IN GENERAL- An operator of a nonauthoritative domain name system server shall take the least burdensome technically feasible and reasonable measures designed to prevent the domain name described in the order from resolving to that domain name's Internet protocol address, except that...

The removal of said clause in Sec. 3 of PIPA would effectively cripple the entire section of the bill because that is the most active part, the means of taking down the alleged copyrighted website. Sec. 3 is important because it is the foundation for a good portion of the bill.

What else is worrisome about PIPA? Oh, let's say... every other section.

Sec. 4, titled "Eliminating the Financial Incentive to Steal Intellectual Property Online," contains several of the same proposals as the Stop Online Privacy Act in Congress. Notably, the ability of the Attorney General to issue an order for online payment processors and advertisers to stop doing business with allegedly infringing sites. From Sec. 4 article (d):

(2) REASONABLE MEASURES- After being served with a copy of an order pursuant to this subsection: (A) FINANCIAL TRANSACTION PROVIDERS- A financial transaction provider shall take reasonable measures, as expeditiously as reasonable, designed to prevent, prohibit, or suspend its service from completing payment transactions involving customers located within the United States and the Internet site associated with the domain name set forth in the order. (B) INTERNET ADVERTISING SERVICES- An Internet advertising service that contracts with the Internet site associated with the domain name set forth in the order to provide advertising to or for that site, or which knowingly serves advertising to or for such site, shall take technically feasible and reasonable measures, as expeditiously as reasonable, designed to--

• (i) prevent its service from providing advertisements to the Internet site associated with such domain name; or
• (ii) cease making available advertisements for that site, or paid or sponsored search results, links, or placements that provide access to the domain name.

Eliminating the language from Sec. 3 supports the ISPs, such as cable operators Comcast and Cox, which support the bill though have objections to that particular clause. Yet, Sec. 4 remains would remain in the bill. Sec. 4 effects online advertisers like Google and payment processors like eBay/PayPal, both of which oppose PIPA. Essentially, Leahy is placating the bill's supporters while still imposing upon its opponents.

Looks like politics as usual in Washington.

Sec. 5 of PIPA outlines how payment providers and advertisers can voluntarily comply with Sec. 4 meaning that they can be proactive in shutting down payment options to alleged sites. Sec.6/7 defines the clauses and evaluation aspects of the bill. Sec. 8, the last section of the bill, has a particularly troubling clause.

Sec. 8 - "Preventing the Importation of Counterfeit Products and Infringing Devices." Note the term "infringing devices." Essentially, what the bill says is that products with have been ruled to infringe on intellectual property will be seized by customs.

Think about this for a second. What is the largest technology company in the world? What products does it make? What is its legal arm doing in U.S courts and around the world?

That would be Apple. Apple is raging a patent battle against nearly all of the original equipment manufacturers that build Android devices. All Apple has to do is win a patent suit against the OEMs and Sec. 8 would effectively stop the importation of the "infringing" devices. Apple has not made an official statement on whether or not it supports SOPA/PIPA but it was part of the Business Software Alliance that had originally supported the bills. The BSA officially withdrew its support citing, "valid and important questions have been raised about the bill."

What it comes down to is that PIPA is still a bill that could stifle and censor innovation on the Web, even without the teeth of Sec. 3. Will Leahy's "manager's amendment" be enough to placate the opponents and push it through the Senate?

The Senate's Deputy Sergeant at Arms, Maria Bradford, told Reuters that the group penetrated the public side of the site only and has not created a lasting security problem.

The group outlined the rationale for its latest action in its statement:

"We don't like the US government very much. Their boats are weak, their lulz are low, and their sites aren't very secure. In an attempt to help them fix their issues, we've decided to donate additional lulz in the form of owning them some more!"

The Senate is the frequent target of hacking attacks, fending off tens of thousands each month, according to Senate Sergeant at Arms Terrance Gainer.

Busy beavers, Lulzsec hacked into the website of Sony Pictures earlier this month. Other targets include PBS (for a Frontline documentary on Wikileaks) and two against game makers Bethesda Softworks. http://www.bethsoft.com/eng/index.php

The motivations of hackers are rarely as clear-cut as their detractors insist they are (simple criminality) or as laudable as they themselves insist they are. The Senate, Lulzsec say, was hacked to encourage them to increase their security and Bethesda to "speed up the production of Skyrim," a game. Either the group is being disingenuous or are wildly deluded as to how their actions will be received by either a government organization or a game devs.

