The Hill reports that Reps. Justin Amash and John Conyers have introduced the Limiting Internet and Blanket Electronic Review of Telecommunications and Email Act, or LIBERT-E for short, into the House. The bill would amend the PATRIOT Act to prevent the NSA from being able to collect this “incidental data” and focus the agency exclusively on collecting information on foreign threats.

The bill doesn’t just rewrite the PATRIOT Act though. It requires the Attorney General to brief all of Congress on the government’s data collection programs. As of now, the Attorney General only has to answer to the House and Senate Intelligence and Judiciary Committees.

The Attorney General would also be required to hand over unclassified summaries of FISA court opinions and orders to Congress for review after 180 days. As of now, FISA court orders are kept secret from everybody not on the Intelligence Committees.

Don’t get me wrong – stopping the collection of incidental data is a good thing, but it would be all for naught without more transparency. That’s why the bill’s call for increased transparency is by far the most important part about this bill. It would be better if the bill called for the kind of transparency that would reveal NSA information to the American public, but starting with Congress is a good baby step. Besides, there’s something seriously wrong with our system if we have to keep FISA court orders secret from the majority of our lawmakers.

Oh, and if you were wondering, a few Senators are pushing for a similar bill that would introduce transparency into the FISA courts. Unlike the above House bill, however, the Senate bill, penned by Sen. Jeff Merkley, would require the FISA courts to declassify its “significant opinions” for all.

Unfortunately, neither bill has much chance of being signed into law. Most lawmakers on the Intelligence Committees are hardline supporters of the secret FISA courts, and President Obama, despite saying he wants to be more transparent, seems like he’s still in favor of keeping everything hush hush as well.

The Hill reports that Reps. Michael Capuano and Walter Jones have just introduced the We Are Watching You Act to the House. Despite its foreboding name, the proposed law aims to regulate the potential proliferation of cameras in TV set-top boxes and DVRs.

The proposed law specifically targets a number of patents for DVR cameras that have sprung up in recent years. For example, Verizon applied for a patent in late December that would allow it to equip DVRs with a camera and a mic. The camera would watch TV viewers to deliver more personalized ads to them. One example mentioned in the filing is a scenario in which the camera detected a couple cuddling and then delivering an ad for contraceptives on the television.

Both Rep. Jones and Rep. Capuano feel that such technology is a massive invasion of privacy, especially in light of how much data the NSA collects on Americans:

“Allowing this type of technology to be installed in the homes of American citizens without their consent would be an egregious invasion of privacy,” said Congressman Jones. “When the government has an unfortunate history of secretly collecting private citizens’ information from technology providers, we must ensure that safeguards are in place to protect Americans’ rights.”

“This may sound preposterous, but it is neither a joke nor an exaggeration. These DVRs would essentially observe consumers as they watch television as a way to super-target ads. It is an incredible invasion of privacy,” stated Congressman Capuano. “Given what we have recently learned about the access that the government has to the phone numbers we call, the emails we send and the websites we visit, it is important for consumers to decide for themselves whether they want this technology. Think about what you do in the privacy of your own home and then think about how you would feel sharing that information with your cable company, their advertisers and your government.”

Jones and Capuano recognize that DVRs with cameras are going to happen sooner or later. They will not try to ban the technology, but their bill would make it so that your cable provider would have to ask permission before being able to watch you. If you do give permission, your cable company would still have to alert you when the camera is recording via an on screen warning.

It should be noted that your TV won’t be watching you anytime soon. Microsoft’s Kinect in the Xbox One, however, will be watching you, but it’s a little unclear if this law would apply to that. Besides, all Microsoft wants to do is give you achievements for watching TV.

The Hill reports that Sen. Jeff Merkley has introduced a bill that would force the secret FISA courts to declassify its “significant opinions” regarding NSA requests for data under the FISA amendments and PATRIOT Act. The bill is aimed directly at the assumption that the FISA courts use alternate interpretations of the law to bypass the “plain reading of the law passed by Congress.”

Merkley also says that he wants the opinions out in the open so that the American people can better debate the pros and cons of the NSA spy program:

“Americans deserve to know how much information about their private communications the government believes it’s allowed to take under the law. There is plenty of room to have this debate without compromising our surveillance sources or methods or tipping our hand to our enemies. We can’t have a serious debate about how much surveillance of Americans’ communications should be permitted without ending secret law.”

