In December, nations around the world will be meeting in Dubai to discuss proposed changes to how the Internet is operated. Currently, much of the Internet is operated by ICANN, a neutral NGO. Some nations in the UN want to transfer its power to the ITU so that member nations in the UN can have more of a say in how the Internet works.

Open Web proponents immediately decried the idea, and the US has been investigating the potential harm such a change would cause. For their part, Google has started another “Take Action” campaign that asks citizens from around the world to demand a free and open Internet.

Going off of precedent alone, Google may very well be successful with its latest campaign. The search giant, along with other Internet companies, were instrumental in mobilizing US citizens against SOPA and PIPA in January.

Of course, there are some key differences between the SOPA blackout and now that could swing the campaign in either direction. For one, trusted brands and companies like Google, Facebook and Wikipedia all came out against the legislation with blackouts and other extreme visual messages. The proposed changes in the UN have had no such campaign yet, and prolific Internet figures like Mark Zuckerberg and Jimmy Wales have yet to issue strong statements against it.

Google’s campaign, however, could make all the difference. The company could inspire the same amount of fervor if it were to lay a doodle over its homepage again. The company hasn’t done that just yet, but we could see more action on the part of Google as we move closer to the UN gathering.

The resolution recognizes the importance of the Internet to the global economy, and access to knowledge, services, commerce and communication, as well as the “accompanying benefits to economic development, education, and health care, and the informed discussion that is the bedrock of democratic self-government that the Internet provides.”

It also aims to protect freedom of expression and innovation. Read the document here (pdf).

Google, for one, is happy with the bipartisan resolution, which opposes increased international regulation of the Internet.

Vint Cerf, Google’s Chief Internet Evangelist, who is widely recognized as one of the “fathers of the Internet,” had the following to say on Google’s Public Policy blog:

As I have recently testified and written, a battle in the war for the Internet is opening at the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), a United Nations organization. This December, the ITU is conducting a review of the international agreements governing telecommunications, and some member countries see the ITU conference as an opportunity to expand the ITU’s regulatory authority to reach the Internet.

Traditionally, international discussions of Internet policy have flourished in a “multistakeholder” system that involves the input of lawmakers, academics, civil society, and users. If certain member states are successful in Dubai, they could change the Internet governance process as we know it, increasing state control over networks and substantially limiting the role of users and other vital, nongovernmental actors in important Internet policy debates.

By passing this resolution, the U.S. Government has recognized the Internet’s critical role in growing the global economy, its unique status as a platform for innovation, and the success of multistakeholder model that lies at the heart of its governance. In the lead-up to the December conference, the future of the Internet is at stake, and I hope that other countries will adopt publicly similar positions.

Meanwhile, in other Internet law news, on Thursday, the Senate voted to kill the Cybersecurity Act of 2012. More on that here.

It is for this reason and others that non-profit organization StopBadware has teamed up with the Interactive Advertising Bureau and tech giants including Google, Facebook, Twitter, and AOL. These organizations have formed an alliance called the Ads Integrity Alliance in an effort to combat “bad ads” and change the perception that so many people have of online advertising.

As Maxim Weinstein, StopBadware’s Executive Director, explained to us, the “bad ads” that the alliance references consist of the ads that deliver malware, point users to spam, or tries to sell them counterfeit goods. StopBadware began this initiative several years ago as a project of the Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University and spun off a couple of years ago as non-profit.

“Our focus has always been on protecting consumers and other users of the Web from harmful software and harmful websites,” said Weinstein. “Bad ads are, of course, a part of that and in fact many badware websites are badware because of the fact that they serve up malicious ads that try to install malicious software on people’s computers.”

“Our goal at the alliance,” he continued, “is to really focus more attention specifically on the ad side of the world because, up to this point, we’ve focused a bit more on the websites themselves and less on the advertising sector.”