Other sources: The Hacker News, Forbes, Los Angeles Times

On AT&T's side, CEO Randall Stevenson told lawmakers that the merger will give the company the "block of clear, unadulterated spectrum" it needs to roll out its Long Term Evolution (LTE) 4G service. The opponents at the hearing say AT&T has more than enough spectrum already and that innovation and competition of the entire wireless industry would be stifled by an AT&T/Verizon duopoly.

"To make the move in technology you have to have a clear block of spectrum, nothing in it, to be able to deploy that technology," Stevenson said. "We have to have clear blocks of spectrum, unused spectrum, it has to be clear unadulterated spectrum to do LTE. Because of the data growth that we are experiencing we need 20 megahertz of what we call contiguous spectrum."

Gigi Sohn of Public Knowledge, a D.C.-based advocacy group, disagrees with Stevenson's cry of spectrum paucity. She claims that AT&T has spectrum spread out over three different communications standards (2G EDGE, 3G HSPA, 4G LTE - all on the GSM standard) and that at least a third of their spectrum is undeveloped and unused.

"One-third of its spectrum in the top 21 markets has not even been built out yet," Sohn said. "I want to get to that '20 megahertz contiguous that Mr. Stevenson said was necessary. That really ignores channel bonding technologies that can bridge non-contiguous spectrum and other technologies that improve spectrum efficiency like femtocells, picocells, distributed antennas. It also ignores AT&T's ability to reconfigure its network to provide 20 megahertz contiguous for LTE. So, I think that this spectrum crunch, crisis, exhaust is a bit overstated."

The Federal Communications Commission disagrees with Sohn. The primary goal of the FCC in the last year and its plans for years to come is to open up spectrum to take pressure off of cellular networks across the country, especially in populous areas. If you live in downtown New York City or San Francisco, it is difficult to make a phone call or do use data to do something as simple as a Google search. The spectrum crunch is a real problem. That does not mean the FCC is not looking for ways to optimize spectrum. It is a two-pronged goal that will take years, decades to fulfill -- free up the resources, maximize the resources.

Bring Wireless Broadband To Rural America

It is a different case in rural America. It is not a matter of a spectrum crunch but rather a lack of development and infrastructure of spectrum footprints owned by the major carriers. AT&T and T-Mobile believe that together the companies can take their spectrum and build them out in rural communities where one company or the other could not go alone.

"We have been out pursuing and buying spectrum the best we can. We don't have enough spectrum to deploy this network nationwide," Stevenson said. "It is a long term solution. Most of the rural communities that we are speaking to, we would not have the spectrum depth to do the conversion we would need. This is one of the big determinacy's if we can get to a lot of the rural communities that we would need."

In terms of innovation, Hesse and others are concerned that going back to a supposed-duopoly will be a bane to new technologies. In terms of business and legal speak, that is what Hesse is supposed to say.

"The concern is that the U.S. will fall behind the world like we once did," Hesse said. "We would lose that edge that we have regained, if you will, over the rest of the world."

Yet, Stevenson points out that the carriers are not the only groups responsible for innovation in the mobile realm (and our ReadWriteWeb readers who run the gamut of innovation might agree). Stevenson said; "I don't think that Steve Jobs would hold off putting out the iPhone 5 or 6 or whatever number comes next by one day because of the merger of T-Mobile and AT&T."

The debate will continue until the FCC, FTC and Judiciary make a final ruling, something not expected till later this year or early 2012.

The U.S. House of Representatives has announced a public hearing to explore making publicly-funded research open to the public. Legislators in both the House and the Senate have already introduced bills calling for this. If they pass, the implications could be significant and might result in an economic jump.

Rep. Mike Doyle (R-PA) introduced the Federal Research Public Access Act into the House on April 15. An identical Senate version of the bill was introduced by Senator Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and Senator John Cornyn (R-TX). Bi-partisan support for public access to federal research has been growing.

The bills propose specifically that the 11 federal agencies with research budgets of $100 million or greater make the published results of their research free to the public.

Knowledge is (Economic) Power

If these 11 massive agencies suddenly were required to make their research public (with a governmental value of suddenly), it could possibly act as a shot of adrenaline to the private sector. Who knows what products and services might be launched, or improved, on the back of this research? It could result in a significant leap forward for an economy that seems at times terminally stalled.

Presumably, the government already has the research that they've paid for. (Presumably.) But a public in possession of that information might make for a much less patient public. If a government agency, for instance, knows something that could improve its services, but allows bureaucratic foot-dragging or inter-agency squabbling to slow its implementation, that agency would find itself in, let's say, a compromised position politically when an informed public realized what it was doing.

