120 posts categorized "Legislation" Feed

The DIY Revolution: Consumers Alter Or Build Items Previously Not Possible. Is It A Good Thing?

Recent advances in technology allow consumers to alter, customize, or build locally items previously not possible. These items are often referred to as Do-It-Yourself (DIY) products. You've probably heard DIY used in home repair and renovation projects on television. DIY now happens in some unexpected areas. Today's blog post highlights two areas.

DIY Glucose Monitors

Earlier this year, CNet described the bag an eight-year-old patient carries with her everywhere daily:

"... It houses a Dexcom glucose monitor and a pack of glucose tablets, which work in conjunction with the sensor attached to her arm and the insulin pump plugged into her stomach. The final item in her bag was an iPhone 5S. It's unusual for such a young child to have a smartphone. But Ruby's iPhone, which connects via Bluetooth to her Dexcom monitor, allowing [her mother] to read it remotely, illustrates the way technology has transformed the management of diabetes from an entirely manual process -- pricking fingers to measure blood sugar, writing down numbers in a notebook, calculating insulin doses and injecting it -- to a semi-automatic one..."

Some people have access to these new technologies, but many don't. Others want more connectivity and better capabilities. So, some creative "hacking" has resulted:

"There are people who are unwilling to wait, and who embrace unorthodox methods. (You can find them on Twitter via the hashtag #WeAreNotWaiting.) The Nightscout Foundation, an online diabetes community, figured out a workaround for the Pebble Watch. Groups such as Nightscout, Tidepool and OpenAPS are developing open-source fixes for diabetes that give major medical tech companies a run for their money... One major gripe of many tech-enabled diabetes patients is that the two devices they wear at all times -- the monitor and the pump -- don't talk to each other... diabetes will never be a hands-off disease to manage, but an artificial pancreas is basically as close as it gets. The FDA approved the first artificial pancreas -- the Medtronic 670G -- in October 2017. But thanks to a little DIY spirit, people have had them for years."

CNet shared the experience of another tech-enabled patient:

"Take Dana Lewis, founder of the open-source artificial pancreas system, or OpenAPS. Lewis started hacking her glucose monitor to increase the volume of the alarm so that it would wake her in the night. From there, Lewis tinkered with her equipment until she created a closed-loop system, which she's refined over time in terms of both hardware and algorithms that enable faster distribution of insulin. It has massively reduced the "cognitive burden" on her everyday life... JDRF, one of the biggest global diabetes research charities, said in October that it was backing the open-source community by launching an initiative to encourage rival manufacturers like Dexcom and Medtronic to open their protocols and make their devices interoperable."

Convenience and affordability are huge drivers. As you might have guessed, there are risks:

"Hacking a glucose monitor is not without risk -- inaccurate readings, failed alarms or the wrong dose of insulin distributed by the pump could have fatal consequences... Lewis and the OpenAPS community encourage people to embrace the build-your-own-pancreas method rather than waiting for the tech to become available and affordable."

Are DIY glucose monitors a good thing? Some patients think so as a way to achieve convenient and affordable healthcare solutions. That might lead you to conclude anything DIY is an improvement. Right? Keep reading.

DIY Guns

Got a 3-D printer? If so, then you can print your own DIY gun. How did this happen? How did the USA get to here? Wired explained:

"Five years ago, 25-year-old radical libertarian Cody Wilson stood on a remote central Texas gun range and pulled the trigger on the world’s first fully 3-D-printed gun... he drove back to Austin and uploaded the blueprints for the pistol to his website, Defcad.com... In the days after that first test-firing, his gun was downloaded more than 100,000 times. Wilson made the decision to go all in on the project, dropping out of law school at the University of Texas, as if to confirm his belief that technology supersedes law..."

The law intervened. Wilson stopped, took down his site, and then pursued a legal remedy:

"Two months ago, the Department of Justice quietly offered Wilson a settlement to end a lawsuit he and a group of co-plaintiffs have pursued since 2015 against the United States government. Wilson and his team of lawyers focused their legal argument on a free speech claim: They pointed out that by forbidding Wilson from posting his 3-D-printable data, the State Department was not only violating his right to bear arms but his right to freely share information. By blurring the line between a gun and a digital file, Wilson had also successfully blurred the lines between the Second Amendment and the First."

So, now you... anybody with an internet connection and a 3-D printer (and a computer-controlled milling machine for some advanced parts)... can produce their own DIY gun. No registration required. No licenses nor permits. No training required. And, that's anyone anywhere in the world.

Oh, there's more:

"The Department of Justice's surprising settlement, confirmed in court documents earlier this month, essentially surrenders to that argument. It promises to change the export control rules surrounding any firearm below .50 caliber—with a few exceptions like fully automatic weapons and rare gun designs that use caseless ammunition—and move their regulation to the Commerce Department, which won't try to police technical data about the guns posted on the public internet. In the meantime, it gives Wilson a unique license to publish data about those weapons anywhere he chooses."

As you might have guessed, Wilson is re-launching his website, but this time with blueprints for more DIY weaponry besides pistols: AR-15 rifles and semi-automatic weaponry. So, it will be easier for people to skirt federal and state gun laws. Is that a good thing?

You probably have some thoughts and concerns. I do. There are plenty of issues and questions. Are DIY products a good thing? Who is liable? How should laws be upgraded? How can society facilitate one set of DIY products and not the other? What related issues do you see? Any other notable DIY products?


North Carolina Provides Its Residents With an Opt-out From Smart Meter Installations. Will It Last?

Wise consumers know how smart utility meters operate. Unlike conventional analog meters which must be read manually on-site by a technician from the utility, smart meters perform two-way digital communication with the service provider, have memory to digitally store a year's worth of your usage, and transmit your usage at regular intervals (e.g., every 15 minutes). Plus, consumers have little or no control over smart meters installed on their property.

There is some good news. Residents in North Carolina can say "no" to smart meter installations by their power company. The Charlotte Observer reported:

"Residents who say they suffer from acute sensitivity to radio-frequency waves can say no to Duke's smart meters — as long as they have a notarized doctor's note to attest to their rare condition. The N.C. Utilities Commission, which sets utility rates and rules, created the new standard on Friday, possibly making North Carolina the first state to limit the smart meter technology revolution by means of a medical opinion... Duke Energy's two North Carolina utility subsidiaries are in the midst of switching its 3.4 million North Carolina customers to smart meters..."

While it currently is free to opt out and get an analog meter instead, that could change:

"... Duke had proposed charging customers extra if they refused a smart meter. Duke wanted to charge an initial fee of $150 plus $11.75 a month to cover the expense of sending someone out to that customer's house to take a monthly meter reading. But the Utilities Commission opted to give the benefit of the doubt to customers with smart meter health issues until the Federal Communications Commission determines the health risks of the devices."

The Smart Grid Awareness blog contains more information about activities in North Carolina. There are privacy concerns with smart meters. Smart meters can be used to profile consumers with a high degree of accuracy and details. One can easily deduce the number of persons living in the dwelling, when they are home and the duration, which electric appliances are used when they are home, the presence of security and alarm systems, and any special conditions (e.g., in-home medical equipment, baby appliances, etc.).

Other states are considering similar measures. The Kentucky Public Service Commission (PSC) will hold a public meeting only July 9th and accept public comments about planned smart meter deployments by Kentucky Utilities Co. (KU) and Louisville Gas & Electric Company (LG&E). Smart meters are being deployed in New Jersey.

When Maryland lawmakers considered legislation to provide law enforcement with access to consumers' smart meters, the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) responded with a January 16, 2018 letter outlining the privacy concerns:

"HB 56 is a sensible and effective response to an emerging privacy issue facing Maryland residents. Smart meters collect detailed personal data about the use of utility services. With a smart meter, it is possible to determine when a person is in a residence, and what they are doing. Moreover the routine collection of this data, without adequate privacy safeguards, would enable ongoing surveillance of Maryland residents without regard to any criminal suspicion."

"HB 56 does not prevent law enforcement use of data generated by smart meters; it simply requires that law enforcement follow clear procedures, subject to judicial oversight, to access the data generated by smart meters. HB 56 is an example of a model privacy law that enables innovation while safeguarding personal privacy."

