FCC

NFL_logo* NFL blackout rules will be a thing of the past on November 24. So just in time for all you rabid Rams fans to watch them play the Raiders. [CommLawBlog]

* Electing judges is so very stupid. [What About Clients?]

* OK, Alex Rich: it’s time to ditch document review and become a psychic. [Law and More]

* A tumblr of offensive stuff overheard at Yale Law. If these are true, then that place sounds horrible. [The YLS Offensive]

* Exactly where is the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge? It turns out the government doesn’t really even know. They’re looking to shift the border and possibly allow more oil drilling. [Breaking Energy]

* How to get your Biglaw career right from the beginning. [Medium]

Ed note: This post originally appeared on CommLawBlog.

Petition against a broadcast license renewal cites offensive nature of “Redskins” name as basis for denial. Should the FCC really be involved with this?

For years there’s been a steady drumbeat for the owners of the Washington, D.C. National Football League team to change the team’s name to something other than “the Redskins”. The contention is that the word “Redskins” is – in the eyes of both American Indians and non-Indians – an offensive ethnic slur. (In response, the team — which has used that name for more than 80 years – says that it’s a tribute to American Indians’ strength and courage, i.e., the antithesis of a slur.)

double red triangle arrows Continue reading “Petitioner Wants FCC to Ref “Redskins” Debate”

* The world’s largest Harry Potter memorabilia collection belongs to a lawyer. His patronus is a shimmering gavel. [The Telegraph]

* The FCC has ended the sports blackout rule. Expect the NFL to go bankrupt within days. [Politico]

* No one expects to see “lawyer” on a Top 20 Work-Life Balance list, but there is one legal job out there coming in at number 11. [Glassdoor via Adjunct Law Prof Blog]

* Want to expose the severe problems of the over-criminalization of everything? Everyone with a warrant turn themselves in on one day. Call it “Warrant Day.” See how the system copes logistically and financially when all those citations come home to roost all at once. [Street Roots]

* Russia’s equivalent of Chief Justice Roberts advocates a return to serfdom. Now there’s an originalist! [Business Insider]

* Bow Tie Law talks about the role of discovery software in the duty of lawyers to review documents. Because document review is “legal work” when it’s about paying people a livable wage and “computer work” when it isn’t. [The Everlaw Blog]

* Before we get wrapped up in the cases the Supreme Court will decide, let’s remember all the cases it won’t decide. Because “we can tell a lot about what the court cares about—and what it doesn’t” from its cert decisions. [Slate]

* Ha. After today’s story about the debt mistakes of Lisa S., here’s the cautionary tale of one “Elie M.” [Law and More]

* Elizabeth Garrett, USC Provost, will become the next president of Cornell. Garrett will also be a tenured faculty member at Cornell Law School and is bringing along her husband, Andrei Marmor, who will also join the law school. See, this is how you hire administrators: get someone willing to do double-duty with teaching! [Cornell Chronicle]


* As football prepares to kick off, there’s a new filing opposing the renewal of the broadcast license for Dan Snyder’s Washington-area radio station because it has a tendency to broadcast a particular racial slur over and over throughout the NFL season. [Corporate Counsel]

* If you’re a young law grad ready to give up on being a lawyer, it’s harder to move into another industry than you’d think. [Law and More]

* Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott sought an emergency stay to allow Texas to start shutting down abortion clinics despite a ruling that the law was unconstitutional. So he filed his motion at midnight on the Sunday before Labor Day. The Fifth Circuit does not brook this tripe. [Houston Chronicle]

* New research confirms deportations don’t lower crime rates. They do, however, help drive up the BS in political ads, so that’s nice. [New York Times]

* The confusing reports that Goldman Sachs was driving aluminum around Detroit to drive up the price of aluminum spawned a lawsuit. And that led to a dismissal. [Bloomberg View]

* This is why you don’t eat underwear… [Daily Mail]

* The legal battle surrounding Adam Carolla’s podcast is breaking up friendships now. [CNN]

In some comments at the US Africa Leaders Summit in DC yesterday, President Obama claimed that he’s absolutely against fast lanes and slow lanes on the internet — which is pretty interesting given that his own FCC appears to be poised to allow exactly that:

Net neutrality in the United States — one of the issues around net neutrality is whether you are creating different rates or charges for different content providers.