One of the bill’s co-sponsors and outspoken NSA opponent, Sen. Ron Wyden, echoed Merkley:

“It is impossible for the American people to have an informed public debate about laws that are interpreted, enforced, and adjudicated in complete secrecy. When talking about the laws governing Intelligence operations, the process has little to no transparency. Declassifying FISA Court opinions in a form that does not put sources and methods at risk will give the American people insight into what government officials believe the law allows them to do.”

Surprisingly enough, the bill has garned quite a bit of bipartisan support. Prominent lawmakers from both parties have signed on as co-sponsors in the hopes that their political clout can move this bill along.

Some senators aren’t as optimistic about the bill’s chances, however, with Sen. Dick Durbin in particular saying that the bill is “going to be ill-fated.” What he means is that there’s very little chance the White House will support the bill. President Obama has voiced his support for the secret FISA courts, secret NSA spying and the collecting of phone records ever since the programs were leaked to the public. His justification is that “you can’t have 100 percent security, and also then have 100 percent security.”

If the bill can’t get through Congress, what other options for transparency do we have? Well, as the old saying goes, there’s more than one way to skin a cat. In fact, Google and Facebook are now both lobbying the government to let them be more transparent about requests for data. Google already publishes the number of national security requests it receives, but it now wants to publish more.

It’s hard to say what will happen in the end, but the debate over how much the NSA can keep secret will rage on for months. That can only be a good thing.

The video was produced for an IRS training conference in 2010. Another video – a Gilligan’s Island parody – was also produced. The two videos together cost approximately $60,000 to produce. That is, of course, sixty thousand taxpayer dollars. While that may not seem like a lot in the grand scheme of things, the conference for which the videos were produced cost several million. According to Fink, the IRS doesn’t actually know how much the conference cost, but said it could well have been upwards of $5 million.

This is not, of course, the only IRS scandal going on at the moment, nor even the most prominent one. The agency is currently facing intense scrutiny following reports that IRS workers in the agency’s Cincinnati, Ohio office were unfairly giving more intense scrutiny to conservative groups – particularly Tea Party groups – that were seeking tax exempt status.

In his statements on the Hill today, Fink called the production of the video “embarrassing” and said that he regretted it as soon as he saw the finished product. Of course, the fact that the IRS spent $60,000 in taxpayer money on a parody video for a conference is certainly embarrassing enough, but it is not entirely clear whether Fink was talking about the expenditure, or the video itself.

Because to be honest, the video is amazingly, shockingly, spectacularly awful. At just shy of five and a half minutes long, it is one of the most cringe-inducing things you will see on the internet this week (depending, of course, on which parts of the internet you frequent…). While the costuming is bad enough (Next Generation uniforms on the Original Series bridge? Really?) the writing is abysmal and the acting is, well, about what you’d expect from IRS employees. Check it out for yourself below. If you dare…

The Hill reports that the wireless industry group CTIA has indicated that it will support a cellphone unlocking bill during a House Judiciary Committee hearing on the matter. Now, the group isn’t supporting broad unlocking rules, but rather the very limited, and kind of worthless H.R. 1123, or the Unlocking Consumer Choice and Wireless Competition Act.

If you’re just joining us. H.R. 1123 is a House bill introduced by Rep. Bod Goodlatte. The bill would reverse the Librarian of Congress’ decision earlier this year to put cellphone unlocking back on the list of practices that violate the DMCA. Previously, it was exempt under the copyright law thus allowing customers to unlock their devices.

At the time, the reasoning for putting it back on the list was because the Librarian thought that wireless carriers were doing a good enough job of letting customers unlock their phones. Leaving it up to the carriers, however, leads to some being able to unlock their devices and some can’t. Even those that can have to sometimes jump through a lot of hurdles just to move a phone to a different carrier.

So, why do wireless carriers like Goodlatte’s legislation when they make it as hard as possible for customers to move phones? They like it because it does absolutely nothing to change the status quo. As the CTIA puts it, the bill provides “a reasonable balance that protects consumers and carriers alike.”

Unfortunately, Goodlatte’s bill does nothing to protect consumers. It just alleviates their suffering under the DMCA for three years. It does nothing to fix the actual problem.

In a perfect world, Congress and wireless carriers would be listening to FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai. In an op-ed for The New York Times, he argues that cellphone unlocking should be removed from the DMCA altogether.

To restore a free market that benefits consumers, we should amend the 1998 act to allow consumers to take their mobile devices from one carrier to another without fear of criminal prosecution or civil fines. We should also make clear that those who help consumers unlock their phones and tablets won’t be prosecuted either. And we should reiterate that contracts remain valid and enforceable. These fixes should be permanent, so that consumers, developers and wireless carriers don’t have to worry about the law shifting on a whim.