That's a worthy goal of government: balance the competing needs of the business sector to innovate while protecting consumers' privacy. Is a medical opt-out sufficient? Should Fourth Amendment constitutional concerns apply? What are your opinions?


Lawmakers In California Cave To Industry Lobbying, And Backtrack With Weakened Net Neutrality Bill

After the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) acted last year to repeal net neutrality rules, those protections officially expired on June 11th. Meanwhile, legislators in California have acted to protect their state's residents. In January, State Senator Weiner introduced in January a proposed bill, which was passed by the California Senate three weeks ago.

Since then, some politicians have countered with a modified bill lacking strong protections. C/Net reported:

"The vote on Wednesday in a California Assembly committee hearing advanced a bill that implements some net neutrality protections, but it scaled back all the measures of the bill that had gone beyond the rules outlined in the Federal Communications Commission's 2015 regulation, which was officially taken off the books by the Trump Administration's commission last week. In a surprise move, the vote happened before the hearing officially started,..."

Weiner's original bill was considered the "gold standard" of net neutrality protections for consumers because:

"... it went beyond the FCC's 2015 net neutrality "bright line" rules by including provisions like a ban on zero-rating, a business practice that allows broadband providers like AT&T to exempt their own services from their monthly wireless data caps, while services from competitors are counted against those limits. The result is a market controlled by internet service providers like AT&T, who can shut out the competition by creating an economic disadvantage for those competitors through its wireless service plans."

State Senator Weiner summarized the modified legislation:

"It is, with the amendments, a fake net neutrality bill..."

A key supporter of the modified, weak bill was Assemblyman Miguel Santiago, a Democrat from Los Angeles. Motherboard reported:

"Spearheading the rushed dismantling of the promising law was Committee Chair Miguel Santiago, a routine recipient of AT&T campaign contributions. Santiago’s office failed to respond to numerous requests for comment from Motherboard and numerous other media outlets... Weiner told the San Francisco Chronicle that the AT&T fueled “evisceration” of his proposal was “decidedly unfair.” But that’s historically how AT&T, a company with an almost comical amount of control over state legislatures, tends to operate. The company has so much power in many states, it’s frequently allowed to quite literally write terrible state telecom law..."

Supporters of this weakened bill either forgot or ignored the results from a December 2017 study of 1,077 voters. Most consumers want net neutrality protections:

Do you favor or oppose the proposal to give ISPs the freedom to: a) provide websites the option to give their visitors the ability to download material at a higher speed, for a fee, while providing a slower speed for other websites; b) block access to certain websites; and c) charge their customers an extra fee to gain access to certain websites?
Group Favor Opposed Refused/Don't Know
National 15.5% 82.9% 1.6%
Republicans 21.0% 75.4% 3.6%
Democrats 11.0% 88.5% 0.5%
Independents 14.0% 85.9% 0.1%

Why would politicians pursue weak net neutrality bills with few protections, while constituents want those protections? They are doing the bidding of the corporate internet service providers (ISPs) at the expense of their constituents. Profits before people. These politicians promote the freedom for ISPs to do as they please while restricting consumers' freedoms to use the bandwidth they've purchased however they please.

Broadcasting and Cable reported:

"These California democrats will go down in history as among the worst corporate shills that have ever held elected office," said Evan Greer of net neutrality activist group Fight for the Future. "Californians should rise up and demand that at their Assembly members represent them. The actions of this committee are an attack not just on net neutrality, but on our democracy.” According to Greer, the vote passed 8-0, with Democrats joining Republicans to amend the bill."

According to C/Net, more than 24 states are considering net neutrality legislation to protect their residents:

"... New York, Connecticut, and Maryland, are also considering legislation to reinstate net neutrality rules. Oregon and Washington state have already signed their own net neutrality legislation into law. Governors in several states, including New Jersey and Montana, have signed executive orders requiring ISPs that do business with the state adhere to net neutrality principles."

So, we have AT&T (plus politicians more interested in corporate donors than their constituents, the FCC, President Trump, and probably other telecommunications companies) to thank for this mess. What do you think?


Several States Updated Their Existing Breach Notification Laws, Or Introduced New Laws

Given the increased usage of data in digital formats, new access methods, and continual data breaches within corporations and governments, several state governments have updated their data breach notification laws, and/or passed new laws:

Alabama

The last state without any breach notification laws, Governor Kay Ivey signed in March the state's first data breach law: the Alabama Data Breach Notification Act of 2018 (SB 318), which became effective on June 1, 2018. Some of the key modifications: a) similar to other states, the law defined the format and types of data elements which must be protected, including health information; b) defined "covered entities" including state government agencies and "third-party agents" contracted to maintain, store, process and/or access protected data; c) requires notification of affected individuals within 45 days, and to the state Attorney General; and d) while penalties aren't mandatory, the law allows civil penalties up to $5,000 per day for, "each consecutive day that the covered entity fails to take reasonable action to comply with the notice provisions of this act."

Arizona

Earlier this year, Arizona Governor Doug Ducey signed legislation updating the state's breach notification laws. Some of the key modifications: a) expanded definitions of personal information to include medical or mental health treatment/diagnosis, passport numbers, taxpayer ID numbers, biometric data, e-mail addresses in combination with online passwords and security questions; b) set the notification window for affected persons at 45 days; c) allows e-mail notification of affected persons; d) and if the breach affected more than 1,000 persons, then notification must provided to the three national credit-reporting agencies and to the state Attorney General.

Colorado

Colorado Governor John Hickenloope signed on May 29th several laws including HB-1128, which will go into effect on september 1, 2018. Some experts view HB-1128 as the strongest protections in the country. Some of the key modifications: a) expanded "covered entities" to include certain "third-party service providers" contracted to maintain, store, process and/or access protected data; b) expanded definitions of "personal information" to include biometric data, plus e-mail addresses in combination with online passwords and security questions; c) allows substitute notification methods (e.g., e-mail, post on website, statewide news media) if the cost of basic notification would exceed $250,000; d) allows e-mail notification of affected persons; e) sets the notification window at 30 days, if the breach affected more than 500 Colorado residents; and f) expanded requirements for companies to protected personal information.

Louisiana

Louisiana Governor John Edwards signed in May 2018 an amendment to the state’s Database Security Breach Notification Law (Act 382) which will take effect August 1, 2018. Some of the key modifications: a) expanded definition of ‘personal information’ to include a state identification card number, passport number, and “biometric data” (e.g., fingerprints, voice prints, eye retina or iris, or other unique biological characteristics used to access systems); b) removed vagueness and defined the notification window as within 60 days; c) allows substitute notification methods (e.g., e-mail, posts on affected company's website, statewide news media); and d) tightened required that companies utilizing "computerized data" better protect the information they archive.

South Dakota

The next-to-last state without any breach notification laws, Governor Dennis Daugaard signed into law in March the state’s first breach notification law (SB 62). Like breach laws in other states, it provides definitions of what a breach is, personal information which must be protected, covered entities (e.g., companies, government agencies) subject to the law, notification requirements, and conditions when substitute notification methods (e.g., e-mail, posts on the affected entity's website, statewide news media) are allowed.

To Summarize

New Mexico enacted its new breach notification law (HB 15) in March, 2017. With the additions of Alabama and South Dakota, finally every state has a breach notification law. Sadly, it has taken 16 years. California was the first state to enact a breach notification law in 2002. It has taken that long for other states to catch up... not only catch up with California, but also catch up with technological changes driven by the internet.

California has led the way for a long time. It banned RFID skimming in 2008, co-hosted privacy workshops with the U.S. Federal Trade Commission in 2008, strengthened its existing breach law in 2011, and introduced in 2013 privacy guidelines for mobile app developers. Other states' legislatures can learn from this leadership.

Want to learn more? Detailed reviews of new and updated breach laws are available in the National Law Review website.


U.S. Senate Vote Approves Resolution To Reinstate Net Neutrality Rules. FCC Chairman Pai Repeats Claims While Ignoring Consumers

Yesterday, the United States Senate approved a bipartisan resolution to preserve net neutrality rules, the set of internet protections established in 2015 which require wireless and internet service providers (ISPs) to provide customers with access to all websites, and equal access to all websites. That meant no throttling, blocking, slow-downs of selected sites, nor prioritizing internet traffic in "fast" or "slow" lanes.

