search of a domestic flight, have raised privacy concerns among many citizens. Informed consumers know their privacy rights before traveling. This news article first appeared on March 13 and is reprinted with permission.]

by Patrick G. Lee, ProPublica

A NASA scientist heading home to the U.S. said he was detained in January at a Houston airport, where Customs and Border Protection officers pressured him for access to his work phone and its potentially sensitive contents.

Last month, CBP agents checked the identification of passengers leaving a domestic flight at New York's John F. Kennedy Airport during a search for an immigrant with a deportation order.

And in October, border agents seized phones and other work-related material from a Canadian photojournalist. They blocked him from entering the U.S. after he refused to unlock the phones, citing his obligation to protect his sources.

These and other recent incidents have revived confusion and alarm over what powers border officials actually have and, perhaps more importantly, how to know when they are overstepping their authority.

The unsettling fact is that border officials have long had broad powers -- many people just don't know about them. Border officials, for instance, have search powers that extend 100 air miles inland from any external boundary of the U.S. That means border agents can stop and question people at fixed checkpoints dozens of miles from U.S. borders. They can also pull over motorists whom they suspect of a crime as part of "roving" border patrol operations.

Sowing even more uneasiness, ambiguity around the agency's search powers -- especially over electronic devices -- has persisted for years as courts nationwide address legal challenges raised by travelers, privacy advocates and civil-rights groups.

We've dug out answers about the current state-of-play when it comes to border searches, along with links to more detailed resources.

Doesn't the Fourth Amendment protect us from "unreasonable searches and seizures"?

Yes. The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution articulates the "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures." However, those protections are lessened when entering the country at international terminals at airports, other ports of entry and subsequently any location that falls within 100 air miles of an external U.S. boundary.

How broad is Customs and Border Protection's search authority?

According to federal statutes, regulations and court decisions, CBP officers have the authority to inspect, without a warrant, any person trying to gain entry into the country and their belongings. CBP can also question individuals about their citizenship or immigration status and ask for documents that prove admissibility into the country.

This blanket authority for warrantless, routine searches at a port of entry ends when CBP decides to undertake a more invasive procedure, such as a body cavity search. For these kinds of actions, the CBP official needs to have some level of suspicion that a particular person is engaged in illicit activity, not simply that the individual is trying to enter the U.S.

Does CBP's search authority cover electronic devices like smartphones and laptops?

Yes. CBP refers to several statutes and regulations in justifying its authority to examine "computers, disks, drives, tapes, mobile phones and other communication devices, cameras, music and other media players, and any other electronic or digital devices."

According to current CBP policy, officials should search electronic devices with a supervisor in the room, when feasible, and also in front of the person being questioned "unless there are national security, law enforcement, or other operational considerations" that take priority. For instance, if allowing a traveler to witness the search would reveal sensitive law enforcement techniques or compromise an investigation, "it may not be appropriate to allow the individual to be aware of or participate in a border search," according to a 2009 privacy impact assessment by the Department of Homeland Security.

CBP says it can conduct these searches "with or without" specific suspicion that the person who possesses the items is involved in a crime.

With a supervisor's sign-off, CBP officers can also seize an electronic device -- or a copy of the information on the device -- "for a brief, reasonable period of time to perform a thorough border search." Such seizures typically shouldn't exceed five days, although officers can apply for extensions in up to one-week increments, according to CBP policy. If a review of the device and its contents does not turn up probable cause for seizing it, CBP says it will destroy the copied information and return the device to its owner.

Can CBP really search my electronic devices without any specific suspicion that I might have committed a crime?

The Supreme Court has not directly ruled on this issue. However, a 2013 decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit -- one level below the Supreme Court -- provides some guidance on potential limits to CBP's search authority.

In a majority decision, the court affirmed that cursory searches of laptops -- such as having travelers turn their devices on and then examining their contents -- does not require any specific suspicions about the travelers to justify them.

The court, however, raised the bar for a "forensic examination" of the devices, such as using "computer software to analyze a hard drive." For these more powerful, intrusive and comprehensive searches, which could provide access to deleted files and search histories, password-protected information and other private details, border officials must have a "reasonable suspicion" of criminal activity -- not just a hunch.

