Source: http://www.techlawjournal.com/alert/2006/05/11.asp
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 18:05:48+00:00

Document:
TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,368, May 11, 2006.
May 11, 2006, Alert No. 1,368.
5/9. Rep. Michael Fitzpatrick (R-PA) and other House Republicans introduced HR 5319, the "Deleting Online Predators Act of 2006", or DOPA. This bill would censor use of the internet by expanding the requirements of the Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA) to include chat rooms and commercial social networking web sites.
CIPA. The Congress enacted the "Children's Internet Protection Act" in December of 2000 as part of a huge, omnibus, end of session appropriations bill. The CIPA [20 pages in PDF] was one small part of HR 4577 (106th Congress). President Clinton signed the huge bill into law on December 21, 2000. It is now Public Law No. 106-554.
The key provisions of the CIPA are now codified at 47 U.S.C. § 254, at subsections (h)(5) and (h)(6). Section 254, which was added to the Communications Act of 1934 by the Telecommunications Act of 1996, is the universal service section. Section 254 is the statutory section upon which the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) e-rate tax and subsidy program is loosely based.
The CIPA also has a long litigation history. Ultimately, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the CIPA. See, opinion [56 pages in PDF] of June 23, 2003 in US v. American Library Association, and stories titled "District Court Holds Part of Children's Internet Protection Act Unconstitutional" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 442, June 3, 2002, and "Supreme Court Upholds Children's Internet Protection Act" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 686, June 24, 2003. This Supreme Court's opinion is also reported at 539 U.S. 194.
DOPA. Rep. Fitzpatrick's bill would expand the duties of schools and libraries receiving e-rate subsidies. In order to continue to receive subsidies, schools would have to certify to the FCC that they are "enforcing a policy of Internet safety for minors that includes monitoring the online activities of minors and the operation of a technology protection measure with respect to any of its computers with Internet access that ... prohibits access to a commercial social networking website or chat room through which minors ... may easily access or be presented with obscene or indecent material; ... may easily be subject to unlawful sexual advances, unlawful requests for sexual favors, or repeated offensive comments of a sexual nature from adults; or ... may easily access other material that is harmful to minors".
The bill contains a similar requirement for libraries, but it applies only to "minors" and contains an exception for "parental authorization". Libraries would have to certify to the FCC that they are "enforcing a policy of Internet safety that includes the operation of a technology protection measure with respect to any of its computers with Internet access that ... prohibits access by minors without parental authorization to a commercial social networking website or chat room through which minors ... may easily access or be presented with obscene or indecent material; ... may easily be subject to unlawful sexual advances, unlawful requests for sexual favors, or repeated offensive comments of a sexual nature from adults; or ... may easily access other material that is harmful to minors".
The bill defines "commercial social networking website" to mean "a commercially operated Internet website that (i) allows users to create web pages or profiles that provide information about themselves and are available to other users; and (ii) offers a mechanism for communication with other users, such as a forum, chat room, email, or instant messenger."
The bill defines the term "chat rooms" to mean "Internet websites through which a number of users can communicate in real time via text and that allow messages to be almost immediately visible to all other users or to a designated segment of all other users."
The bill would require the FCC to "annually publish a list of commercial social networking websites and chat rooms that have been shown to allow sexual predators easy access to personal information of, and contact with, children".
The bill would affect, among other things, use of Myspace and Facebook. Rep. Fitzpatrick stated in a release that "Sites like Myspace and Facebook have opened the door to a new online community of social networks between friends, students and colleagues ... However, this new technology has become a feeding ground for child predators that use these sites as just another way to do our children harm."
The bill was referred to the House Commerce Committee.
Support for DOPA. The original cosponsors of the bill are Rep. Mark Kirk (R-IL), Rep. Candace Miller (R-MI), Rep. Curt Weldon (R-PA), Rep. Phil English (R-PA), Rep. Geoff Davis (R-KY), and Rep. Mike Castle (R-DE).