Federal communications Commission logo Earlier this month, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) said that current net neutrality rules would expire on June 11, 2018. Politicians promised that tax cuts will create new jobs, and that repeal of net neutrality rules would encourage investments by ISPs. FCC Chairman Ajit Pai, appointed by President Trump, released a statement on May 10, 2018:

"Now, on June 11, these unnecessary and harmful Internet regulations will be repealed and the bipartisan, light-touch approach that served the online world well for nearly 20 years will be restored. The Federal Trade Commission will once again be empowered to target any unfair or deceptive business practices of Internet service providers and to protect American’s broadband privacy. Armed with our strengthened transparency rule, we look forward to working closely with the FTC to safeguard a free and open Internet. On June 11, we will have a framework in place that encourages innovation and investment in our nation’s networks so that all Americans, no matter where they live, can have access to better, cheaper, and faster Internet access and the jobs, opportunities, and platform for free expression that it provides. And we will embrace a modern, forward-looking approach that will help the United States lead the world in 5G..."

Chairman Pai's claims sound hollow, since reality says otherwise. Telecommunications companies have fired workers and reduced staff despite getting tax cuts, broadband privacy repeal, and net neutrality repeal. In December, more than 1,000 startups and investors signed an open letter to Pai opposing the elimination of net neutrality. Entrepreneurs and executives are concerned that the loss of net neutrality will harm or hinder start-up businesses.

CNet provided a good overview of events surrounding the Senate's resolution:

"Democrats are using the Congressional Review Act to try to halt the FCC's December repeal of net neutrality. The law gives Congress 60 legislative days to undo regulations imposed by a federal agency. What's needed to roll back the FCC action are simple majorities in both the House and Senate, as well as the president's signature. Senator Ed Markey (Democrat, Massachusetts), who's leading the fight in the Senate to preserve the rules, last week filed a so-called discharge petition, a key step in this legislative effort... Meanwhile, Republican lawmakers and broadband lobbyists argue the existing rules hurt investment and will stifle innovation. They say efforts by Democrats to stop the FCC's repeal of the rules do nothing to protect consumers. All 49 Democrats in the Senate support the effort to undo the FCC's vote. One Republican, Senator Susan Collins of Maine, also supports the measure. One more Republican is needed to cross party lines to pass it."

"No touch" is probably a more accurate description of the internet under Chairman Pai's leadership, given many historical problems and abuses of consumers by some ISPs. The loss of net neutrality protections will likely result in huge price increases for internet access for consumers, which will also hurt public libraries, the poor, and disabled users. The loss of net neutrality will allow ISPs the freedom to carve up, throttle, block, and slow down the internet traffic they choose, while consumers will lose the freedom to use as they choose the broadband service they've paid for. And, don't forget the startup concerns above.

After the Senate's vote, FCC Chairman Pai released this statement:

“The Internet was free and open before 2015, when the prior FCC buckled to political pressure from the White House and imposed utility-style regulation on the Internet. And it will continue to be free and open once the Restoring Internet Freedom Order takes effect on June 11... our light-touch approach will deliver better, faster, and cheaper Internet access and more broadband competition to the American people—something that millions of consumers desperately want and something that should be a top priority. The prior Administration’s regulatory overreach took us in the opposite direction, reducing investment in broadband networks and particularly harming small Internet service providers in rural and lower-income areas..."

The internet was free and open before 2015? Mr. Pai is guilty of revisionist history. 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. 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 had residents  check their broadband speed with this tool.

Tim Berners-Lee, the founder of the internet, cited three reasons why the Internet is in trouble. His number one reason: consumers had lost control of their personal information. The loss of privacy meant consumers lost control over their personal information.

There's more. 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 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. Proposed rules were circulated prior to adoption. It was done in the open.

Yet, Chairman Pai would have us now believe the internet was free and open before 2015; and that regulatory was unnecessary. I say BS.

FCC Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel released a statement yesterday:

"Today the United States Senate took a big step to fix the serious mess the FCC made when it rolled back net neutrality late last year. The FCC's net neutrality repeal gave broadband providers extraordinary new powers to block websites, throttle services and play favorites when it comes to online content. This put the FCC on the wrong side of history, the wrong side of the law, and the wrong side of the American people. Today’s vote is a sign that the fight for internet freedom is far from over. I’ll keep raising a ruckus to support net neutrality and I hope others will too."

A mess, indeed, created by Chairman Pai. A December 2017 study of 1,077 voters found that most want net neutrality protections:

Do you favor or oppose the proposal to give ISPs the freedom to: a) provide websites the option to give their visitors the ability to download material at a higher speed, for a fee, while providing a slower speed for other websites; b) block access to certain websites; and c) charge their customers an extra fee to gain access to certain websites?
Group Favor Opposed Refused/Don't Know
National 15.5% 82.9% 1.6%
Republicans 21.0% 75.4% 3.6%
Democrats 11.0% 88.5% 0.5%
Independents 14.0% 85.9% 0.1%

Why did the FCC, President Trump, and most GOP politicians pursue the elimination of net neutrality protections despite consumers wishes otherwise? For the same reasons they repealed broadband privacy protections despite most consumers wanting broadband privacy. (Remember, President Trump signed the privacy-rollback legislation in April 2017.) They are doing the bidding of the corporate ISPs at the expense of consumers. Profits before people. Whenever Mr. Pai mentions a "free and open internet," he's referring to corporate ISPs and not consumers. What do you think?


Oakland Law Mandates 'Technology Impact Reports' By Local Government Agencies Before Purchasing Surveillance Equipment

Popular tools used by law enforcement include stingrays, fake cellular phone towers, and automated license plate readers (ALPRs) to track the movements of persons. Historically, the technologies have often been deployed without notice to track both the bad guys (e.g., criminals and suspects) and innocent citizens.

To better balance the privacy needs of citizens versus the surveillance needs of law enforcement, some areas are implementing new laws. The East Bay Times reported about a new law in Oakland:

"... introduced at Tuesday’s city council meeting, creates a public approval process for surveillance technologies used by the city. The rules also lay a groundwork for the City Council to decide whether the benefits of using the technology outweigh the cost to people’s privacy. Berkeley and Davis have passed similar ordinances this year.

However, Oakland’s ordinance is unlike any other in the nation in that it requires any city department that wants to purchase or use the surveillance technology to submit a "technology impact report" to the city’s Privacy Advisory Commission, creating a “standardized public format” for technologies to be evaluated and approved... city departments must also submit a “surveillance use policy” to the Privacy Advisory Commission for consideration. The approved policy must be adopted by the City Council before the equipment is to be used..."

Reportedly, the city council will review the ordinance a second time before final passage.

The Northern California chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) discussed the problem, the need for transparency, and legislative actions:

"Public safety in the digital era must include transparency and accountability... the ACLU of California and a diverse coalition of civil rights and civil liberties groups support SB 1186, a bill that helps restores power at the local level and makes sure local voices are heard... the use of surveillance technology harms all Californians and disparately harms people of color, immigrants, and political activists... The Oakland Police Department concentrated their use of license plate readers in low income and minority neighborhoods... Across the state, residents are fighting to take back ownership of their neighborhoods... Earlier this year, Alameda, Culver City, and San Pablo rejected license plate reader proposals after hearing about the Immigration & Customs Enforcement (ICE) data [sharing] deal. Communities are enacting ordinances that require transparency, oversight, and accountability for all surveillance technologies. In 2016, Santa Clara County, California passed a groundbreaking ordinance that has been used to scrutinize multiple surveillance technologies in the past year... SB 1186 helps enhance public safety by safeguarding local power and ensuring transparency, accountability... SB 1186 covers the broad array of surveillance technologies used by police, including drones, social media surveillance software, and automated license plate readers. The bill also anticipates – and covers – AI-powered predictive policing systems on the rise today... Without oversight, the sensitive information collected by local governments about our private lives feeds databases that are ripe for abuse by the federal government. This is not a hypothetical threat – earlier this year, ICE announced it had obtained access to a nationwide database of location information collected using license plate readers – potentially sweeping in the 100+ California communities that use this technology. Many residents may not be aware their localities also share their information with fusion centers, federal-state intelligence warehouses that collect and disseminate surveillance data from all levels of government.