As it stands, the 2013 appeals court decision legally applies only to the nine Western states in the Ninth Circuit, including California, Arizona, Nevada, Oregon and Washington. It's not clear whether CBP has taken the 2013 decision into account more broadly: The last time the agency publicly updated its policy for searching electronic devices was in 2009. CBP is currently reviewing that policy and there is "no specific timeline" for when an updated version might be announced, according to the agency.

"Laptop computers, iPads and the like are simultaneously offices and personal diaries. They contain the most intimate details of our lives," the court's decision said. "It is little comfort to assume that the government -- for now -- does not have the time or resources to seize and search the millions of devices that accompany the millions of travelers who cross our borders. It is the potential unfettered dragnet effect that is troublesome."

During the 2016 fiscal year, CBP officials conducted 23,877 electronic media searches, a five-fold increase from the previous year. In both the 2015 and 2016 fiscal years, the agency processed more than 380 million arriving travelers.

Am I legally required to disclose the password for my electronic device or social media, if CBP asks for it?

That's still an unsettled question, according to Liza Goitein, co-director of the Liberty and National Security Program at the Brennan Center for Justice. "Until it becomes clear that it's illegal to do that, they're going to continue to ask," she said.

The Fifth Amendment says that no one shall be made to serve as "a witness against himself" in a criminal case. Lower courts, however, have produced differing decisions on how exactly the Fifth Amendment applies to the disclosure of passwords to electronic devices.

Customs officers have the statutory authority "to demand the assistance of any person in making any arrest, search, or seizure authorized by any law enforced or administered by customs officers, if such assistance may be necessary." That statute has traditionally been invoked by immigration agents to enlist the help of local, state and other federal law enforcement agencies, according to Nathan Wessler, a staff attorney with the ACLU's Speech, Privacy and Technology Project. Whether the statute also compels individuals being interrogated by border officials to divulge their passwords has not been directly addressed by a court, Wessler said.

Even with this legal uncertainty, CBP officials have broad leverage to induce travelers to share password information, especially when someone just wants to catch their flight, get home to family or be allowed to enter the country. "Failure to provide information to assist CBP may result in the detention and/or seizure of the electronic device," according to a statement provided by CBP.

Travelers who refuse to give up passwords could also be detained for longer periods and have their bags searched more intrusively. Foreign visitors could be turned away at the border, and green card holders could be questioned and challenged about their continued legal status.

"People need to think about their own risks when they are deciding what to do. US citizens may be comfortable doing things that non-citizens aren't, because of how CBP may react," Wessler said.

What is some practical advice for protecting my digital information?

Consider which devices you absolutely need to travel with, and which ones you can leave at home. Setting a strong password and encrypting your devices are helpful in protecting your data, but you may still lose access to your devices for undefined periods should border officials decide to seize and examine their contents.

Another option is to leave all of your devices behind and carry a travel-only phone free of most personal information. However, even this approach carries risks. "We also flag the reality that if you go to extreme measures to protect your data at the border, that itself may raise suspicion with border agents," according to Sophia Cope, a staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation. "It's so hard to tell what a single border agent is going to do."

The EFF has released an updated guide to data protection options here.

Does CBP recognize any exceptions to what it can examine on electronic devices?

If CBP officials want to search legal documents, attorney work product or information protected by attorney-client privilege, they may have to follow "special handling procedures," according to agency policy. If there's suspicion that the information includes evidence of a crime or otherwise relates to "the jurisdiction of CBP," the border official must consult the CBP associate/assistant chief counsel before undertaking the search.

As for medical records and journalists' notes, CBP says its officers will follow relevant federal laws and agency policies in handling them. When asked for more information on these procedures, an agency spokesperson said that CBP has "specific provisions" for dealing with this kind of information, but did not elaborate further. Questions that arise regarding these potentially sensitive materials can be handled by the CBP associate/assistant chief counsel, according to CBP policy. The agency also says that it will protect business or commercial information from "unauthorized disclosure."

Am I entitled to a lawyer if I'm detained for further questioning by CBP?

No. According to a statement provided by CBP, "All international travelers arriving to the U.S. are subject to CBP processing, and travelers bear the burden of proof to establish that they are clearly eligible to enter the United States. Travelers are not entitled to representation during CBP administrative processing, such as primary and secondary inspection."

Even so, some immigration lawyers recommend that travelers carry with them the number for a legal aid hotline or a specific lawyer who will be able to help them, should they get detained for further questioning at a port of entry.