That’s the big controversy here….

double red triangle arrows Continue reading “President Obama Says He’s Against Fast Lanes On The Internet, But FCC Proposal Would Allow Them”

Ed note: CommLawBlog is part of the LexBlog Network (LXBN). LXBN is the world’s largest network of professional blogs. With more than 8,000 authors, LXBN is the only media source featuring the latest lawyer-generated commentary on news and issues from around the globe.

As comments pile up in the Open Internet proceeding, straining the FCC’s systems, a post on the Commission’s blog got us thinking about transparency.

On July 14, 2014 – the day before the original deadline for initial comments in the Open Internet (a/k/a Net Neutrality) proceeding – in the spirit of transparency the FCC’s Chief Information Officer took to the Commission’s blog to tout the agency’s ability to track the numbers of comments flooding in over the transom. According to a couple of files linked in his post, the Commission had received nearly 170,000 Net Neutrality comments submitted electronically through ECFS (the FCC’s online filing system), and another 442,000 or so by email. Those numbers are a moving target, though, and the target is only moving up: according to a post on ArsTechnica, by 11:00 a.m. on July 15, the tally was up to about 670,000.

double red triangle arrows Continue reading “INCOMING! Commission’s Net Neutrality Comment Conundrum”

Ed note: The Telecom Law Monitor is part of the LexBlog Network (LXBN). LXBN is the world’s largest network of professional blogs. With more than 8,000 authors, LXBN is the only media source featuring the latest lawyer-generated commentary on news and issues from around the globe.

The Senate is one step closer to a floor vote on cybersecurity legislation that would address information sharing between the private sector and the government. On July 8, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence approved a contentious cybersecurity bill known as the Cyber Information Sharing Act (CISA).

The proposed legislation would remove legal barriers to allow private companies to share information regarding cyber-attacks “in real time” with other private companies and the government. Companies sharing information for cybersecurity purposes would be shielded from lawsuits by individuals against the company for sharing that data, regardless of terms of service contracts that may prevent such actions without a customer’s consent. In order to receive the liability protection, private entities would be required to submit information directly to the Department of Homeland Security, which could then share the information with other federal agencies as necessary to address the threat. Additionally, CISA would direct the federal government to share classified and unclassified information with the private sector.

CISA also includes several provisions to protect privacy, such as requiring that companies sharing information remove all personally identifiable data (e.g. names, addresses, and Social Security numbers). The Attorney General would be directed to write procedures to limit government use of cyber information received to “appropriate cyber purposes” and ensure that privacy protections are in place. A full synopsis from the Senate Committee Chair and co-sponsor of CISA, Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), is available here.

Adequate privacy protections have been a continuing sticking point for successful cybersecurity information sharing legislation. The Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA) – the information sharing bill counterpart in the House of Representatives – faced strong privacy objections from civil liberties and public interest groups. When CISPA passed the House in 2013, the White House threated to veto the bill unless it included additional privacy protections.

Even with CISA’s added protections, many privacy groups oppose the bill. Similar to CISPA, these groups remain anxious that the legislation could encourage a company, such as Google, to turn over huge amounts of emails or other private data to the government in the name of cybersecurity. The groups fear that the National Security Agency and other government agencies could gain access to even more personal information through this legislation. Moreover, because CISA provides liability protections to companies sharing information, individuals would have little recourse in the event of abuse.

Whether CISA becomes law in 2014 will depend not only on how quickly it can pass a floor vote but also how easily the Senate bill can be reconciled with CISPA, the House counterpart passed last year. Though CISA passed the Senate committee with bi-partisan support, Senate Democrats are already wavering on support due to concerns of insufficient privacy protections. If CISA manages to pass the Senate, there is a chance the House and Senate can agree to a reconciled bill. Representative Mike Rogers (R., Mich.), chairman of the House Intelligence Committee and co-sponsor of CISPA, stated publicly that the committees were close to agreement on harmonizing their respective cyber threat information-sharing bills, and had narrowed down their difference to a few, discrete issues. However, with less than 15 legislative days before the August recess and all eyes focused on the upcoming mid-term elections in November, if this cybersecurity legislation has any hope of moving forward Congress will need to do something it rarely does: act quickly.

Ed note: This piece is from the official blog for the telecom practice of Kelley Drye & Warren LLP.