Statewide legislation can build on the nationwide Community Control Over Police Surveillance (CCOPS) movement, a reform effort spearheaded by 17 organizations, including the ACLU, that puts local residents and elected officials in charge of decisions about surveillance technology. If passed in its current form, SB 1186 would help protect Californians from intrusive, discriminatory, and unaccountable deployment of law enforcement surveillance technology."

Is there similar legislation in your state?


The 'CLOUD Act' - What It Is And What You Need To Know

Chances are, you probably have not heard of the "CLOUD Act." I hadn't heard about it until recently. A draft of the legislation is available on the website for U.S. Senator Orrin Hatch (Republican - Utah).

Many people who already use cloud services to store and backup data might assume: if it has to do with the cloud, then it must be good.  Such an assumption would be foolish. The full name of the bill: "Clarifying Overseas Use Of Data." What problem does this bill solve? Senator Hatch stated last month why he thinks this bill is needed:

"... the Supreme Court will hear arguments in a case... United States v. Microsoft Corp., colloquially known as the Microsoft Ireland case... The case began back in 2013, when the US Department of Justice asked Microsoft to turn over emails stored in a data center in Ireland. Microsoft refused on the ground that US warrants traditionally have stopped at the water’s edge. Over the last few years, the legal battle has worked its way through the court system up to the Supreme Court... The issues the Microsoft Ireland case raises are complex and have created significant difficulties for both law enforcement and technology companies... law enforcement officials increasingly need access to data stored in other countries for investigations, yet no clear enforcement framework exists for them to obtain overseas data. Meanwhile, technology companies, who have an obligation to keep their customers’ information private, are increasingly caught between conflicting laws that prohibit disclosure to foreign law enforcement. Equally important, the ability of one nation to access data stored in another country implicates national sovereignty... The CLOUD Act bridges the divide that sometimes exists between law enforcement and the tech sector by giving law enforcement the tools it needs to access data throughout the world while at the same time creating a commonsense framework to encourage international cooperation to resolve conflicts of law. To help law enforcement, the bill creates incentives for bilateral agreements—like the pending agreement between the US and the UK—to enable investigators to seek data stored in other countries..."

Senators Coons, Graham, and Whitehouse, support the CLOUD Act, along with House Representatives Collins, Jeffries, and others. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) opposes the bill and warned:

"Despite its fluffy sounding name, the recently introduced CLOUD Act is far from harmless. It threatens activists abroad, individuals here in the U.S., and would empower Attorney General Sessions in new disturbing ways... the CLOUD Act represents a dramatic change in our law, and its effects will be felt across the globe... The bill starts by giving the executive branch dramatically more power than it has today. It would allow Attorney General Sessions to enter into agreements with foreign governments that bypass current law, without any approval from Congress. Under these agreements, foreign governments would be able to get emails and other electronic information without any additional scrutiny by a U.S. judge or official. And, while the attorney general would need to consider a country’s human rights record, he is not prohibited from entering into an agreement with a country that has committed human rights abuses... the bill would for the first time allow these foreign governments to wiretap in the U.S. — even in cases where they do not meet Wiretap Act standards. Paradoxically, that would give foreign governments the power to engage in surveillance — which could sweep in the information of Americans communicating with foreigners — that the U.S. itself would not be able to engage in. The bill also provides broad discretion to funnel this information back to the U.S., circumventing the Fourth Amendment. This information could potentially be used by the U.S. to engage in a variety of law enforcement actions."

Given that warning, I read the draft legislation. One portion immediately struck me:

"A provider of electronic communication service or remote computing service shall comply with the obligations of this chapter to preserve, backup, or disclose the contents of a wire or electronic communication and any record or other information pertaining to a customer or subscriber within such provider’s possession, custody, or control, regardless of whether such communication, record, or other information is located within or outside of the United States."

While I am not an attorney, this bill definitely sounds like an end-run around the Fourth Amendment. The review process is largely governed by the House of Representatives; a body not known for internet knowledge nor savvy. The bill also smells like an attack on internet services consumers regularly use for privacy, such as search engines that don't collect nor archive search data and Virtual Private Networks (VPNs).

Today, for online privacy many consumers in the United States use VPN software and services provided by vendors located offshore. Why? Despite a national poll in 2017 which found the the Republican rollback of FCC broadband privacy rules very unpopular among consumers, the Republican-led Congress proceeded with that rollback, and President Trump signed the privacy-rollback legislation on April 3, 2017. Hopefully, skilled and experienced privacy attorneys will continue to review and monitor the draft legislation.

The ACLU emphasized in its warning:

"Today, the information of global activists — such as those that fight for LGBTQ rights, defend religious freedom, or advocate for gender equality are protected from being disclosed by U.S. companies to governments who may seek to do them harm. The CLOUD Act eliminates many of these protections and replaces them with vague assurances, weak standards, and largely unenforceable restrictions... The CLOUD Act represents a major change in the law — and a major threat to our freedoms. Congress should not try to sneak it by the American people by hiding it inside of a giant spending bill. There has not been even one minute devoted to considering amendments to this proposal. Congress should robustly debate this bill and take steps to fix its many flaws, instead of trying to pull a fast one on the American people."

I agree. Seems like this bill creates far more problems than it solves. Plus, something this important should be openly and thoroughly discussed; not be buried in a spending bill. What do you think?


Banking Legislation Advances In U.S. Senate

The Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act (Senate Bill 2155) was approved Wednesday by the United States Senate. The vote was 67 for, 31 against, and 2 non voting. The voting roll call by name:

Alexander (R-TN), Yea
Baldwin (D-WI), Nay
Barrasso (R-WY), Yea
Bennet (D-CO), Yea
Blumenthal (D-CT), Nay
Blunt (R-MO), Yea
Booker (D-NJ), Nay
Boozman (R-AR), Yea
Brown (D-OH), Nay
Burr (R-NC), Yea
Cantwell (D-WA), Nay
Capito (R-WV), Yea
Cardin (D-MD), Nay
Carper (D-DE), Yea
Casey (D-PA), Nay
Cassidy (R-LA), Yea
Cochran (R-MS), Yea
Collins (R-ME), Yea
Coons (D-DE), Yea
Corker (R-TN), Yea
Cornyn (R-TX), Yea
Cortez Masto (D-NV), Nay
Cotton (R-AR), Yea
Crapo (R-ID), Yea
Cruz (R-TX), Yea
Daines (R-MT), Yea
Donnelly (D-IN), Yea
Duckworth (D-IL), Nay
Durbin (D-IL), Nay
Enzi (R-WY), Yea
Ernst (R-IA), Yea
Feinstein (D-CA), Nay
Fischer (R-NE), Yea
Flake (R-AZ), Yea
Gardner (R-CO), Yea
Gillibrand (D-NY), Nay
Graham (R-SC), Yea
Grassley (R-IA), Yea
Harris (D-CA), Nay
Hassan (D-NH), Yea
Hatch (R-UT), Yea
Heinrich (D-NM), Not Voting
Heitkamp (D-ND), Yea
Heller (R-NV), Yea
Hirono (D-HI), Nay
Hoeven (R-ND), Yea
Inhofe (R-OK), Yea
Isakson (R-GA), Yea
Johnson (R-WI), Yea
Jones (D-AL), Yea
Kaine (D-VA), Yea
Kennedy (R-LA), Yea
King (I-ME), Yea
Klobuchar (D-MN), Nay
Lankford (R-OK), Yea
Leahy (D-VT), Nay
Lee (R-UT), Yea
Manchin (D-WV), Yea
Markey (D-MA), Nay
McCain (R-AZ), Not Voting
McCaskill (D-MO), Yea
McConnell (R-KY), Yea
Menendez (D-NJ), Nay
Merkley (D-OR), Nay
Moran (R-KS), Yea
Murkowski (R-AK), Yea
Murphy (D-CT), Nay
Murray (D-WA), Nay
Nelson (D-FL), Yea
Paul (R-KY), Yea
Perdue (R-GA), Yea
Peters (D-MI), Yea
Portman (R-OH), Yea
Reed (D-RI), Nay
Risch (R-ID), Yea
Roberts (R-KS), Yea
Rounds (R-SD), Yea
Rubio (R-FL), Yea
Sanders (I-VT), Nay
Sasse (R-NE), Yea
Schatz (D-HI), Nay
Schumer (D-NY), Nay
Scott (R-SC), Yea
Shaheen (D-NH), Yea
Shelby (R-AL), Yea
Smith (D-MN), Nay
Stabenow (D-MI), Yea
Sullivan (R-AK), Yea
Tester (D-MT), Yea
Thune (R-SD), Yea
Tillis (R-NC), Yea
Toomey (R-PA), Yea
Udall (D-NM), Nay
Van Hollen (D-MD), Nay
Warner (D-VA), Yea
Warren (D-MA), Nay
Whitehouse (D-RI), Nay
Wicker (R-MS), Yea
Wyden (D-OR), Nay
Young (R-IN), Yea

The bill now proceeds to the House of Representatives. If it passes the House, then it would be sent to the President for a signature.


