Source: http://techlawjournal.com/home/newsbriefs/2013/09a.asp
Timestamp: 2018-06-19 12:28:26
Document Index: 32274206

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 4321', 'art 17', '§ 17', '§ 73', '§ 1001', '§ 45']

TLJ News: September 1-5, 2013.
TLJ News from September 1-5, 2013
FCC Announces Tentative Agenda for September 26 Meeting
9/5. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) released a tentative agenda for its event titled "open meeting" scheduled for September 26, 2013. It is scheduled to adopt an NPRM regarding towers and birds, an NPRM regarding its TV ownership rule, and a MOO that resolves Bloomberg's two year old complaint against Comcast for allegedly violating the neighborhooding condition imposed with the approval of the Comcast NBCU transaction. There will also be a staff update on LPFM.
Birds. The FCC is scheduled to adopt a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) regarding its antenna structure registration (ASR) program, and environmental processing.
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which is codified at 42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq., requires all federal agencies, including the FCC, to identify and take into account environmental effects when deciding whether to authorize or undertake a major federal action.
Hence, the FCC must comply with the NEPA in proceedings pertaining to the effect of communications towers on migratory birds. The FCC opened a proceeding back on August 20, 2003 with a Notice of Inquiry (NOI) [18 pages in PDF]. See, story titled "FCC Release NOI On Communications Towers and Migratory Birds" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 723, August 21, 2003. The FCC released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) [40 pages in PDF] on November 7, 2006.
The FCC adopted an Report and Order (R&O) [58 pages in PDF] on December 6, 2011. It released that order on December 9, 2011. It is FCC 11-181 in WT Docket No. 08-61 and WT Docket No. 03-187.
The FCC's rules for "Construction, Marking and Lighting of Antenna Structures" are codified at 47 C.F.R. Part 17. Its ASR rules are codified at 47 C.F.R. § 17.4.
On March 13, 2012, the FCC's Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (WTB) released a document [166 pages in PDF] titled "Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment for the Antenna Structure Registration Program". The FCC outsourced the writing of that document to the URS Group, Inc.
The Department of the Interior's (DOI) Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) wants the FCC to impose a more onerous ASR regulatory regime upon communications companies for the purpose of reducing the number of collisions of migratory birds with communications towers. See, March 2013 filing [15 pages in PDF].
The DOI wants the FCC to "create a programmatic approach to authorizing communication towers that, along with its goal of avoiding and minimizing hazards to air navigation, explicitly seeks to avoid or minimize bird mortality. The FCC could begin by revising the ``Purpose´´ section to include a goal of reducing adverse effects to migratory birds, in particular, birds of conservation concern (BCC) that are drawn from the list of 1,007 species that are presently protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). Accordingly, the alternatives considered would then incorporate measures that are designed to avoid or minimize the environmental damages associated with those actions. We recommend that the FCC use the present opportunity to coordinate with the FWS to formulate systematic, consistent, and verifiable measures that would reduce bird mortalities at facilities regulated under the ASR."
Several interest groups (Defenders of Wildlife, Audubon Society, and American Bird Conservancy) advocate enhanced regulation. See, January 14, 2011 filing [12 pages in PDF].
Verizon Wireless wants the FCC to exempt temporary cells on light trucks (COLTs) and cells on wheels (COWs) from the antenna structure notice requirements adopted in the 2011 R&O. See, October 26, 2012 filing.
There is also Congressional activity pertinent to this topic. Members of the House -- mostly Republicans and mostly members of the House Judiciary Committee (HJC) -- have introduced legislation that would ease various environmental permitting processes. These bills are primarily directed at regulation of the oil and gas industry, but may also impact bird based regulation of communications. For the 112th Congress, see HR 4377 [LOC | WW], the "Responsibly And Professionally Invigorating Development Act of 2012", or "RAPID Act". For the 113th Congress, see, HR 2641 [LOC | WW], also titled the "RAPID Act", introduced on July 10, 2013, by Rep. Tom Marino (R-PA) and others.