"It is good practice to ask to speak to a lawyer," said Paromita Shah, associate director at the National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild. "We always encourage people to have a number where their attorney can be reached, so they can explain what is happening and their attorney can try to intervene. It's definitely true that they may not be able to get into the actual space, but they can certainly intervene."

Lawyers who fill out this form on behalf of a traveler headed into the United States might be allowed to advocate for that individual, although local practices can vary, according to Shah.

Can I record my interaction with CBP officials?

Individuals on public land are allowed to record and photograph CBP operations so long as their actions do not hinder traffic, according to CBP. However, the agency prohibits recording and photography in locations with special security and privacy concerns, including some parts of international airports and other secure port areas.

Does CBP's power to stop and question people extend beyond the border and ports of entry?

Yes. Federal statutes and regulations empower CBP to conduct warrantless searches for people travelling illegally from another country in any "railway car, aircraft, conveyance, or vehicle" within 100 air miles from "any external boundary" of the country. About two-thirds of the U.S. population live in this zone, including the residents of New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, Philadelphia and Houston, according to the ACLU.

As a result, CBP currently operates 35 checkpoints, where they can stop and question motorists traveling in the U.S. about their immigration status and make "quick observations of what is in plain view" in the vehicle without a warrant, according to the agency. Even at a checkpoint, however, border officials cannot search a vehicle's contents or its occupants unless they have probable cause of wrongdoing, the agency says. Failing that, CBP officials can ask motorists to allow them to conduct a search, but travelers are not obligated to give consent.

When asked how many people were stopped at CBP checkpoints in recent years, as well as the proportion of those individuals detained for further scrutiny, CBP said they didn't have the data "on hand" but that the number of people referred for secondary questioning was "minimum." At the same time, the agency says that checkpoints "have proven to be highly effective tools in halting the flow of illegal traffic into the United States."

Within 25 miles of any external boundary, CBP has the additional patrol power to enter onto private land, not including dwellings, without a warrant.

Where can CBP set up checkpoints?

CBP chooses checkpoint locations within the 100-mile zone that help "maximize border enforcement while minimizing effects on legitimate traffic," the agency says.

At airports that fall within the 100-mile zone, CBP can also set up checkpoints next to airport security to screen domestic passengers who are trying to board their flights, according to Chris Rickerd, a policy counsel at the ACLU's National Political Advocacy Department.

"When you fly out of an airport in the southwestern border, say McAllen, Brownsville or El Paso, you have Border Patrol standing beside TSA when they're doing the checks for security. They ask you the same questions as when you're at a checkpoint. 'Are you a US citizen?' They're essentially doing a brief immigration inquiry in the airport because it's part of the 100-mile zone," Rickerd said. "I haven't seen this at the northern border."

Can CBP do anything outside of the 100-mile zone?

Yes. Many of CBP's law enforcement and patrol activities, such as questioning individuals, collecting evidence and making arrests, are not subject to the 100-mile rule, the agency says. For instance, the geographical limit does not apply to stops in which border agents pull a vehicle over as part of a "roving patrol" and not a fixed checkpoint, according to Rickerd of the ACLU. In these scenarios, border agents need reasonable suspicion that an immigration violation or crime has occurred to justify the stop, Rickerd said. For stops outside the 100-mile zone, CBP agents must have probable cause of wrongdoing, the agency said.

The ACLU has sued the government multiple times for data on roving patrol and checkpoint stops. Based on an analysis of records released in response to one of those lawsuits, the ACLU found that CBP officials in Arizona failed "to record any stops that do not lead to an arrest, even when the stop results in a lengthy detention, search, and/or property damage."

The lack of detailed and easily accessible data poses a challenge to those seeking to hold CBP accountable to its duties.

"On the one hand, we fight so hard for reasonable suspicion to actually exist rather than just the whim of an officer to stop someone, but on the other hand, it's not a standard with a lot of teeth," Rickerd said. "The courts would scrutinize it to see if there's anything impermissible about what's going on. But if we don't have data, how do you figure that out?"

ProPublica is a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative newsroom. Sign up for their newsletter.