Legislation Moving Through Congress To Loosen Regulations On Banks

Legislation is moving through Congress which will loosen regulations on banks. Is this an improvement? Is it risky? Is it a good deal for consumers? Before answering those questions, a summary of the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act (Senate Bill 2155):

"This bill amends the Truth in Lending Act to allow institutions with less than $10 billion in assets to waive ability-to-repay requirements for certain residential-mortgage loans... The bill amends the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 to exempt banks with assets valued at less than $10 billion from the "Volcker Rule," which prohibits banking agencies from engaging in proprietary trading or entering into certain relationships with hedge funds and private-equity funds... The bill amends the United States Housing Act of 1937 to reduce inspection requirements and environmental-review requirements for certain smaller, rural public-housing agencies.

Provisions relating to enhanced prudential regulation for financial institutions are modified, including those related to stress testing, leverage requirements, and the use of municipal bonds for purposes of meeting liquidity requirements. The bill requires credit reporting agencies to provide credit-freeze alerts and includes consumer-credit provisions related to senior citizens, minors, and veterans."

Well, that definitely sounds like relief for banks. Fewer regulations means it's easier to do business... and make more money. Next questions: is it good for consumers? Is it risky? Keep reading.

The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) analyzed the proposed legislation in the Senate, and concluded (bold emphasis added):

"S. 2155 would modify provisions of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd Frank Act) and other laws governing regulation of the financial industry. The bill would change the regulatory framework for small depository institutions with assets under $10 billion (community banks) and for large banks with assets over $50 billion. The bill also would make changes to consumer mortgage and credit-reporting regulations and to the authorities of the agencies that regulate the financial industry. CBO estimates that enacting the bill would increase federal deficits by $671 million over the 2018-2027 period... CBO’s estimate of the bill’s budgetary effect is subject to considerable uncertainty, in part because it depends on the probability in any year that a systemically important financial institution (SIFI) will fail or that there will be a financial crisis. CBO estimates that the probability is small under current law and would be slightly greater under the legislation..."

So, the propose legislation means there is a greater risk of banks either failing or needing government assistance (e.g., bailout funds). Are there risks to consumers? To taxpayers? CNN interviewed U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren (Dem- Mass.), who said:

"Frankly, I just don't see how any senator can vote to weaken the regulations on Wall Street banks.. [weakened regulations] puts us at greater risk that there will be another taxpayer bailout, that there will be another crash and another taxpayer bailout..."

So, there are risks for consumers/taxpayers. How? Why? Let's count the ways.

First, the proposed legislation increases federal deficits. Somebody has to pay for that: with either higher taxes, less services, more debt, or a combination of all three. That doesn't sound good. Does it sound good to you?

Second, looser regulations mean some banks may lend money to more people they shouldn't have = persons who default on loan. To compensate, those banks would raise prices (e.g., more fees, higher fees, higher interest rates) to borrowers to cover their losses. If those banks can't cover their losses, then they will fail. If enough banks fail at about the same time, then bingo... another financial crisis.

If key banks fail, then the government will bail out (again) banks to keep the financial system running. (Remember too big to fail banks?) Somebody has to pay for bailouts... with either higher taxes, less services, more debt, or a combination of all three. Does that sound good to you? It doesn't sound good to me. If it doesn't sound good, I encourage you to contact your elected officials.

It's critical to remember banking history in the United States. Nobody wants a repeat of the 2008 melt-down. There are always consequences when government... Congress decides to help bankers by loosening regulations. What do you think?


New Data Breach Legislation Proposed In North Carolina

After a surge in data breaches in North Carolina during 2017, state legislators have proposed stronger data breach laws. The National Law Review explained what prompted the legislative action:

"On January 8, 2018, the State of North Carolina released its Security Breach Report 2017, which highlights a 15 percent increase in breaches since 2016... Health care, financial services and insurance businesses accounted for 38 percent, with general businesses making up for just more than half of these data breaches. Almost 75 percent of all breaches resulted from phishing, hacking and unauthorized access, reflecting an overall increase of more than 3,500 percent in reported hacking incidents alone since 2006. Since 2015, phishing incidents increased over 2,300 percent. These numbers emphasize the warning to beware of emails or texts requesting personal information..."

So, fraudsters have tricked many North Carolina residents and employees into both opening fraudulent e-mail and text messages, and then responding by disclosing sensitive personal information. Not good.

Details about the proposed legislation:

"... named the Act to Strengthen Identity Theft Practices (ASITP), announced by Representative Jason Saine and Attorney General Josh Stein, attempts to combat the data breach epidemic by expanding North Carolina’s breach notification obligations, while reducing the time businesses have to comply with notification to the affected population and to the North Carolina Attorney General’s Office. If enacted, this new legislation will be one of the most aggressive U.S. breach notification statutes... The Fact Sheet concerning the ASITP as published by the North Carolina Attorney General proposes that the AG take a more direct role in the investigation of data breaches closer to their time of discovery...  To accomplish this goal, the ASITP proposes a significantly shorter period of time for an entity to provide notification to the affected population and to the North Carolina Attorney General. Currently, North Carolina’s statute mandates that notification be made to affected individuals and the Attorney General without “unreasonable delay.” Under the ASITP, the new deadline for all notifications would be 15 days following discovery of the data security incident. In addition to being the shortest deadline in the nation, it is important to note that notification vendors typically require 5 business days to process, print and mail notification letters... The proposed legislation also seeks to (1) expand the definition of “protected information” to include medical information and insurance account numbers, and (2) penalize those who fail to maintain reasonable security procedures by charging them with a violation under the Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act for each person whose information is breached..."

Good. The National Law Review article also compared the breach notification deadlines across all 50 states and territories. It is worth a look to see how your state compares. A comparison of selected states:

Time After Discovery of Breach Selected States/Territories
10 calendar days Puerto Rico (Dept. of Consumer Affairs)
15 calendar days North Carolina (Proposed)
15 business California (Protected Health Information)
30 calendar days Florida
45 calendar days Ohio, Maryland
90 calendar days Connecticut
Most expedient time & without
unreasonable delay
California (other), Massachusetts, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico (other)
As soon as possible Texas

To learn more, download the North Carolina Security Breach Report 2017 (Adobe PDF), and the ASITP Fact Sheet (Adobe PDF).


U.S. Senate Moves Closer To Vote On Net Neutrality

Yesterday, The Hill reported:

"A Senate bill that would reverse the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) decision to repeal net neutrality received its 30th co-sponsor on Monday, ensuring it will receive a vote on the Senate floor. Senator Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) announced her support for the bill on Twitter, putting it over the top of a procedural requirement to bypass committee approval.

The bill, which is being pushed by Senator Ed Markey (D-Mass.), would use Congress’s authority under the Congressional Review Act (CRA) to reverse the FCC’s rollback of its popular net neutrality rules... Under the CRA, if a joint resolution of disapproval bill has enough support it can bypass committee review and be fast-tracked to a floor vote... Lawmakers have 60 legislative days after the FCC submits its regulations to Congress to pass the CRA. The repeal order is currently awaiting approval from the Office of Management and Budget.

With Republicans in control of both the House and Senate, the bill faces long odds to win the simple majorities it needs to reach the president’s desk."


More Year-End Considerations Given The Coming Likely Republican Tax Plan

A prior post discussed the questionable benefits and year-end considerations for middle-class taxpayers of the likely Republican tax reform plan making its way through Congress. The likely tax plan includes lower tax rates paired with many deductions eliminated.