Rep. Marino stated in a release that the NEPA "requires federal agencies to analyze the environmental impacts of new federal actions. While the goals of NEPA are worthy, there are no checks or limits on the process. As often happens with an over-expansive federal government, over the years the machinery has slowed as more and more bureaucrats have gotten involved in the process."
Media Ownership. Second, the FCC is scheduled to adopt an NPRM regarding one of its many regimes for regulating ownership of media. This NPRM pertains to the FCC's national television rule, which limits any entity from owning TV stations that cumulatively reach more that 39 percent of TV households nationwide.
The current rule counts TV stations on UHF channels (14 and above) differently from TV stations on VHF channels (13 and below). The NPRM may propose changing the rule to end the current 50% UHF discount for the purpose of estimating a TV station's national audience reach.
The FCC's media ownership rules are old and obsolete. They are repugnant to the First Amendment, and fail to recognize the proliferation of new platforms for distribution of news, programming, information, and other things.
However, there are well organized lobbies for media ownership regulation, and the U.S. Court of Appeals (3rdCir), which has ruled in challenges to the FCC's media ownership rules, does not recognize the veracity of the preceding paragraph.
47 C.F.R. § 73.3555(e) provides in part that "No license for a commercial television broadcast station shall be granted, transferred or assigned to any party (including all parties under common control) if the grant, transfer or assignment of such license would result in such party or any of its stockholders, partners, members, officers or directors having a cognizable interest in television stations which have an aggregate national audience reach exceeding thirty-nine (39) percent."
Bloomberg v. Comcast. Third, the FCC is scheduled to adopt a Memorandum Opinion and Order (MOO) regarding Bloomberg's complaint to the FCC about Comcast's compliance with merger conditions imposed by the FCC when it approved the Comcast NBCU transaction in January of 2011. Bloomberg asserted that Comcast violated the new neighborhooding condition imposed upon Comcast.
That 2011 MOO, in Appendix A, at page 121, sets forth the following condition: "If Comcast now or in the future carries news and/or business news channels in a neighborhood, defined as placing a significant number or percentage of news and/or business news channels substantially adjacent to one another in a system's channel lineup, Comcast must carry all independent news and business news channels in that neighborhood."
This proceeding is MB Docket No. 11-104.
LPFM. Finally, there will be a presentation by personnel of the FCC's Media Bureau regarding the October 15-29, 2013 open filing window for applicants seeking to operate new Low Power FM radio stations.
The event is scheduled for Thursday, September 26, 2013 at 10:30 AM at the FCC headquarters, Room TW-C305, 445 12th Street, SW.
NYT Reports on NSA Encryption Cracking Tactics
9/5. The New York Times (NYT) published a story on September 5, 2013 titled "N.S.A. Able to Foil Basic Safeguards of Privacy on Web" by Nicole Perlrothy, Jeff Larson and Scott Shane.
This article states that it is based in large part of documents disclosed by Edward Snowden.
The NYT story states that the National Security Agency (NSA) "has circumvented or cracked much of the encryption, or digital scrambling, that guards global commerce and banking systems, protects sensitive data like trade secrets and medical records, and automatically secures the e-mails, Web searches, Internet chats and phone calls of Americans and others around the world, the documents show."
That the NSA breaks encryption is nothing new. NSA personnel have stated in public Congressional hearings that the NSA continually seeks the capacity to decrypt encrypted items, including digital files and communications, and that it enjoys considerable success at this.
However, the NYT story states much more.
The NYT states that the NSA "began collaborating with technology companies in the United States and abroad to build entry points into their products".
This is a particularly vague statement. This statement is not inconsistent with compliance by companies with requirements imposed by the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement (CALEA), as implemented and expanded by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), to build their networks in a manner that facilitates lawful law enforcement and intelligence intercepts.
On the other hand, "entry points" is a vague term that could also mean activities unrelated to the CALEA.
The CALEA is codified at 47 USC §§ 1001-1010. See also, story titled "FCC Amends CALEA Statute" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,191, August 9, 2005.
The NYT states that the NSA "hacked into target computers to snare messages before they were encrypted".
The NYT states that "companies say they were coerced by the government into handing over their master encryption keys or building in a back door."