Rep. Kirk stated in a release on May 8, 2006, that the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) will issue a consumer alert "regarding the dangers of using MySpace.com and other social networking sites". He continued that "One in five children receives unwanted sexual advances online ... Social networking sites like MySpace.com contain web pages for tens of millions of American children. Using the anonymity of the Internet, pedophiles found a virtual hunting ground to prey on children. I welcome the decision by the FTC to issue a national consumer alert, urging parents to monitor who is contacting their children via these sites and warning children to use caution when setting up a personal web page."
House Republicans held a news conference on May 10, 2006, to announce the agenda for the Republican's Suburban Caucus. HR 5319 is part of this agenda.
Rep. Miller, a member of the Caucus, and an original cosponsor of HR 5319, stated in a release that "These bills are the start of our ongoing agenda that will address the needs of our suburban constituents. In particular we must do more to protect our children. Just yesterday a thirteen year old girl from my hometown of Harrison Twp. was picked up by a 25 year old man whom she met on MySpace.com. That man then tried to remove her from the state, but thankfully her friends alerted authorities who got her back. It is these kinds of incidents affecting our children and families in suburban America that our agenda is targeting. I am also pleased that our leadership has ensured floor action on each of these bills."
House Speaker Denny Hastert (R-IL) (at right) also spoke at this news conference. He said that this bill "would put filters in schools and libraries so that kids can be protected from websites and tools that predators use online. We’ve all heard stories of children on some of these social websites meeting up with dangerous predators. This legislation adds another layer of protection." See, statement. See also, release of Rep. Davis.
Constitutionality of DOPA. HR 5319 creates no new statutory framework. It merely extends an existing framework -- that of Section 254(h)(5)&(6).
Congressional attempts to censor uses of the internet have sometimes been held unconstitutional by the judiciary. However, the Section 254(h) framework of the CIPA has been held constitutional by the Supreme Court. The strategy of the drafters and sponsors of this bill may be to rely upon the holding of the Supreme Court in US v. ALA.
However, the constitutionality of at least part of the bill, may yet be an open question. The majority of the Supreme Court in US v. ALA was divided, two of its members have since retired, and the reasoning was based upon the facts associated with blocking pormographic web sites, rather than blocking access to chat rooms and social networking sites.
First, it should be noted that both the CIPA and the DOPA apply to both schools (which involve children) and libraries (which involve both adults and children). There was little opposition to the CIPA's schools related provisions, and the District Court upheld these. The issue before the Supreme Court was the CIPA's library related provisions.
Both the District Court and the Supreme Court noted that software that blocks access to pormographic web sites also inadvertently overblocks. It is over-inclusive to the extent that some of the web sites that are blocked do not contain the pormographic content that the statute seeks to have blocked. Hence, library patrons may not gain access to web sites with non-objectionable content. The District Court, but not a majority of the Supreme Court, held that this made the statute unconstitutional under First Amendment analysis.
There is perhaps a big difference, for the purposes of constitutional analysis, between porm blocking, a small part of which is over-inclusive, and chat room and social networking web site blocking, most of which is over-inclusive. That is, the vast majority of the content and communications in chat rooms and social networking web sites is not content or communications which the statute seeks to block.
The majority in US v. ALA may also be significant. Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote the opinion of the Court. He is no longer on the Court. Justice O'Connor joined. She is no longer on the Court. The two other Justices who joined were Scalia and Thomas. In addition, Justice Kennedy and Justice Breyer both wrote opinions that concurred as to the judgment of constitutionality, but offered different analyses from that of Chief Justice Rehnquist. That is, there are only two members left who joined in the opinion of the Court, and two more who joined in the judgment as to constitutionality. Depending on how the new members, Roberts and Alito, view this issue, the Court might have supported overturning the CIPA had they been on the Court.
The combination of Court turnover, and a fact scenario less conducive to a finding of constitutionality, could lead the current Court to overturn at least the library related provisions of the DOPA.