Having been in a position to listen and talk to career bureaucrats facing change, we are not as sanguine as we could be at the news. It would be surprising indeed if half the people responsible for sharing this information with the pubic didn't go limp at the first approach of torch-wielding villagers at their castle door. To work, this bill will require that the chief executive make it known in no uncertain terms that any agency head with a hitch in his gitalong will shortly thereafter find himself on the street in the company of all his closest advisors.

"'Internet, virtual, street-level map' means any map or image that contains the picture or pictures of homes, buildings, or people that are taken and dispensed, electronically, over the Internet or by a computer network, where the picture can be accessed by entering the address of the home, building, or person."

"Rep. Henry Burns, R-Haughton, who handled Adley's bill on the House floor, said that if the map is used in an act of terrorism, the legislation requires a judge to impose an additional minimum sentence of at least 10 years onto the terrorist act."

Worries about terrorist use of the Internet, including maps, has never been far from the headlines since the attacks on 9/11.

The additional penalty, according to the bill's wording, is to be served consecutively, not concurrently, with "the sentence imposed for the underlying offense."

Top photo by Byron Gosline
Bottom photo by Ken Lund

The timing is good for such an announcement given the worry over, among other things, Facebook's recent changes that have caused fresh worry over privacy.

Elements of the draft include the following.

• Disclosure of what information is collected and how, how it is used and who it is shared with


• Opt-outs for consumers.


• Restrictions on collecting financial, medical, government ID information and that of children

On May 1st South Carolina's Senator, Jim DeMint, officially asked the Senate Rules Committee to make the data available and just four days later the feed is here. Not everyone is happy about about the information being made publicly available like this, however.

John Wonderlich, policy director for the Sunlight Foundation, told Politico that the reason he's been given for the lack of XML feeds is this: "the secretary of the Senate has cited a general standing policy ... that they're not supposed to present votes in a comparative format, that senators have the right to present their votes however they want to...it's pretty bad."

Dave Lundy, acting executive director of the Chicago-based Better Government Association, told Politico again that: "It's a strategy to make information hard to find and hard to digest and hard to analyze...Call me a cynic, but I don't ... think [government entities] deserve the benefit of the doubt. We have ample experience to know that people try to hide information, even in plain sight."

Apparently, those problems were washed away this week by the tides of open technology. The Washington Post has offered something similar to what's now available for some time, but there's something to be said for what we hope will be a big, fat, official pipe of data.

We learned of the news this morning when New York Times technologist, Derek Willis, celebrated mention of the news by Rob Pierson, who yesterday began a new job leading new media initiatives for the House Democratic Caucus. The Sunlight Foundation said last week that neither the House nor the senate "maintain any reasonable database of lawmaker votes." The House of Representatives does release their votes in structured format, though.

Willis points out that the new Senate data feeds aren't perfect; the absence of Bioguide ID information linking Senators' names to their online profiles creates an unnecessary additional step for developers, for example.

It's exciting news none-the-less. "It's good to see high profile senators from both parties behind this," says John Musser, founder of the web's leading mashup and API directory, Programmable Web. "Those first steps are often the hardest. That is, just getting understanding of the value, getting buy-in and then having the data accessible in a developer friendly format. The next logical step is to wrap it in an API; having the XML is closer to having an RSS feed, there's not a lot of developer control of what data to retrieve. An API typically gives much more control over what data gets retrieved. Like 'give me all roll call votes for January 2009', versus 'here's the last 20 roll call votes.' Or all roll call votes by a specific senator, etc."

Musser says that he's seeing a broad movement towards increased access to government data. That work is being done by both official sources like this new Senate feed and the data-centric Recovery.org and by outside organizations like the Sunlight Foundation and the New York Times, work Musser is tracking closely.

What's left to open up? Check out, for example, this list of the 8 most desirable but unavailable government data sets, per Willis from the NYT. As of today, one of those can be checked off the list.

Many Senators and Representatives already have their own YouTube channels, and these two new sites aggregate the content from these. Over time, we hope to see more elected officials on YouTube, though we also hope to see more than just clips from local TV news shows.

One trend we noticed on a lot of these pages, however, was that quite a few Senators and Representatives decided not to allow comments on their videos. We would hope that more of our elected officials would value comments from their constituents.

Senate and House in HD

We do, however, commend Congress for using YouTube's new HD capabilities (even though some of the material in the intro video looks like it was shot with substandard cameras).

House vs. Househub

On a lighter note, the announcement on YouTube's blog links to this page, instead of the new page for the U.S. House of Representatives. You decide which one you find more interesting.

OpenCongress

If you don't want video, but hard facts about Congress, we recommend OpenCongress, which aggregates information about the details of business on Capitol Hills.