The article does not list any such companies. Nor does it list which agencies engaged in coercion.
Nor does the article disclose what it means by "coerced". For example, it does not state whether or not being "coerced" means compliance with lawfully issued court orders. Indeed, late in the article, the NYT refers to "forcing their cooperation with court orders".
On the other hand, being "coerced" could mean submission in the face of unlawful or improper government actions. For example, it does not state whether government agencies withheld approvals, such as merger approvals by the Department of Justice (DOJ) or license transfer approvals by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), to coerce companies. Similarly, coercion could mean improper threat of Sherman Act Section 2 single firm conduct actions, or other improper threats of regulatory action.
The NYT also accuses the NSA of "surreptitiously stealing their encryption keys".
The article suggests that the NSA may accomplish this by "hacking into companies' computer servers". The article does not mention breaking and entering, bribing or blackmailing company employees, or other methods. And, it does not identify any companies.
The NYT also accuses the NSA of surreptitiously "altering their software or hardware".
The NYT states that the NSA "used its influence as the world's most experienced code maker to covertly introduce weaknesses into the encryption standards followed by hardware and software developers around the world".
It adds that the NSA "has been deliberately weakening the international encryption standards adopted by developers".
The Center for Democracy and Technology's (CDT) Joseph Hall stated in a release that "These revelations demonstrate a fundamental attack on the way the Internet works. In an era in which businesses, as well as the average consumer, trust secure networks and technologies for sensitive transactions and private communications online, it's incredibly destructive for the NSA to add flaws to such critical infrastructure".
Hall continued that "The NSA seems to be operating on the fantastically naïve assumption that any vulnerabilities it builds into core Internet technologies can only be exploited by itself and its global partners. The NSA simply should not be building vulnerabilities into the fundamental tools that we all rely upon to protect our private information".
The NYT states that the NSA works with industry "to insert vulnerabilities into Internet security products".
The article does not list any internet security companies, or describe any vulnerabilities.
The NYT also states that the NSA has worked with equipment makers to build in back doors.
The article does not list any equipment makers, or describe the nature of any "back doors".
The article states that "the Sigint Enabling Project had found ways inside some of the encryption chips that scramble information for businesses and governments, either by working with chipmakers to insert back doors or by exploiting security flaws, according to the documents. The agency also expected to gain full unencrypted access to an unnamed major Internet phone call and text service; to a Middle Eastern Internet service; and to the communications of three foreign governments."
More Reaction. The ACLU's Christopher Soghoian stated in a release that "The encryption technologies that the NSA has exploited to enable its secret dragnet surveillance are the same technologies that protect our most sensitive information, including medical records, financial transactions, and commercial secrets"
He added that "Even as the NSA demands more powers to invade our privacy in the name of cybersecurity, it is making the internet less secure and exposing us to criminal hacking, foreign espionage, and unlawful surveillance. The NSA's efforts to secretly defeat encryption are recklessly shortsighted and will further erode not only the United States' reputation as a global champion of civil liberties and privacy but the economic competitiveness of its largest companies."
Commentary: Industry Cooperation on Surveillance
9/5. There are many broad statements in the New York Times' (NYT) September 5, 2013 story about government collaboration with, cooperation from, and coercion of, software, security, communications and chip making companies. However, the article lacks both explanation, and corroborating facts, regarding industry cooperation.
There is an argument to be made, without recourse to any disclosures by Edward Snowden, the NYT or the Guardian, that for at least the last 15 years (TLJ has been reporting for 15 1/2 years) there has been an observable correlation between the treatment that companies have received from federal law enforcement, regulatory and tax agencies, and the extent of their cooperation on surveillance related matters.
Companies that have been in a position to offer U.S. intelligence and law enforcement agencies assistance in their surveillance efforts, and have done so, have fared better before government agencies than companies generally. Conversely, companies that have been in a position to offer surveillance assistance, but have resisted, have fared worse than other companies generally.
Similarly, technologies, business models and practices that have facilitated government surveillance efforts have fared well before government agencies, while technologies, business models and practices that have frustrated surveillance efforts have received unfavorable treatment from government agencies.