Back in 2002, the three judge panel of the U.S. District Court (EDPa) held the statute unconstitutional as a violation of the First Amendment. It held that filtering software is a content based restriction on access to a public forum, and is therefore subject to the strict scrutiny test -- that is, it must be necessary to achieve a compelling governmental interest, and be narrowly tailored to further that interest. The District Court held that the federal government has a compelling interest in preventing the dissemination of obscenity, child pormography, or, in the case of minors, material harmful to minors. However, it found that mandating the use of filters is not narrowly tailored to further those interests.
The Supreme Court reversed. Justices wrote several opinions. Six Justices joined in opinions that concluded that the CIPA is constitutional. Rehnquist wrote an opinion that was joined by Justices O'Connor, Scalia and Thomas. His opinion turned on the question of whether or not libraries are public fora.
Rehnquist first reviewed the nature of internet access and filtering software. He wrote "there is also an enormous amount of pormography on the Internet, much of which is easily obtained. ... The accessibility of this material has created serious problems for libraries, which have found that patrons of all ages, including minors, regularly search for online pormography. ... Some patrons also expose others to pormographic images by leaving them displayed on Internet terminals or printed at library printers. ... Upon discovering these problems, Congress became concerned that the E-rate and LSTA programs were facilitating access to illegal and harmful pormography."
"But Congress also learned that filtering software that blocks access to pormographic Web sites could provide a reasonably effective way to prevent such uses of library resources", wrote Rehnquist.
He also acknowledged that "But a filter set to block pormography may sometimes block other sites that present neither obscene nor pormographic material, but that nevertheless trigger the filter."
Rehnquist then analyzed the function fulfilled by public libraries, and concluded that, in the context of internet access, public libraries are not "public forums" within the meaning of constitutional analysis.
He wrote that "The public forum principles on which the District Court relied ... are out of place in the context of this case. Internet access in public libraries is neither a ``traditional´´ nor a ``designated´´ public forum."
He reasoned that "A public library does not acquire Internet terminals in order to create a public forum for Web publishers to express themselves, any more than it collects books in order to provide a public forum for the authors of books to speak. It provides Internet access, not to ``encourage a diversity of views from private speakers,´´ ... but for the same reasons it offers other library resources: to facilitate research, learning, and recreational pursuits by furnishing materials of requisite and appropriate quality."
Justice Breyer approached the case differently. He wrote that "Given the comparatively small burden that the Act imposes upon the library patron seeking legitimate Internet materials, I cannot say that any speech-related harm that the Act may cause is disproportionate when considered in relation to the Act’s legitimate objectives. I therefore agree with the plurality that the statute does not violate the First Amendment, and I concur in the judgment."
Were Justice Breyer to stand in judgment of the DOPA, he might conclude that it presents a comparatively large burden on library patrons.
In addition, Justice Breyer noted that "the Act allows libraries to permit any adult patron access to an ``overblocked´´ Web site; the adult patron need only ask a librarian to unblock the specific Web site ..."
Section 254(h)(6)(D), which pertains to libraries, provides that "An administrator, supervisor, or other person authorized by the certifying authority under subparagraph (A)(i) may disable the technology protection measure concerned, during use by an adult, to enable access for bona fide research or other lawful purpose."
Justice Kennedy placed great emphasis on this clause. He wrote that " If, on the request of an adult user, a librarian will unblock filtered material or disable the Internet software filter without significant delay, there is little to this case."
HR 5319 does not amend Section 254(h)(6)(D). It does, however, amend Section 254(h)(5)(D), which pertains to schools, to allow unblocking during computer use "by minors with adult supervision to enable access for educational purposes".
In conclusion, six Justices concluded that the CIPA was constitutional as applied to libraries. However, two of those have retired, and Breyer might reach the opposite conclusion were he to review the DOPA. It appears from the CIPA case that Justice Scalia, Thomas and Kennedy would uphold the constitutionality of the DOPA. The positions of Justices Roberts and Alito are unknown.
5/10. Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-NY) issued a release in which he stated that the Department of Justice's (DOJ) Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) informed him that "it has closed its investigation of the Bush administration's warrantless domestic surveillance program because OPR was denied the security clearances needed to conduct a probe."