 


WikiLeaks Claimed CIA Lost Control Of Its Hacking Tools For Phones And Smart TVs

Central Intelligence Agency logo A hacking division of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has collected an arsenal of hundreds of tools to control a variety of smartphones and smart televisions, including devices made by Apple, Google, Microsoft, Samsung and others. The Tuesday, March 7 press release by WikiLeaks claimed this lost arsenal during its release of:

"... 8,761 documents and files from an isolated, high-security network situated inside the CIA's Center for Cyber Intelligence in Langley, Virginia... Recently, the CIA lost control of the majority of its hacking arsenal including malware, viruses, trojans, weaponized "zero day" exploits, malware remote control systems and associated documentation. This extraordinary collection, which amounts to more than several hundred million lines of code, gives its possessor the entire hacking capacity of the CIA. The archive appears to have been circulated among former U.S. government hackers and contractors in an unauthorized manner, one of whom has provided WikiLeaks with portions of the archive."

WikiLeaks used the code name "Vault 7" to identify this release of its first set of documents, and claimed its source for the documents was a former government hacker or contractor. It also said that its source wanted to encourage a public debate about the CIA's capabilities, which allegedly overlap with the National Security Agency (NSA) causing waste.

The announcement also included statements allegedly describing the CIA's capabilities:

"CIA malware and hacking tools are built by EDG (Engineering Development Group), a software development group within CCI (Center for Cyber Intelligence), a department belonging to the CIA's DDI (Directorate for Digital Innovation)... By the end of 2016, the CIA's hacking division, which formally falls under the agency's Center for Cyber Intelligence (CCI), had over 5000 registered users and had produced more than a thousand hacking systems, trojans, viruses, and other "weaponized" malware... The CIA's Mobile Devices Branch (MDB) developed numerous attacks to remotely hack and control popular smart phones. Infected phones can be instructed to send the CIA the user's geolocation, audio and text communications as well as covertly activate the phone's camera and microphone. Despite iPhone's minority share (14.5%) of the global smart phone market in 2016, a specialized unit in the CIA's Mobile Development Branch produces malware to infest, control and exfiltrate data from iPhones and other Apple products running iOS, such as iPads."

CIA's capabilities reportedly include the "Weeping Angel" program:

"... developed by the CIA's Embedded Devices Branch (EDB), which infests smart TVs, transforming them into covert microphones, is surely its most emblematic realization. The attack against Samsung smart TVs was developed in cooperation with the United Kingdom's MI5/BTSS. After infestation, Weeping Angel places the target TV in a 'Fake-Off' mode, so that the owner falsely believes the TV is off when it is on. In 'Fake-Off' mode the TV operates as a bug, recording conversations in the room and sending them over the Internet to a covert CIA server."

Besides phones and smart televisions, WikiLeaks claimed the agency seeks to hack internet-connect autos and vehicles:

"As of October 2014 the CIA was also looking at infecting the vehicle control systems used by modern cars and trucks. The purpose of such control is not specified, but it would permit the CIA to engage in nearly undetectable assassinations."

No doubt that during the coming weeks and months security experts will analyze the documents for veracity. The whole situation is reminiscent of the disclosures in 2013 about broad surveillance programs by the National Security Agency (NSA). You can read more about yesterday's disclosures by WikiLeaks at the Guardian UK, CBS News, the McClatchy DC news wire, and at Consumer Reports.


FCC Announced Approval ot LTE-U Mobile Devices

On Wednesday, the Office of Engineering and Technology (OET) within the U.S. Federal Communications announced the authorization of unlicensed wireless (a/k/a LTE-U) devices to operate in the 5 GHz band:

"This action follows a collaborative industry process to ensure LTE-U with Wi-Fi and other unlicensed devices operating in the 5 GHz band. The Commission’s provisions for unlicensed devices are designed to prevent harmful interference to radio communications services and stipulate that these devices must accept any harmful interference they receive. Industry has developed various standards within the framework of these rules such as Wi-Fi, Bluetooth and Zigbee that are designed to coexist in shared spectrum. These and other unlicensed technologies have been deployed extensively and are used by consumers and industry for a wide variety of applications.

LTE-U is a specification that was developed and supported by a group of companies within the LTE-U Forum... The LTE-U devices that were certified today have been tested to show they meet all of the FCC’s rules. We understand that the LTE-U devices were evaluated successfully under the co-existence test plan. However, this is not an FCC requirement and similar to conformity testing for private sector standards the co-existence test results are not included in the FCC’s equipment certification records."

ComputerWorld explained in 2015 the strain on existing wireless capabilities and why several technology companies pursued the technology:

"According to the wireless providers and Qualcomm, the technology will make use of the existing unlicensed spectrum most commonly used for Wi-Fi. LTE-U is designed to deliver a similar capability as Wi-Fi, namely short-range connectivity to mobile devices.