The professional who prepares my taxes provided another warning:

"Dear clients:
It looks like almost a sure thing that, if you itemize deductions, beginning in 2018, you will no longer be able to take a deduction for the Excise Tax on your car or the income taxes that you pay to Massachusetts and other states. You will PROBABLY still be able to deduct your real estate property taxes up to $10,000 a year. If you currently pay the Alternative Minimum Tax (line 45 of your Form 1040), check with me before you follow these recommendations.

All others who itemize, I recommend that you consider the following actions this month (December):

  1. If your total property taxes (including those for a second home) are more than $10,000, pay your city or town as much as you possibly can in December.
  2. Be sure to pay... maybe even over-pay... as much of your State Income Tax as possible by December 31st. If you make estimated payments, your 4th quarter Massachusetts payment is due by January 15th. YOU SHOULD DEFINITELY PAY IT IN DECEMBER INSTEAD.
  3. Even if you don't usually make Estimate Payments to Massachusetts, you should consider making one in December... For example, if you made a payment of $1,000, you might save $150 or $250 or more on your 2017 federal tax return. You will save NOTHING on any state income taxes that you pay in 2018.

I will reach out again if and when the tax bill is finalized and signed into law if there are any other changes that might affect your plans in December."

Obviously, you should consult the professional that prepares your income taxes, since your situation and state may dictate different actions. And, I am not an income tax professional. New legislation always has consequences, and it seems wise to be aware. hence, this informational blog post.

Some additional thoughts. Capping the real estate property tax deduction at $10,000 might help pay for the increased deficits the Republican tax plan would generate, but it will also hurt persons living in high-cost areas (e.g., cities, states with high state taxes, areas with high real estate prices). Plus, the tax cuts are temporary for individuals but permanent for corporations. Slick, eh? Is it fair? Seems not.

My college friends and I are discussing via e-mail the considerations listed above and in my prior blog post. The proposed elimination of deductions for state and local taxes (SALT) is a hot topic. You can find online articles discussing the advantages and disadvantages of eliminating SALT deductions. Regardless, more to discuss with your accountant and/or income tax professional.


The Consequences From Unchecked Development Without Zoning Laws

While there has been plenty of news about hurricane Harvey and the flood in Houston, there hasn't been much news about an important, related issue which affects all taxpayers. This report by the QZ site highlights the consequences of unchecked development while ignoring environmental concerns:

"... Houstonians have been treating its wetlands as stinky, mosquito-infested blots in need of drainage. Even after it became a widely accepted scientific fact that wetlands can soak up large amounts of flood water, the city continued to pave over them. The watershed of the White Oak Bayou river, which includes much of northwest Houston, is a case in point. From 1992 to 2010, this area lost more than 70% of its wetlands, according to research (pdf) by Texas A&M University."

Unchecked development affects all taxpayers when federal bailout money is spent to repair the damage in areas subject to repeated, frequent floods:

"... the flooding caused by Hurricane Harvey has raised water levels in some parts of the watershed high enough to completely cover a Cadillac. The vanished wetlands wouldn’t have prevented flooding, but they would have made it less painful, experts say. The Harvey-wrought devastation is just the latest example of the consequences of Houston’s gung-ho approach to development. The city, the largest in the US with no zoning laws, is a case study in limiting government regulations and favoring growth—often at the expense of the environment. As water swamps many of its neighborhoods, it’s now also a cautionary tale of sidelining science and plain common sense..."

The consequences from lax laws favoring unchecked development:

"Wetland loss... The construction of flood-prone buildings in flood plains is another one: The elderly residents of La Vita Bella, a nursing home in Dickinson, east of Houston, were up to their waists in water before they got rescued. The home is within the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) designated flood zone... too few people have flood insurance. Although federal rules require certain homeowners to carry it, those rules are based on outdated flood data. Only a little over a quarter of the homes in “high risk” areas in Harris County, where Houston sits, have flood insurance."

So, not everyone who should be is paying their fair share (via flood insurance). And, it seems that things will get worse. All of the above was:

"... before [President] Trump came into office and started removing layers of regulation. Just 10 days before Harvey struck, the president signed an executive order that rescinded federal flood protection standards put in place by his predecessor, Barack Obama. FEMA and the US Housing and Urban Development Department, the two federal agencies that will handle most of the huge pile of cash expected for the rebuilding of Houston, would have been forced to require any rebuilding to confirm to new, safer codes. Now, they won’t."

Lax laws allowing the repair and construction of new buildings in high-risk areas subject to repeated flooding sounds foolish. It's basically throwing taxpayers' hard-earned money out the window. Do you want to pay for this? I don't. A few local developers may get rich, but at the expense of taxpayers nationwide.

There are always consequences -- intended and unintended. Be sure to demand that your elected officials consider and understand them.


CFPB Issues New Rule Governing Arbitration Clauses

The products and services many consumers purchases include contractual agreements with arbitration clauses, which prohibit consumers from getting relief by joining class-action lawsuits. Those clauses also specify the out-of-court process to resolve disagreements and the upfront fees consumers must pay.

Many you have heard of the phrase, "binding arbitration." Regular readers of this blog are familiar with the issues with binding arbitration. Many popular mobile apps, websites, streaming video services, and some augmented-reality (AR) mobile games contain these clauses. The Public Citizen website lists the banks, retail stores, entertainment, online shopping, telecommunications, consumer electronics, software, nursing homes, and health care companies that include binding arbitration clauses in their contracts with customers.

To achieve a better balance between the needs of consumers versus the needs of corporations, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) has issued new rules governing arbitration clauses. The CFPB explained:

"No matter how many people are harmed by the same conduct, most arbitration clauses require people to bring claims individually against the company, outside the court system, before a private individual (an arbitrator). Companies know that people almost never spend the time or money to pursue relief when the amounts at stake are small, so few people do this. Our new rule will restore the ability of groups of people to file or join group lawsuits. In some cases, not only will companies have to provide relief, they will also have to change their behavior moving forward.

People who would otherwise have to go it alone or give up, will be able to join with others to pursue justice and some remedy for their harm."

Richard Cordray, the Director of the CFPB, in a statement briefly discussed the history:

"Originally, arbitration was primarily used for disagreements between two businesses. But over the last quarter century or so, companies started adding arbitration clauses to their consumer contracts... In 2007, Congress passed the Military Lending Act, which disallows mandatory arbitration clauses in connection with certain loans made to servicemembers. Three years later, in the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, Congress went further and banned mandatory arbitration clauses in most residential mortgage contracts."

Supporters of binding arbitration clauses have long fought pro-consumer action by the CFPB. Director Cordray also discussed the new CFPB rule:

"A cherished tenet of our justice system is that no one, no matter how big or how powerful, should escape accountability if they break the law. But right now, many contracts for consumer financial products like bank accounts and credit cards come with a mandatory arbitration clause that makes it virtually impossible for people to sue the company as a group if things go wrong. On paper, these clauses simply say that either party can opt to have disputes resolved by private individuals known as arbitrators rather than by the court system. In practice, companies use these clauses to bar groups of consumers from joining together to seek justice by vindicating their legal rights..."

"The breadth and application of these clauses can be unexpected and severe. For example, when Wells Fargo opened millions of deposit and credit card accounts without the knowledge or consent of consumers, arbitration clauses in existing account contracts blocked their customers from bringing group lawsuits for the unauthorized account openings. Companies have argued that group lawsuits are unnecessary because the government can pursue enforcement actions to address the same problems. But consumers should be able to stand up for themselves and pursue their own legal rights without having to wait on the government. And the government has limited resources..."

The CFPB also produced this video:

What are your opinions of binding arbitration clauses? Were you aware of them? What are your opinions of the new CFPB rule?


3 Strategies To Defend GOP Health Bill: Euphemisms, False Statements and Deleted Comments

[Editor's Note: today's guest post is by the reporters as ProPublica. Affordable health care and coverage are important to many, if not most, Americans. It is reprinted with permission.]

by Charles Ornstein, ProPublica

Earlier this month, a day after the House of Representatives passed a bill to repeal and replace major parts of the Affordable Care Act, Ashleigh Morley visited her congressman's Facebook page to voice her dismay.