He added that he and three other House Democrats "wrote a letter to OPR Counsel H. Marshall Jarrett in January, requesting that he probe the agency's involvement with the creation of the secret NSA program."
Rep. Hinchey wrote that Jarrett wrote the following: "I am writing to inform you that we have been unable to make any meaningful progress in our investigation because OPR has been denied security clearances for access to information about the NSA program. Beginning in January 2006, this Office made a series of requests for the necessary clearances. On May 9, 2006, we were informed that our requests had been denied. Without these clearances, we cannot investigate this matter and therefore have closed our investigation."
Rep. Hinchey stated in his release that "It is outrageous that people within the Bush administration have blocked an investigation into the role that members of the Justice Department played in establishing and executing this secret domestic spy program".
5/10. Michael Luttig resigned his position as Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals (4thCir), effective immediately. Boeing hired him to be its General Counsel. See, Boeing release.
He wrote in a resignation letter [PDF] to President Bush that "I could not have imagined that I would ever leave the court", and that "service as a federal judge is one of the very highest callings in life". He has long been considered a leading contender for appointment to the Supreme Court by any Republican President. He did not mention in his letter that Bush passed him over last year with his nominations of John Roberts, Harriet Miers, and Sam Alito.
The elder President Bush appointed Luttig to the Court in 1991. He was confirmed just after turning 37, making him the youngest U.S. Court of Appeals judge. Luttig was the Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) at the time of the Senate's consideration of the nomination of Clarence Thomas to be a Supreme Court Justice. The OLC was actively involved in that confirmation battle. Before that, he clerked for Judge Antonin Scalia when he sat on the U.S. Court of Appeals (DCCir), and for former Chief Justice Warren Burger.
Luttig has sat on many three judge panels that have decided technology related cases. However, he has rarely written opinions in technology related cases. One exception was his dissent from the July 28, 2004, opinion [20 pages in PDF] in Bryan v. BellSouth, a case regarding federal question jurisdiction in which the Appeals Court addressed the filed rate doctrine and universal service taxes. See also, story titled "4th Circuit Addresses Filed Rate Doctrine and Consumer Protection Statutes" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 949, July 30, 2004.
His resignation opens a position on the 4th Circuit.
5/10. President Bush nominated Neil Gorsuch to be a Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals (10thCir). See, White House release. Most recently, Gorsuch has been the Principal Deputy Associate Attorney General in the Office of the Associate Attorney at the Department of Justice (DOJ). He has also been a member of the DOJ's Intellectual Property Task Force. Gorsuch was previously a partner in the Washington DC law firm of Kellogg Huber. He represented SBC and Qwest in antitrust and securities class action cases. Before that, he clerked for Judge David Sentelle of the U.S. Court of Appeals (DCCir), and for Justices Byron White and Anthony Kennedy of the Supreme Court. Gorsuch is the son of David Gorsuch and the late Anne McGill Gorsuch Burford. Early in her career she was a regional Bell attorney, assistant District Attorney in Colorado, and Colorado state legislator. She was also Ronald Reagan's first Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
The House will meet at 10:00 AM for legislative business. The House may consider HR 5122, the "National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007". See, Republican Whip Notice.
The Senate will meet at 9:30 AM. It will consider the conference report on HR 4297, the "Tax Relief Act of 2005".
8:00 AM - 3:30 PM. The National Science Foundation (NSF) will hold a hearing on international science partnerships. See, notice in the Federal Register, May 9, 2006, Vol. 71, No. 89, at Page 26984. Location: George Washington University, 1957 E Street, 7th Floor, City View Room.
9:00 AM. The House Judiciary Committee's (HJC) Subcommittee on Crime will hold a hearing on HR 5318, the "Cyber-Security Enhancement and Consumer Data Protection Act of 2006". The witnesses will be Laura Parsky (Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Criminal Division), Anne Wallace (Identity Theft Assistance Center of the Financial Services Roundtable), and Joseph LaRocca (National Retail Federation). See, notice. The hearing will be webcast by the HJC. Press contact: Jeff Lungren or Terry Shawn at 202-225-2492. Location: Room 2141, Rayburn Building.