The entire op-ed is well worth reading, but the above is the central argument. Let people do whatever the hell they want with their phone after the contract is up. Cellphone unlocking should not be a crime, and it shouldn’t have even been a copyright issue in the first place. As Pai says – “No one seriously believes that unlocking a cellphone to switch carriers is equivalent to piracy.”

Unfortunately, the carriers do, and they will fight to keep cellphone unlocking under the DMCA. Goodlatte’s bill does just that while pretending to care about consumer choice. Here’s hoping that the House heeds Pai’s words instead of the carriers’ during today’s hearing.

The Hill reports that subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property and the Internet will hold a hearing next Thursday to discuss Rep. Bob Goodlatte’s Unlocking Consumer Choice and Wireless Competition Act. The bill would repeal a decision by the Librarian of Congress last year that made unlocking cellphones a violation of the DMCA.

It sounds pretty good, right? Unfortunately, Goodlatte’s bill, and its companion bill in the Senate, only puts a bandaid on a bullet wound. The bill in its current state doesn’t address the DMCA or its anti-circumvention protections that currently make unlocking your cellphone a punishable offense. Instead, the bill will make unlocking cellphones legal for only three years until the Librarian of Congress makes another decision as to the legality of cellphone unlocking.

As I’ve previously discussed, the cellphone unlocking debate is just one tiny part of a larger debate on the DMCA. It’s an outdated bill that was meant to protect intellectual property in the digital age, but instead stands in the way of progress. Rep. Zoe Lofgren’s bill – the Unlocking Technology Act of 2013 – does a much better job of addressing this issue by permanently legalizing cellphone unlocking and other technology circumventions that don’t explicitly violate copyright.

Unfortunately, Congress has a proven track record of pushing for bills that only delay the problem instead of addressing it head on. Depending on how next week’s hearing goes, we may get another three years of legalized unlocking before the Librarian of Congress deems it illegal yet again. Maybe then Congress will actually act on meaningful reform, but I doubt it.

“After a great deal of thought and deliberation, I have decided next year, I will not seek a fifth congressional term to represent the wonderful people of the 6th district of Minnesota. After serious consideration, I am confident that this is the right decision,” she said.

Bachmann also said that in her opinion, the 8-year term limit for the U.S. President makes sense for members of Congress as well. She claims that the decision had nothing to do with concerns about possibly losing her next bid.

“I’ve always in the past defeated candidates that are capable, qualified, and well-funded. And I have every confidence that if I ran, I would again defeat the individual who I defeated last year, who recently announced that he is once again running.”

Bachmann also denies that the decision was influenced by the recent inquiries being made into campaign spending during her failed presidential campaign.

“I fully anticipate the mainstream liberal media to put a detrimental spin on my decision not to seek a fifth term,” she said. “They always seemed to attempt to find a dishonest way to disparage me. But I take being the focus of their attention and disparagement as a true compliment of my public service effectiveness.”

I have prepared a personal video just for you.michelebachmann.com/announcement/t… I wanted to share this important breaking news with you first.

— Michele Bachmann (@TeamBachmann) May 29, 2013

While Bachmann is using YouTube to sign out, other politicians are using it to sign in. Last week, Twitter-troubled former Congressman Anthony Weiner announced his run for Mayor of New York City in a YouTube video.

During the hearing, Cook slammed the current U.S. tax code for not keeping up with the “digital age.” He also said that the “tax system handicaps American corporations in relation to our foreign competitors who don’t have such constraints on the free flow of capital.”

So, what does Cook suggest the U.S. do about it? He says that the corporate tax rate needs to be slashed. His suggestion calls for a drop from a 35 percent tax rate to a mid-20s tax rate. He also encourages Congress to lower the tax rate on foreign earnings being brought into the U.S.

The result of the above, Cook says, would encourage more investment in the United States and create more jobs. He even explicitly said that Apple will not bring billions in cash back to the U.S. unless Congress lowers the tax rate.

There are many congressman who no doubt agree with Apple on this issue, but one vocally came out in defense of the company yesterday. The Hill reports that Sen. Rand Paul said the subcommittee’s hearing on Apple’s alleged tax avoidance was offensive. He called upon the subcommittee to immediately apologize to the company.

Even after all of this, Apple isn’t quite done defending itself against accusations of tax avoidance. Reuters is reporting that major European leaders will be meeting to discuss what it sees as tax dodging from major tech corporations like Google, Apple and Amazon. Investigations have found that governments within the EU miss out on over €1 trillion, or $1.3 trillion USD, in tax revenue.