As billions of mobile devices and Web video continue to strain wireless networks and existing spectrum allocations, the mobile ecosphere is looking for good sources of spectrum. The crunch is significant, and tangible solutions take a long time to develop... as former FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski and FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell recently remarked, “mobile data traffic in the U.S. will grow sevenfold between 2014 and 2019” while “wearable and connected devices in the U.S. will double” in that same period."

Some cable companies, such as Comcast, opposed LTE-U based upon concerns about the technology conflicting with existing home WiFi. According to Computerworld:

"In real-world tests so far, LTE-U delivers better performance than Wi-Fi, doesn’t degrade nearby Wi-Fi performance and may in fact improve the performance of nearby Wi-Fi networks."

Reportedly, in August 2016 Verizon viewed the testing as "fundamentally unfair and biased." Ajit Pai, the new FCC Chairman, said in a statement on Wednesday:

"LTE-U allows wireless providers to deliver mobile data traffic using unlicensed spectrum while sharing the road, so to speak, with Wi-Fi. The excellent staff of the FCC’s Office of Engineering and Technology has certified that the LTE-U devices being approved today are in compliance with FCC rules. And voluntary industry testing has demonstrated that both these devices and Wi-Fi operations can co-exist in the 5 GHz band. This heralds a technical breakthrough in the many shared uses of this spectrum.

This is a great deal for wireless consumers, too. It means they get to enjoy the best of both worlds: a more robust, seamless experience when their devices are using cellular networks and the continued enjoyment of Wi-Fi, one of the most creative uses of spectrum in history..."


Advocacy Groups And Legal Experts Denounce DHS Proposal Requiring Travelers To Disclose Social Media Credentials

U.S. Department of Homeland Security logo Several dozen human rights organizations, civil liberties advocates, and legal experts published an open letter on February 21,2017 condemning a proposal by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security to require the social media credentials (e.g., usernames and passwords) of all travelers from majority-Muslim countries. This letter was sent after testimony before Congress by Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly. NBC News reported on February 8:

"Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly told Congress on Tuesday the measure was one of several being considered to vet refugees and visa applicants from seven Muslim-majority countries. "We want to get on their social media, with passwords: What do you do, what do you say?" he told the House Homeland Security Committee. "If they don't want to cooperate then you don't come in."

His comments came the same day judges heard arguments over President Donald Trump's executive order temporarily barring entry to most refugees and travelers from Syria, Iraq, Iran, Somalia, Sudan, Libya and Yemen. Kelly, a Trump appointee, stressed that asking for people's passwords was just one of "the things that we're thinking about" and that none of the suggestions were concrete."

The letter, available at the Center For Democracy & Technology (CDT) website, stated in part (bold emphasis added):

"The undersigned coalition of human rights and civil liberties organizations, trade associations, and experts in security, technology, and the law expresses deep concern about the comments made by Secretary John Kelly at the House Homeland Security Committee hearing on February 7th, 2017, suggesting the Department of Homeland Security could require non-citizens to provide the passwords to their social media accounts as a condition of entering the country.

We recognize the important role that DHS plays in protecting the United States’ borders and the challenges it faces in keeping the U.S. safe, but demanding passwords or other account credentials without cause will fail to increase the security of U.S. citizens and is a direct assault on fundamental rights.

This proposal would enable border officials to invade people’s privacy by examining years of private emails, texts, and messages. It would expose travelers and everyone in their social networks, including potentially millions of U.S. citizens, to excessive, unjustified scrutiny. And it would discourage people from using online services or taking their devices with them while traveling, and would discourage travel for business, tourism, and journalism."

The letter was signed by about 75 organizations and individuals, including the American Civil Liberties Union, the American Library Association, the American Society of Journalists & Authors, the American Society of News Editors, Americans for Immigrant Justice, the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Human Rights Watch, Immigrant Legal Resource Center, National Hispanic Media Coalition, Public Citizen, Reporters Without Borders, the World Privacy Forum, and many more.

The letter is also available here (Adobe PDF).


GOP Legislation In Congress To Revoke Consumer Privacy And Protections

Logo for Republican Party, also known as the GOP The MediaPost Policy Blog reported:

"Republican Senator Jeff Flake, who opposes the Federal Communications Commission's broadband privacy rules, says he's readying a resolution to rescind them, Politico reports. Flake's confirmation to Politico comes days after Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tennessee), the head of the House Communications Subcommittee, said she intends to work with the Senate to revoke the privacy regulations."