"Your vote yesterday was unthinkably irresponsible and does not begin to account for the thousands of constituents in your district who rely upon many of the services and provisions provided for them by the ACA," Morley wrote on the page affiliated with the campaign of Representative Peter King (Republican, New York). "You never had my vote and this confirms why."

The next day, Morley said, her comment was deleted and she was blocked from commenting on or reacting to King's posts. The same thing has happened to others critical of King's positions on health care and other matters. King has deleted negative feedback and blocked critics from his Facebook page, several of his constituents say, sharing screenshots of comments that are no longer there.

"Having my voice and opinions shut down by the person who represents me -- especially when my voice and opinion wasn't vulgar and obscene -- is frustrating, it's disheartening, and I think it points to perhaps a larger problem with our representatives and maybe their priorities," Morley said in an interview.

King's office did not respond to requests for comment.

As Republican members of Congress seek to roll back the Affordable Care Act, commonly called Obamacare, and replace it with the American Health Care Act, they have adopted various strategies to influence and cope with public opinion, which polls show mostly opposes their plan. ProPublica, with our partners at Kaiser Health News, Stat and Vox, has been fact-checking members of Congress in this debate and we've found misstatements on both sides, though more by Republicans than Democrats. The Washington Post's Fact Checker has similarly found misstatements by both sides.

Today, we're back with more examples of how legislators are interacting with constituents about repealing Obamacare, whether online or in traditional correspondence. Their more controversial tactics seem to fall into three main categories: providing incorrect information, using euphemisms for the impact of their actions, and deleting comments critical of them. (Share your correspondence with members of Congress with us.)

Incorrect Information

Representative Vicky Hartzler (Republican, Missouri) sent a note to constituents this month explaining her vote in favor of the Republican bill. First, she outlined why she believes the ACA is not sustainable -- namely, higher premiums and few choices. Then she said it was important to have a smooth transition from one system to another.

"This is why I supported the AHCA to follow through on our promise to have an immediate replacement ready to go should the ACA be repealed," she wrote. "The AHCA keeps the ACA for the next three years then phases in a new approach to give people, states, and insurance markets plenty of time to make adjustments."

Except that's not true.

"There are quite a number of changes in the AHCA that take effect within the next three years," wrote ACA expert Timothy Jost, an emeritus professor at Washington and Lee University School of Law, in an email to ProPublica.

The current law's penalties on individuals who do not purchase insurance and on employers who do not offer it would be repealed retroactively to 2016, which could remove the incentive for some employers to offer coverage to their workers. Moreover, beginning in 2018, older people could be charged premiums up to five times more than younger people -- up from three times under current law. The way in which premium tax credits would be calculated would change as well, benefiting younger people at the expense of older ones, Jost said.

"It is certainly not correct to say that everything stays the same for the next three years," he wrote.

In an email, Hartzler spokesman Casey Harper replied, "I can see how this sentence in the letter could be misconstrued. It's very important to the Congresswoman that we give clear, accurate information to her constituents. Thanks for pointing that out."

Other lawmakers have similarly shared incorrect information after voting to repeal the ACA. Representative Diane Black (Republican, Tennessee) wrote in a May 19 email to a constituent that "in 16 of our counties, there are no plans available at all. This system is crumbling before our eyes and we cannot wait another year to act."

Black was referring to the possibility that, in 16 Tennessee counties around Knoxville, there might not have been any insurance options in the ACA marketplace next year. However, 10 days earlier, before she sent her email, BlueCross BlueShield of Tennessee announced that it was willing to provide coverage in those counties and would work with the state Department of Commerce and Insurance "to set the right conditions that would allow our return."

"We stand by our statement of the facts, and Congressman Black is working hard to repeal and replace Obamacare with a system that actually works for Tennessee families and individuals," her deputy chief of staff Dean Thompson said in an email.

On the Democratic side, the Washington Post Fact Checker has called out representatives for saying the AHCA would consider rape or sexual assault as pre-existing conditions. The bill would not do that, although critics counter that any resulting mental health issues or sexually transmitted diseases could be considered existing illnesses.

Euphemisms

A number of lawmakers have posted information taken from talking points put out by the House Republican Conference that try to frame the changes in the Republican bill as kinder and gentler than most experts expect them to be.

An answer to one frequently asked question pushes back against criticism that the Republican bill would gut Medicaid, the federal-state health insurance program for the poor, and appears on the websites of Representative Garret Graves (Republican, Louisiana) and others.

"Our plan responsibly unwinds Obamacare's Medicaid expansion," the answer says. "We freeze enrollment and allow natural turnover in the Medicaid program as beneficiaries see their life circumstances change. This strategy is both fiscally responsible and fair, ensuring we don't pull the rug out on anyone while also ending the Obamacare expansion that unfairly prioritizes able-bodied working adults over the most vulnerable."

That is highly misleading, experts say.

The Affordable Care Act allowed states to expand Medicaid eligibility to anyone who earned less than 138 percent of the federal poverty level, with the federal government picking up almost the entire tab. Thirty-one states and the District of Columbia opted to do so. As a result, the program now covers more than 74 million beneficiaries, nearly 17 million more than it did at the end of 2013.

The GOP health care bill would pare that back. Beginning in 2020, it would reduce the share the federal government pays for new enrollees in the Medicaid expansion to the rate it pays for other enrollees in the state, which is considerably less. Also in 2020, the legislation would cap the spending growth rate per Medicaid beneficiary. As a result, a Congressional Budget Office review released Wednesday estimates that millions of Americans would become uninsured.

Sara Rosenbaum, a professor of health law and policy at the Milken Institute School of Public Health at George Washington University, said the GOP's characterization of its Medicaid plan is wrong on many levels. People naturally cycle on and off Medicaid, she said, often because of temporary events, not changing life circumstances -- seasonal workers, for instance, may see their wages rise in summer months before falling back.

"A terrible blow to millions of poor people is recast as an easing off of benefits that really aren't all that important, in a humane way," she said.

Moreover, the GOP bill actually would speed up the "natural turnover" in the Medicaid program, said Diane Rowland, executive vice president of the Kaiser Family Foundation, a health care think tank. Under the ACA, states were only permitted to recheck enrollees' eligibility for Medicaid once a year because cumbersome paperwork requirements have been shown to cause people to lose their coverage. The American Health Care Act would require these checks every six months -- and even give states more money to conduct them.

Rowland also took issue with the GOP talking point that the expansion "unfairly prioritizes able-bodied working adults over the most vulnerable." At a House Energy and Commerce Committee hearing earlier this year, GOP representatives maintained that the Medicaid expansion may be creating longer waits for home- and community-based programs for sick and disabled Medicaid patients needing long-term care, "putting care for some of the most vulnerable Americans at risk."

Research from the Kaiser Family Foundation, however, showed that there was no relationship between waiting lists and states that expanded Medicaid. Such waiting lists pre-dated the expansion and they were worse in states that did not expand Medicaid than in states that did.

"This is a complete misrepresentation of the facts," Rosenbaum said.

Graves' office said the information on his site came from the House Republican Conference. Emails to the conference's press office were not returned.

The GOP talking points also play up a new Patient and State Stability Fund included in the AHCA, which is intended to defray the costs of covering people with expensive health conditions. "All told, $130 billion dollars would be made available to states to finance innovative programs to address their unique patient populations," the information says. "This new stability fund ensures these programs have the necessary funding to protect patients while also giving states the ability to design insurance markets that will lower costs and increase choice."

The fund was modeled after a program in Maine, called an invisible high-risk pool, which advocates say has kept premiums in check in the state. But Senator Susan Collins (Republican, Maine) says the House bill's stability fund wasn't allocated enough money to keep premiums stable.

"In order to do the Maine model 2014 which I've heard many House people say that is what they're aiming for -- it would take $15 billion in the first year and that is not in the House bill," Collins told Politico. "There is actually $3 billion specifically designated for high-risk pools in the first year."

Deleting Comments

Morley, 28, a branded content editor who lives in Seaford, New York, said she moved into Representative King's Long Island district shortly before the 2016 election. She said she did not vote for him and, like many others across the country, said the election results galvanized her into becoming more politically active.