[h/t: The Hill] [Image: lemagit/flickr]

While many member of congress will no doubt judge Glass by the provocative headlines it is producing, at least one congresswoman is checking out the technology for herself. U.S. Representative Michelle Bachmann was spotted in the halls of congress this week trying out Google Glass. Though Bachmann is not a member of the congressional privacy caucus, her position in the Tea Party movement could influence conservative Americans’ opinions of the new technology. A photo of the congresswoman wearing the device was tweeted on Wednesday by NBC News Capitol Hill reporter Luke Russert:

Follow @LukeRussert

Luke Russert
@LukeRussert

Rep. Bachmann tries out Google Glass at House #GOP mtg http://t.co/fe3WE9thc6

 Reply  ·  Retweet  ·  Favorite
2 days ago via Camera on iOS · powered by @socialditto

Of course, Bachmann’s conservative and religious stances in congress have often made her a laughing stock in social media, and this occasion is no different. Replies to Russert’s picture include some funny and some mean tweets:

Follow @_Ms_R

Ruth Michaelson
@_Ms_R

@LukeRussert @ZekeJMiller she probably thinks it runs on fairy dust

 Reply  ·  Retweet  ·  Favorite
2 days ago via Twitter for iPhone · powered by @socialditto

Follow @morninggloria

Erin Gloria Ryan
@morninggloria

Only person in the world who looks less crazy wearing em. MT @LukeRussert Bachmann tries out Google Glass @ #GOP mtg http://t.co/PIQzvSRqPP

 Reply  ·  Retweet  ·  Favorite
2 days ago via web · powered by @socialditto

Follow @timheidecker

timheidecker
@timheidecker

@LukeRussert @daveweigel I’d like to think Apple arranged this to make google glass look forever LAAAAAME!!

 Reply  ·  Retweet  ·  Favorite
2 days ago via Twitter for iPhone · powered by @socialditto

Follow @originalgriz

Oliver Griswold
@originalgriz

@LukeRussert Your “Bachmann in Glass” will look great alongside my “Cheney on Segway.” http://t.co/Up947bBHWI

 Reply  ·  Retweet  ·  Favorite
2 days ago via TweetDeck · powered by @socialditto

The Hill reports that the bi-partisan congressional Privacy Caucus sent an open letter to Google CEO Larry Page asking for clarification on Glass and the myriad of privacy issues it presents. The letter contains many of the same talking points that groups like Stop the Cyborgs have brought up in the past, but it seems to at least be giving Google the benefit of the doubt in this case.

Here’s some of the more interesting questions that many of us, including myself, would want answered:

“What proactive steps is Google taking to protect the privacy of non-users when Google Glass is in us? Are product lifecycle guidelines and frameworks, such as Privacy by Design, being implemented in connection with its product design and commercialization? For example, if a Google Glass customer/user decides to resell or to dispose of their Google Glas product, would there be any product capabilities incorporated into the device to ensure that one’s personal information remains private and secure?”

“In Google’s privacy policy, it states that the company “may reject requests that are unreasonably repetitive, require disproportionate technical effort … risk the privacy of others, or would be extremely impractical.” Please provide examples of when Google would reject requests on Google Glass that would risk the privacy of others? Would Google place limits on the technology and what type of information it can reveal about another person? If so, please explain. If not, why not?”

“Given Google Glass’ sensory and processing capabilities, has Google considered making any additions or refinements to its privacy policy? If so, please explain. If not, why not?”

There are a total of eight questions, but the above three are by far the most important. The last question is especially interesting as Google has run into complaints and threats of regulation when it changes its privacy policy. Even if Google were to change its privacy policy to reflect the the privacy implications of Glass, it’s a given that somebody would find something to complain about.

In addition to questions about its privacy policy, the Privacy Caucus drags the 3-year-old street view Wi-Fi data collection scandal into the spotlight yet again. They want to know if Google will be doing anything to prevent Glass from unintentionally collecting data. It’s somewhat of a moot point because Glass and the street view cars are very different. Even if Google Glass could store data from unprotected Wi-Fi sources, the paltry 16GB of onboard storage ensures that it wouldn’t be able to collect very much.

As for Google’s response to all of this, a spokesperson for the company told The Hill that Google is “thinking very carefully how [it] design[s] Glass because new technology always raises new issues.”

That’s about all we can ask for at the moment. It will be interesting, however, to see if Page actually responds to the letter. During his closing remarks at Google I/O on Wednesday, he raised concerns that the law wasn’t keeping pace with technology. Would he argue that privacy laws aren’t keeping up with what Google is trying to achieve with Glass?