Blackburn's name is familiar. She was a key part of the GOP effort in 2014 to keep state laws in place to limit broadband competition by preventing citizens from forming local broadband providers. To get both higher speeds and lower prices compared to offerings by corporate internet service providers (ISPs), many people want to form local broadband providers. They can't because 20 states have laws preventing broadband competition. A worldwide study in 2014 found the consumers in the United States get poor broadband value: pay more and get slower speeds. Plus, the only consumers getting good value were community broadband customers. In June 2014, the FCC announced plans to challenge these restrictive state laws that limit competition, and keep your Internet prices high. That FCC effort failed. To encourage competition and lower prices, several Democratic representatives introduced the Community Broadband Act in 2015.That legislation went nowhere in a GOP-controlled Congress.

Pause for a moment and let that sink in. Blackburn and other GOP representatives have pursued policies where we consumers all pay more for broadband due to the lack of competition. The GOP, a party that supposedly dislikes regulation and prefers free-market competition, is happy to do the opposite to help their corporate donors. The GOP, a party that historically has promoted states' rights, now uses state laws to restrict the freedoms of constituents at the city, town, and local levels. And, that includes rural constituents.

Too many GOP voters seem oblivious to this. Why Democrats failed to capitalize on this broadband issue, especially during the Presidential campaign last year, is puzzling. Everyone needs broadband: work, play, school, travel, entertainment.

Now, back to the effort to revoke the FCC's broadband privacy rules. Several cable, telecommunications, and advertising lobbies sent a letter in January asking Congress to remove the broadband privacy rules. That letter said in part:

"... in adopting new broadband privacy rules late last year, the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) took action that jeopardizes the vibrancy and success of the internet and the innovations the internet has and should continue to offer. While the FCC’s Order applies only to Internet Service Providers (“ISPs”), the onerous and unnecessary rules it adopted establish a very harmful precedent for the entire internet ecosystem. We therefore urge Congress to enact a resolution of disapproval pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (“CRA”) vitiating the Order."

The new privacy rules by the FCC require broadband providers (a/k/a ISPs) to obtain affirmative “opt-in” consent from consumers before using and sharing consumers' sensitive information; specify the types of information that are sensitive (e.g., geo-location, financial information, health information, children’s information, social security numbers, web browsing history, app usage history and the content of communications); stop using and sharing information about consumers that have opted out of information sharing; meet transparency requirements to clearly notify customers about the information collection sharing and how to change their opt-in or opt-out preferences, prohibit "take-it-or-leave-it" offers where ISPs can refuse to serve customers who don't consent to the information collection and sharing; and comply with "reasonable data security practices and guidelines" to protect the sensitive information collected and shared.

The new FCC privacy rules are common sense stuff, but clearly these companies view common-sense methods as a burden. They want to use consumers' information however they please without limits, and without consideration for consumers' desire to control their own personal information. And, GOP representatives in Congress are happy to oblige these companies in this abuse.

Alarmingly, there is more. Lots more.

The GOP-led Congress also seeks to roll back consumer protections in banking and financial services. According to Consumer Reports, the issue arose earlier this month in:

"... a memo by House Financial Services Committee Chairman Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-Tex), which was leaked to the press yesterday... The fate of the database was first mentioned [February 9th] when Bloomberg reported on a memo by Hensarling, an outspoken critic of the CFPB. The memo outlined a new version of the Financial CHOICE Act (Creating Hope and Opportunity for Investors, Consumers and Entrepreneurs), a bill originally advanced by the House Financial Services Committee in September. The new bill would lead to the repeal of the Consumer Complaint Database. It would also eliminate the CFPB's authority to punish unfair, deceptive or abusive practices among banks and other lenders, and it would allow the President to handpick—and fire—the bureau's director at will."

Banks have paid billions in fines to resolve a variety of allegations and complaints about wrongdoing. Consumers have often been abused by banks. You may remember the massive $185 million fine for the phony accounts scandal at Wells Fargo. Or, you may remember consumers forced to use prison-release cards. Or, maybe you experienced debt collection scams. And, this blog has covered extensively much of the great work by the CFPB which has helped consumers.

Does these two legislation items bother you? I sincerely hope that they do bother you. Contact your elected officials today and demand that they support the FCC privacy rules.