The alliance has three goals that it wishes to accomplish:

1. Develop and share definitions, industry policy recommendations, and best practices
2. Serve as a platform for sharing information about bad actors
3. Share relevant trends with policymakers and law enforcement agencies

In a Google blog post, Eric Davis, the company’s Global Public Policy Manager, said “the best way to tackle common problems across a highly interconnected web, and to move the whole web forward, is for the industry to work together, build best practices and systems, and make information sharing simple.”

Since nearly every consumer has been impacted by a “bad ad” in some form, Weinstein did admit to us that they are “a very real threat.” However, he did say that improvements are being made everyday and that the alliance certainly hopes to bring even more advancements.

“At the same time, we don’t want to send the message that this is some alarming thing and you can never trust an ad,” pointed out Weinstein. “By far, the majority of ads out there are legitimate and useful, and I think companies are only getting better at ensuring the high quality of advertising on the Web.”

The alliance does have a challenge on its hands, especially given the stigma that is so often associated with ads. Another test that the alliance must deal with is the aspect of working with policymakers and law enforcement agencies. The past couple of years have shown that potential government regulation of various elements of the Internet, especially in terms of online advertising and behavioral targeting, has only resulted in controversy.

“A big challenge with regulating this space is that it moves and changes so fast – far faster than the typical pace of government,” said Weinstein.

“The next big opportunity is to say, ‘Now that companies have innovated on their own, what can we do working together?’”

Weinstein believes that the alliance has a solid foundation for changing the negative perception that some people have of ads and also that, by working proactively as an industry, self-regulation measures can be found that will appease all parties involved.

The third challenge surrounding “bad ads” is the fact that online advertising monetizes the majority of free services that we all enjoy and utilize daily. As a result, the issue of “bad ads” needs to be addressed quickly and effectively in order for this successful revenue model to continue.

“Obviously, it’s important for consumers that they need protected from these “bad ads,” but it’s also important for the companies involved in advertising because they make their money when people click on ads,” said Weinstein. “When people find the ads valuable, and if people are concerned that they’re going to get badware, that they’re going to get a counterfeit good, that they’re going to get scammed by clicking on ads, they won’t click on them.”

“So, it really is in everybody’s shared interest to work on this together,” he added.

The alliance hopes that, within its first year, more companies will join the effort and that it will also have useful policy recommendations.

Although the language is vague, the documents indicate that companies such as Google, Apple, Facebook, and others could be tremendously impacted. When the United Nation’s International Telecommunications Union (ITU) meets in December, the proposal, if implemented, would amend the existing telecommunications treaty, the International Telecommunications Regulations (ITR).

How would you react if the entire structure of the Internet changed? Would you still feel comfortable visiting your daily websites? Furthermore, what would it do to business and the economy? Please share your thoughts.

ETNO’s proposal calls for the “principle of sending party pays,” which, according to author and technology consultant Larry Downes, means that large content providers would be forced to pay fees, or a tax, linked to usage for the large amounts of bandwidth they use.

“This changes the whole structure of really how the Internet works and has worked successfully up until now,” he said.

Up until this point, the Internet has operated on an unmetered or peered traffic system meaning that all user traffic is treated the same. The new proposal, however, would imply that the bits that are transferred from a Google search, for example, to a user from another country would charge Google, explained Downes.

The last time the International Telecommunications Regulations was updated was in the 1980s. It began with the telegraph and was revised to include the telephone system, and now, the United Nations wants to amend it again to incorporate the Internet.

As Downes explained to us, the current version of the treaty deals with international long distance phone calls. In essence, the telephone carriers of the member countries in the United Nations set a price for the international long distance calls coming into their countries. For example, a call placed from the U.S. to France could cost a certain amount of money per minute, based on the rate that the carriers set.

ETNO’s proposal indicates that foreign countries want to impose this same type of arrangement for the Internet. Since the process is extremely secretive and the information obtained thus far is only available through leaked documents, the price range for such a tax is unknown. However, based on the costs of the telephone charges, analysts expect them to run into the billions of dollars.

“In the 1990s, the United States paid a net of $15 billion dollars,” Downes pointed out. “That is to say U.S. consumers paid $15 billion dollars to place long distance international phone calls more than what was paid on the other end for calls coming into the United States.”