Earlier this year, Morley found an online conversation among King's constituents who said their critical comments were being deleted from his Facebook page. Because she doesn't agree with King's stances, she said she wanted to reserve her comment for an issue she felt strongly about.

A day after the House voted to repeal the ACA, Morley posted her thoughts. "I kind of felt that that was when I wanted to use my one comment, my one strike as it would be," she said.

By noon the next day, it had been deleted and she had been blocked.

"I even wrote in my comment that you can block me but I'm still going to call your office," Morley said in an interview.

Some negative comments about King remain on his Facebook page. But King's critics say his deletions fit a broader pattern. He has declined to hold an in-person town hall meeting this year, saying, "to me all they do is just turn into a screaming session," according to CNN. He held a telephonic town hall meeting but only answered a small fraction of the questions submitted. And he met with Liuba Grechen Shirley, the founder of a local Democratic group in his district, but only after her group held a protest in front of his office that drew around 400 people.

"He's not losing his health care," Grechen Shirley said. "It doesn't affect him. It's a death sentence for many and he doesn't even care enough to meet with his constituents."

King's deleted comments even caught the eye of Andy Slavitt, who until January was the acting administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Slavitt has been traveling the country pushing back against attempts to gut the ACA.

.@RepPeteKing, are you silencing your constituents who send you questions? Assume ppl in district will respond if this is happening.

-- Andy Slavitt (@ASlavitt) May 12, 2017

Since the election, other activists across the country who oppose the president's agenda have posted online that they have been blocked from following their elected officials on Twitter or commenting on their Facebook pages because of critical statements they've made about the AHCA and other issues.

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


FCC Voted Yesterday To Start To Overturn Net Neutrality Rules

Federal communications Commission logo Yesterday, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) voted to kill net neutrality rules it enacted a couple years ago. The FCC announcement:

"The Federal Communications Commission today took the first step toward restoring Internet freedom and promoting infrastructure investment, innovation, and choice by proposing to end utility-style regulation of broadband Internet access service. In a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the FCC proposes to return to the bipartisan framework that preserved a flourishing free and open Internet for almost 20 years.  First, the Notice proposes to reverse the FCC’s 2015 decision to impose heavy-handed Title II utility-style government regulation on Internet service providers (ISPs) and return to the longstanding, successful light-touch framework under Title I of the Communications Act.

Second, the Notice proposes to return to the Commission’s original classification of mobile broadband Internet access service as a private mobile service.  Given the historical innovation and success of the wireless marketplace prior to the Title II Order, this proposal is expected to substantially benefit consumers and the marketplace.

Third, the Notice proposes to eliminate the catch-all Internet conduct standard created by the Title II Order.  Because the Internet conduct standard is extremely vague and expansive, ISPs must guess at what they are permitted to do.  Eliminating the Internet conduct standard is therefore expected to promote innovation and network investment by eliminating regulatory uncertainty."

The vote happened on the scheduled date, despite the unavailability for several hours Sunday morning, May 7, of the FCC website for public comments. The FCC said its site crashed due to a DDoS attack. Before the vote, more than 2 million persons and organizations submitted feedback to the FCC.

The vote was expected since Republicans dominate the three-member committee. FCC Chairman Pai and Commissioner Michael O'Rielly, voted for the change. Commissioner Mignon Clyburn, the only Democrat on the three-member committee, voted against it. In January of this year, President Donald Trump appointed Ajit Pai, a former lawyer with Verizon, as the FCC Chairman.

In a statement about the vote, FCC Chairman Ajit Pai repeated prior claims about "heavy-handed" regulation, an internet that wasn't broken, and decreased infrastructure investment by internet service providers (ISPs). All of these claims were discussed and debunked previously after Chairman Pai's speech in April.

C/Net reported:

"Eliminating the Open Internet Order takes away the internet's level playing field and would allow a select few corporations to choose winners and losers, preventing consumers from accessing the content that they want, when they want it," said Jonathan Schwantes, senior policy counsel for Consumers Union. Democratic Senator Al Franken of Minnesota called it "a major step toward destroying the internet as we know it."

CNN reported:

"More than 1,000 startups and investors have now signed an open letter to Pai opposing the proposal. The Internet Association, a trade group representing bigger companies like Facebook, Google, and Amazon, has also condemned the plan. "The current FCC rules are working for consumers and the protections need to be kept in tact," Michael Beckerman, president and CEO of the Internet Association, said at a press conference Wednesday."

USA Today reported:

"Congress could eventually have a say on the issue. At about the same time the FCC was considering the issue, Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., called for Congress to pass legislation "to protect the internet." Thune, who is the chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, urged colleagues "to begin bipartisan work on such legislation without any further delay. Innovation and job creation should no longer take a backseat to partisan point-scoring," he said..."

After re-reading the FCC announcement several times, I noticed that it failed to mention nor summarize the feedback received from the public. This makes one wonder if Chairman Pai and the committee took the time to review the comments submitted. During the last thirty (3) days, the public submitted 2,174,196 filings and comments. (See image below.) The feedback included a mix of comments for and against the latest changes.

Did Chairman Pai and the committee read this feedback, or were their minds already made up? And if so, did they simply ignore more than 2 million comments? Fortunately, the public can continue to submit feedback about Proceeding 17-108 until August for the subsequent final FCC vote.

Image of most active items in the FCC Electronic Comment Filing System as of May 19, 2017. Click to view larger version


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.


Seattle Strengthens Privacy Protections For Broadband And Cable Users

The city of Seattle has strengthened it privacy rules to better protect residents using cable-TV services and high-speed internet services (a/k/a broadband). The new rules go into effect on May 24, and mirrors the FCC broadband privacy rules which Congress revoked earlier this year.

The announcement by the Seattle Mayor's office explained:

"Seattle Municipal Code (SMC 21.60) grants the City of Seattle authority to issue rules related to the privacy practices of cable operators. These rules govern not only cable television services but also non-cable services, such as internet service. The new rule states cable operators must obtain opt-in consent before sharing a customer’s web browsing history or otherwise using such information for a purpose other than providing a customer with their requested service.

Comcast, CenturyLink, and Wave have cable franchise agreements with the City of Seattle and will be subject to the new rule. Under the terms of the rule, these cable operators must report their compliance by Sept. 30, 2017 and annually thereafter."

Earlier this year, a national poll found the the Republican rollback of FCC broadband privacy rules very unpopular among consumers. Despite this, President Trump signed the privacy-rollback legislation on April 3.

The new rules in Seattle, ITD Director's Rule 2017-10 (Adobe PDF), state in part:

"- Prohibit Cable Operators from collecting or disclosing any information regarding the extent of any individual customer's viewing habits, or other use by a customer of a cable service or other service provided such as web browsing activity, without the prior affirmative consent of the customer, unless such information is necessary to render a service requested by the customer, or a legitimate business purpose related to the service.
- Require Cable Operators to fully and completely disclose customer rights and the limitations imposed on a Cable Operator's collection, use, and disclosure of Personally Identifiable Information (PII) in clear language that a customer can radily understand.
- Require Cable Operators to destroy within 90 days any PII if the PII is no longer necessary for the purpose for which it was collected and there are no pending requests or orders for access to shuch PII... Require Cable Operators to provide stamped, self-addressed post cards that customers can mail in to have their names and addresses removed form any lists the Cable Operators might use for purposes other than the direct provision of service to those customers.
- Establish without ambiguity that a customer, once "opting out" of the Cable Operator's mailing list, is permanently removed from that list unless that customer subsequently requests inclusion on such list."

This is a great start. The rules define PII as:

"... specific information about a customer, including, but not not limited to, a customer's (a) login information, (b) extent of viewing of video programming or other services, (c) shopping choices, (d) interests and opinions, (e) energy uses, (f) medical information, (g) banking data or information, (h) web browsing activities, or (i) any other personal or private information..."

Mayor Edward B. Murray commented about the new rules:

"Where the Trump administration continues to roll back critical consumer protections, Seattle will act... I believe protecting the privacy of internet users is essential and this policy allows the City to do just that. Because of regulation repeals at the national level, we must use all of the powers at our disposal to protect the rights of our residents."

Citizens in other major cities across the United States may want to ask what consumer-friendly privacy actions their mayors are taking.


Update: Net Neutrality, Administrative 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.