9:30 AM. The Senate Judiciary Committee (SJC) may hold an executive business meeting. The agenda includes consideration of several judicial nominations, including Brett Kavanaugh to be a Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, Sean Cox (U.S.D.C., Eastern District of Michigan), and Thomas Ludington (U.S.D.C. for the Eastern District of Michigan). The agenda also includes consideration of S 2453, the "National Security Surveillance Act of 2006", S 2455, the "Terrorist Surveillance Act of 2006", and S 2468, a bill to provide standing for civil actions for declaratory and injunctive relief to persons who refrain from electronic communications through fear of being subject to warrantless electronic surveillance for foreign intelligence purposes. See, notice. The SJC rarely follows its published agenda. The SJC frequently cancels or postpones meetings without notice. Press contact: 224-5225. Location: Room 226, Dirksen Building.
9:30 AM. The U.S. Court of Appeals (DCCir) will hear oral argument in Charter Communications and Advance/Newhouse Communications v. FCC, a case regarding cable operators and integrated navigation devices. It is App. Ct. No. 05-1237. See, FCC's brief [43 pages in PDF]. Judges Ginsburg, Tatel and Garland will preside. Location: Prettyman Courthouse, 333 Constitution Ave., NW.
2:00 - 4:00 PM. The Department of State's (DOS) International Telecommunication Advisory Committee (ITAC) will meet to prepare for the CITEL PCC.I (Telecommunication) meetings on May 23-26, 2006 in San Domingo, Dominican Republic, and on September 12-15, 2006, in Washington DC. See, notice in the Federal Register, March 29, 2006, Vol. 71, No. 60, at Page 15798. Location: __.
2:30 PM. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee will hold a hearing on the nomination of Daniel Sullivan to be Assistant Secretary of State for Economic and Business Affairs. See, notice. Location: Room 106, Dirksen Building.
3:00 - 5:30 PM. The Federal Communications Bar Association's (FCBA) Engineering and Technical Practice Committee will host a continuing legal education (CLE) seminar titled "Master Class: Engineering Essentials and the Role of Technology in Telecommunications Policy Reform". See, registration form [PDF]. Location: Hogan & Hartson, 555 13th Street, NW.
Deadline to submit initial comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regarding ACA International's petition for an expedited clarification and declaratory ruling concerning the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) rules. See, notice in the Federal Register, April 26, 2006, Vol. 71, No. 80, at Pages 24634-24635. This is CG Docket No. 02-278.
10:00 AM. The Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) entity titled "Independent Panel Reviewing the Impact of Hurricane Katrina on Communications Networks" will hold a meeting. See, notice in the Federal Register, April 26, 2006, Vol. 71, No. 80, at Pages 24708-24709. Location: FCC Commission Meeting Room, Room TW-C305,FCC, 445 12th Street, SW.
12:00 NOON. Deadline to submit comments to the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) regarding the proposed free trade agreement (FTA) between the U.S. and Malaysia. The USTR seeks comments on "electronic commerce issues", "trade-related intellectual property rights issues", "barriers to trade in services", and other topics. See, notice in the Federal Register, March 22, 2006, Vol. 71, No. 55, at Pages 14558-14559.
12:00 NOON - 1:15 PM. The DC Bar Association will host a panel discussion titled "Software and Business Method Patentability: A Changing Landscape?". The speakers will include Scott Alter (Wilmer Hale). The price to attend ranges from $10-$30. For more information, call 202-626-3463. See, notice. Location: D.C. Bar Conference Center, 1250 H Street NW, B-1 Level.
12:15 PM. The Federal Communications Bar Association's (FCBA) Wireless Telecommunications Practice Committee will host a lunch. The topic will be former FCC Bureau Chief's perspectives on the wireless industry. The speakers will be John Muleta, Michele Farquhar, Regina Keeney, and Dan Phythyon. The price to attend is $15. Reservations and cancellations are due by May 9 at 5:00 PM. See, registration form [PDF]. Location: Sidley Austin, 1501 K Street, 6th Floor.