These patterns have persisted across the administrations of Clinton, Bush and Obama, and changes in partisan control in the House and Senate.
The most significant agencies involved (other than intelligence and law enforcement) would be the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the Department of Justice's (DOJ) Antitrust, Tax, Criminal Divisions, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).
These patterns are not inconsistent with the hypothesis that the federal government has both rewarded and advanced companies and technologies that assist the government, and punished and retarded those that do not. And, if this hypothesis is correct, and understood by the key corporate officers and investors, it would provide a huge incentive to cooperate and collaborate in matters described in the just published NYT article.
Neither government officials nor corporate employees write or state as much publicly. Also, it is often difficult to identify when a company is cooperating or resisting. Such an argument would be based in significant part upon an analysis of the nature, underlying merits, and consequences of a huge number of government prosecutions, administrative proceedings, civil actions to which the U.S. is a party, rulemakings, and other public proceedings.
NIST ISPAB to Hold Three Day Meeting
9/4. The Department of Commerce's (DOC) National Institute of Standards and Technology's (NIST) Information Security and Privacy Advisory Board (ISPAB) announced that it will hold a three day meeting on October 9-11, 2013, to address cyber security and other matters. See, notice in the Federal Register (FR), Vol. 78, No. 171, September 4, 2013, at Page 54454.
This event is open to the public. It will be held at the U.S. Access Board, Suite 800, Conference Room, 1331 F St., NW.
The just released NIST FR notice contains a preliminary agenda for the meeting in October. Most of the items relate to cyber security, and especially, the President's Executive Order (EO) titled "Improving Critical Cybersecurity Infrastructure" of February 12, 2013, and the NIST's Notice of Inquiry (NOI) of March 28, 2013. See, notice in the FR, Vol. 78, No. 60, March 28, 2013, at Pages 18954-18955.
The agenda also lists "Development of New Cybersecurity Framework". The NIST released a document [36 pages in PDF] titled "Discussion Draft of the Preliminary Cybersecurity Framework" on August 28, 2013. See also, related story in this issue titled "NIST Releases Cyber Security Standards Document".
This agenda also states that the White House Cybersecurity Coordinator will speak.
The agenda also states that there will be updates on the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board (PCLOB) and the NIST's Computer Security Division (CSD).
The agenda also lists several topics related to cyber security at federal agencies.
The agenda also lists "Information Sharing Update".
President Obama and the House have taken widely different approaches to increasing cyber security in the private sector. The President is pursuing a regulatory approach. The House passed bills in both the 112th and 113th Congresses that are designed to increase incentives for companies to share information related to cyber security with the government, and to increase private sector access to cyber threat information.
For the 112th Congress, see HR 3523 [LOC | WW], the "Cyber Intelligence and Sharing Protection Act" or "CISPA", and stories titled "House Passes CISPA" and "Amendment by Amendment Summary of House Consideration of CISPA" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 2,380, April 25, 2012. President Obama opposed that bill. See, story titled "Obama EOP Opposes CISPA" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 2,379, April 24, 2012. The Senate twice took up a bill supported by the President, but failed to pass it both times.
For the current 113th Congress, see HR 624 [LOC | WW], also titled the "CISPA". The House passed it on April 18, 2013, by a vote of 288-127. Once again, the Senate has not taken it up.
The Senate Commerce Committee (SCC) approved S 1353 [ LOC | WW], the "Cybersecurity Act of 2013", on July 30, 2013. It would amend the NIST Act to give the NIST authority to "facilitate and support the development of a voluntary, industry-led set of standards, guidelines, best practices, methodologies, procedures, and processes to reduce cyber risks to critical infrastructure".
The agenda for the NIST/ISPAB meeting in October also states that there will be an "Update on Legislative proposals relating to information security and privacy".
NIST to Hold Workshop on Cloud Computing and Mobility
9/4. The Department of Commerce's (DOC) National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) announced that it will host a three day event on October 1-3, 2013 titled "Intersection of Cloud and Mobility Forum and Workshop". See, notice in the Federal Register (FR), Vol. 78, No. 171, September 4, 2013, at Page 54453.