In the wake of a number of high-profile cybersecurity events — from the Heartbleed bug to the Target breach — cybersecurity has become a red-hot issue in Washington, D.C. Earlier this month, in a major address delivered at the American Enterprise Institute, Federal Communications Commission Chairman Tom Wheeler announced a new cybersecurity initiative to create a “new paradigm for cyber readiness” in the communications sector.

As described by Wheeler, the FCC’s cybersecurity initiative will be led by the private sector, with the Commission serving as a monitor and backstop in the event that the market-led approach fails. In particular, the FCC will “identify public goals, work with the affected stakeholders in the communications industry to achieve those goals, and let that experience inform whether there is any need for next steps.” Chairman Wheeler stressed that the new paradigm must be dynamic, more than simply new rules, and the Commission will rely on innovation by the private sector.

The Commission’s efforts will be guided by four principles, including commitments to:

1. preserving the qualities that have made the Internet an unprecedented platform for innovation and free expression, so that Internet freedom and openness is not sacrificed in the name of enhanced security;
2. privacy, i.e., enabling personal control of one’s own data and networks;
3. cross-sector coordination, e.g., among regulatory agencies; and
4. the multi-stakeholder approach to global Internet governance and an opposition to any efforts by international groups to impose Internet regulations that could restrict the free flow of information in the name of security.

Expect FCC staff actions to be organized around the following elements:

(1) Information Sharing and Situational Awareness. The Commission is looking into legal and practical barriers to effective sharing of information about cyber threats and vulnerabilities in the communications space. Specifically, the Chairman noted that “companies large and small within the Communications communications sector must implement privacy-protective mechanisms to report cyber threats to each other, and, where necessary, to government authorities.” Moreover, where a cyberattack causes degradations of service or outages, the Chairman stated that “the FCC and communications providers must develop efficient methods to communicate and address th[e] risks.” To that end, the Chairman noted that the FCC is actively engaged with private sector Information Sharing and Analysis Organizations, and with other federal agencies, to improve threat information sharing and situational awareness.

(2) Cybersecurity Risk Management and Best Practices. Noting the work of the Communications Security, Reliability and Interoperability Council (CSRIC) in developing voluntary cybersecurity standards, Chairman Wheeler called upon communications providers to work with the Commission to set the course for years to come regarding how companies in that sector communicate and manage risk internally, with their customers and business partners, and with the government. In addition, the Commission will be seeking information to measure the implementation and impact of the CSRIC standards.

(3) Investment in Innovation and Professional Development. Chairman Wheeler has asked the FCC Technological Advisory Council (“TAC”) to explore specific opportunities where “R&D activity beyond a single company might result in positive cybersecurity benefit for the entire industry.” Specifically, the FCC will “identify incentives, impediments, and opportunities for security innovations in the market for communications hardware, firmware and software.” Further, the FCC will work with NIST and academia to “understand the current state of professional standard and accountability,” as well as “where the FCC might positively contribute toward further professionalization of the workforce.”

This initiative could have significant impact on telecommunications and technology companies. Cybersecurity already is a top priority for CSRIC. A new working group was established within CSRIC and work is underway to update the industry’s cybersecurity best practices. The primary goal is to align the industry’s cybersecurity activities with the National Institute of Standards and Technology’s (NIST) Cybersecurity Framework Version 1.0 released in February 2014. Industry members are encouraged to participate in the process. Based on the current timeline, CSRIC will vote to approve the new best practices in March 2015.

Kelley Drye & Warren’s attorneys recently presented a webinar discussing cybersecurity updates and considerations for the telecommunications and technology industries. To listen to a recording of The Cybersecurity Review webinar, please click here.

On Tuesday, the D.C. Circuit benchslapped a gaggle of lawyers for filing briefs with excessive acronyms. The court’s per curiam order directed the parties to “submit briefs that eliminate uncommon acronyms used in their previously filed final briefs.”

Alas, attempts to comply with this order have raised a new problem — a problem that some readers saw a mile away….

double red triangle arrows Continue reading “A Benchslap Postscript: Mo’ Words, Mo’ Problems”

The D.C. Circuit to counsel: readable briefs or GTFO. From an order filed today:

Who are the parties and their counsel? Additional information and the full order, after the jump.

(Also note the UPDATES — in defense of the lawyers, and floating a theory about the judge behind the benchslap — added to the end of this post.)

double red triangle arrows Continue reading “Benchslap Of The Day: LMAO At D.C. Cir.”

Page 1 of 3123