Recommended deadline to submit comments to the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) and the Department of Labor regarding the proposed free trade agreement (FTA) between the United States and Malaysia on U.S. employment, including labor markets. See, notice in the Federal Register, March 31, 2006, Vol. 71, No. 62, at Pages 16349-16350.
Deadline to submit reply comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regarding pulver.com's and Evslin's petition [18 pages in PDF] for a rulemaking regarding number porting in emergencies. See, FCC notice [PDF] and story titled "Pulver Asks FCC to Require Greater Number Porting in Emergencies" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,329, March 14, 2006.
9:30 AM. The U.S. Court of Appeals (DCCir) will hear oral argument in Complx Covad Comm v. FCC, App. Ct. No. 05-1095. Judges Ginsburg, Tatel and Garland will preside. Location: Prettyman Courthouse, 333 Constitution Ave., NW.
12:15 PM. The Federal Communications Bar Association's (FCBA) IP-Based Communications Practice Committee will host a brown bag lunch. The topic will be the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA). The speakers will include Matt Brill (Latham & Watkins), Chris Bubb (AOL), Samir Jain (Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr). Location: Pillsbury Winthrop, 2300 N St., NW.
EXTENDED TO MAY 19. Deadline to submit reply comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to its notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) regarding privacy of consumer phone records. See, notice in the Federal Register, March 15, 2006, Vol. 71, No. 50, at Pages 13317-13323. The FCC adopted this NPRM on February 10, 2006, and released the text [34 pages in PDF] on February 14, 2006. See, story titled "FCC Adopts NPRM Regarding Privacy of Consumer Phone Records" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,308, February 13, 2006, and story titled "FCC Rulemaking Proceeding on CPNI May Extend to Internet Protocol Services" in TLJ Daily E-Mail alert No. 1,310, February 15, 2006. This NPRM is FCC 06-10 in CC Docket No. 96-115 and RM-11277.
Deadline to submit initial comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to its notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) regarding mandatory thousands-block number pooling. See, notice in the Federal Register, March 15, 2006, Vol. 71, No. 50, at Pages 13323-13328. This NPRM is FCC 06-14 in CC Docket No. 99-200.
Deadline to submit initial comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to various petitions for reconsideration of the FCC's Report and Order regarding the equipment authorization requirements for Unlicensed National Information Infrastructure (U-NII) devices employing dynamic frequency selection (DFS). See, notice in the Federal Register, May 3, 2006, Vol. 71, No. 85, at Pages 26004-26006. This proceeding is ET Docket No. 03-122.
TIME? The Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) North American Numbering Council (NANC) will hold a meeting. Location: __.
10:00 AM. The Senate Finance Committee will hold a hearing on the nomination of Susan Schwab to be the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR). See, notice. Location: Room 215, Dirksen Building.
11:30 AM - 1:00 PM. The American Bar Association (ABA) will host a continuing legal education (CLE) program titled "International Licensing: When Technology Crosses Borders". See, notice. Location: teleconference and audio webcast only.
4:00 PM. The House Judiciary Committee's (HJC) Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet and Intellectual Property will hold a hearing on HR __, the "Music Licensing for the Digital Age Act". See, notice. The hearing will be webcast by the HJC. Press contact: Jeff Lungren or Terry Shawn at 202-225-2492. Location: Room 2141, Rayburn Building.
6:00 - 8:15 PM. The DC Bar Association will host a panel discussion titled "Intellectual Property Primer". The speakers will include Joy Butler (Law Office of Joy Butler), Diana Michelle Sobo (Westerman Hattori Daniels & Adrian), Cathy Futrowsky (Gallop Johnson & Neuman), and Melinda Sossamon (Manning & Sossamon). The price to attend ranges from $10-$20. For more information, call 202-626-3463. See, notice. Location: D.C. Bar Conference Center, 1250 H Street NW, B-1 Level.