The agenda states that on Tuesday, October 1 there will be presentations "on the future of Cloud Computing, Mobility and where the two intersect", and "a status update on NIST efforts to develop or support development of security, interoperability and portability open standards, cloud service metrics and service level agreement guidance".
On Wednesday, October 2, "the workshop will focus on current Cloud Computing and Mobility challenges and how these challenges could be alleviated or exacerbated at the intersection of Cloud and Mobility".
On the half day session on Thursday, October 3, "the workshop will focus on the path forward to achieve full integration and harmonization of Cloud Computing and Mobility and to explore possibilities for harmonizing the two in ways that unleash their complementing power and augment their inter-correlation to promote progress and prosperity".
The NIST will also provide exhibition space for up to "25 academic, industry, and standards developing organizations to exhibit their respective Cloud Computing or Mobility work at an exhibit table or with a poster".
This event is open to the public. However, registration required. It will be held in the NIST's Red Auditorium, 100 Bureau Drive, Gaithersburg, MD.
Neither the FR notice, nor the event web site or brochure [PDF], requests written comments.
Update on FTC v. LabMD
9/4. The TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 5,595 included a story titled "FTC Administrative Complaint Asserts Authority to Regulate Data Security Practices". The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has not yet released its complaint, or a redacted copy of the complaint. Subsequent to the publication of that story, Robert Schoshinski of the FTC told TLJ that the complaint alleges violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45), and that it relies upon the unfairness prong, but not the deception prong.
2nd Circuit Rules on FCC's Program Carriage Rules
9/4. The U.S. Court of Appeals (2ndCir) issued its opinion in Time Warner Cable v. FCC, a petition for review of the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) August 1, 2011 program carriage order. The Court of Appeals rejected the petitioners' First Amendment argument, but held that the FCC adopted its standstill provision in violation of the APA's notice and comment requirement. That is, the FCC's order adopted rules not proposed in the relevant NPRM. Hence, the Court of Appeals granted the petition in part, and vacated the order in part. Of course, the FCC may now issue a new NPRM that gives proper notice, and re-adopt the just vacated rules.
FCC Approves AT&T Verizon Grain Spectrum Transaction
9/3. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (WTB) adopted and released a Memorandum Opinion and Order [31 pages in PDF, redacted] that approves numerous 700 MHz spectrum license assignments and leases involving AT&T, Verizon Wireless and Grain, subject to buildout requirements.
This MOO summarizes the applications that it approves. "Verizon Wireless would assign to AT&T 39 full Lower 700 MHz Band B Block licenses and would assign to Grain I three Lower 700 MHz Band B Block licenses, whose spectrum Grain I would then lease to AT&T. For its part, AT&T would assign to Verizon Wireless one full and five partitioned AWS-1 licenses and would assign to Grain II one AWS-1 license, whose spectrum Grain II would lease to Verizon Wireless. In total, the proposed transactions affect spectrum in 72 markets across the country. For the reasons detailed below, we approve the applications, subject to a condition involving the buildout of the AWS-1 licenses and spectrum being acquired by Verizon Wireless that is consistent with a similar condition imposed by the Commission last year."
AT&T's Bob Quinn stated in a release that "Today's approval of the AT&T/VZW/Grain deal within the FCC’s 180-day review period demonstrates that the secondary market continues to work under Acting Chairwoman Clyburn to ensure that under-utilized spectrum is deployed quickly and efficiently."
Quinn added that "We are also continuing to work with the FCC on the ATNI transaction to provide additional information which addresses the remaining open issues so that deal can be resolved in a timely fashion as well." See, story titled "FCC Further Delays AT&T ATNI Transaction" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 2,590, August 27, 2013.
This MOO is DA 13-1854 in WT Docket No. 13-56.
9/3. The U.S. Court of Appeals (9thCir) issued its opinion [26 pages in PDF] in Somers v. Apple, a putative class action alleging violation of federal and state antitrust law by Apple in connection with portable digital media players (PDMPs) such as the iPod, music download services such as the iTunes music store, and digital rights management (DRM).