6:00 - 8:15 PM. The Federal Communications Bar Association's (FCBA) will host a continuing legal education (CLE) seminar titled "Communications Law 202". It will cover the broadcast and cable industries. Reservations and cancellations are due by May 12 at 12:00 NOON. Prices vary. See, registration form [PDF]. Location: Dow Lohnes, 1200 New Hampshire Ave., NW.
? 10:00 AM. The Senate Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on Technology, Innovation, and Competitiveness will hold a hearing titled "Accelerating the Adoption of Health Information Technology". See, notice. Press contact: Aaron Saunders (Stevens) at 202 224-3991 or Andy Davis (Inouye) at 202 224-4546. Location: __.
11:30 AM - 1:30 PM. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce will host an event titled "Microsoft Cyber Security Forum". See, notice. Location: Sheraton National Hotel, 900 S. Orme Street, Arlington, VA.
12:15 PM. The Federal Communications Bar Association's (FCBA) Young Lawyers Committee will host a brown bag lunch to elect officers. E-mail nominations to Jason Friedrich at jason dot friedrich at dbr dot com or Natalie Roisman at natalie dot roisman at fcc dot gov by May 10. Location: Drinker Biddle & Reath, 1500 K Street, 11th floor.
2:00 PM. The House Judiciary Committee's (HJC) Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law will hold a hearing titled "Privacy in the Hands of the Government: The Privacy Officer for the Department of Homeland Security and the Privacy Officer for the Department of Justice". The hearing will be webcast by the HJC. Press contact: Jeff Lungren or Terry Shawn at 202-225-2492. Location: Room 2141, Rayburn Building.
2:30 PM. The House Judiciary Committee's (HJC) Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law will meet to mark up HR 2840, the "Federal Agency Protection of Privacy Act of 2005". The meeting will be webcast by the HJC. Press contact: Jeff Lungren or Terry Shawn at 202-225-2492. Location: Room 2141, Rayburn Building.
The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) will host a conference titled "CLIX-COTS Logging Information Exchange". See, notice. Location: NIST, Green Auditorium, 100 Bureau Drive, Gaithersburg, MD.
10:00 AM. The Senate Commerce Committee (SCC) will hold the first of two hearings on S 2686 [135 pages in PDF], the "Communications, Consumer's Choice, and Broadband Deployment Act of 2006". See, notice of hearing, statement [5 pages in PDF] by Sen. Stevens, and Sen. Stevens' section by section summary [7 pages in PDF]. See also, stories titled "Stevens Introduces Telecom Reform Bill" and "Section by Section Summary of Sen. Stevens' Telecom Reform Bill" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,362, May 2, 2006. Press contact: Aaron Saunders (Stevens) at 202-224-3991 or Andy Davis (Inouye) at 202-224-4546. The hearing will be webcast by the SCC. Location: Room 216, Hart Building.
TIME? The Council on Competitiveness's (COC) Forum on Technology and Innovation may host an event titled "Moving Ideas from the Lab to the Marketplace - the Role of Tech Transfer in an Innovative Economy". A box lunch will be served. See, registration web page. Location?
12:00 NOON. The Federal Communications Bar Association's (FCBA) will host a lunch featuring general counsels. Reservations and cancellations are due by May 15 at 5:00 PM. Prices vary. See, registration form [PDF]. Location: Mayflower Hotel, 1127 Connecticut Ave., NW.
Day one of a two day closed meeting of the Defense Science Board 2006 Summer Study on Information Management for Net-Centric Operations. See, notice in the Federal Register, April 11, 2006, Vol. 71, No. 69, Page 18292. Location: 3601 Wilson Boulevard, 3rd Floor, Arlington, VA.
Deadline to submit reply comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to various petitions for reconsideration of the FCC's Report and Order regarding the equipment authorization requirements for Unlicensed National Information Infrastructure (U-NII) devices employing dynamic frequency selection (DFS). See, notice in the Federal Register, May 3, 2006, Vol. 71, No. 85, at Pages 26004-26006. This proceeding is ET Docket No. 03-122.

References: § 254
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.