Since the current proposal involves data and bandwidth, chances are, the rates would be much, much higher if the tax were implemented. What’s more, the majority of the large content providers are based in the United States, which, of course, means the tax would impact them the most.

While it seems that this specific proposal puts the United States against the rest of the world, Downes thinks the impact is much greater. He told us that it would not only be very harmful to U.S. companies, but he believes that it would also be harmful to developing countries and the Internet as a whole.

For example, if companies such as Google were taxed, these fees would translate over to consumers. It could result in Google increasing its ad rates and also being forced to cut off developing countries from which the tech giant wasn’t gaining anything in return.

“The net effect may be that some countries, particularly in the developing world, get cut off all together from the most valuable content,” explained Downes.

Based on this proposal, it appears that other countries are jealous of the U.S. and the technological developments it has made. Since the U.N. is looking to make some revisions to its telecommunications treaty, the assumption is that they are using this as an opportunity to get a piece of the pie, as the old saying goes.

“Frankly, the Europeans are concerned that most of the successful content-based businesses of the Internet are all in the United States,” said Downes. “They see this [proposal] as one way of kind of getting their pound of flesh out of the very successful Internet industry… it’s essentially just a money grab.”

“They see the U.N. as the opportunity to put that in the form of an international treaty, and therefore with the law behind it, make it easily collectible,” he added.

Another alarming aspect of these circumstances is that this is just one proposal. As mentioned earlier, these meetings and negotiations are done in secret, which leads observers to believe that there are other proposals as well. Since the ITU is looking to rewrite the ITRs, Downes and others familiar with the proceedings suspect that countries such as Iran, China, and Russia will push to have the new treaty require all content to pass through a national government gatekeeper.

“There are many countries, as I said, that are unhappy with the Internet… they are unhappy because the U.S. and developing nations are making the most money off it,” explained Downes. “Or, they’re unhappy because of the way in which information flows outside of the channels that they can control.”

“Whatever the reason, there are a lot of countries who have a lot of interest in making sure that the Internet does not continue to operate as successfully from our standpoint as it has,” he continued, “and they’re gonna do whatever they can to make that happen.”

What Downes is saying and what other news publications have indicated is that this proposal, and others that are not yet public, could be the first step in the United Nations attempting to govern the Internet. At this point, the Internet is governed by multi-stakeholder structure. The Internet Society, which is made up of several engineers, also plays a role in establishing protocols and, most recently, was involved in successfully rolling out IPv6. The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) and the Worldwide Web Consortium are also involved in the governance and address issues like network and domain name administration. Through this process, the Internet has been able to evolve naturally and quickly respond to the ever-changing advancements in technology.

The White House, the State Department, and Congress have all expressed concern about this proposal and are working to raise awareness of the potential dangers it could pose since it would completely transform the existing and successful model of the Internet. Robert McDowell, a commissioner on the Federal Communications Commission, has been very outspoken on the issue and wrote a piece in the Wall Street Journal in February warning of the dangers. In part, he wrote:

“Upending this model with a new regulatory treaty is likely to partition the Internet as some countries would inevitably choose to opt out. A balkanized Internet would be devastating to global free trade and national sovereignty. It would impair Internet growth most severely in the developing world but also globally as technologists are forced to seek bureaucratic permission to innovate and invest. This would also undermine the proliferation of new cross-border technologies, such as cloud computing.

A top-down, centralized, international regulatory overlay is antithetical to the architecture of the Net, which is a global network of networks without borders. No government, let alone an intergovernmental body, can make engineering and economic decisions in lightning-fast Internet time. Productivity, rising living standards and the spread of freedom everywhere, but especially in the developing world, would grind to a halt as engineering and business decisions become politically paralyzed within a global regulatory body.

Any attempts to expand intergovernmental powers over the Internet—no matter how incremental or seemingly innocuous—should be turned back. Modernization and reform can be constructive, but not if the end result is a new global bureaucracy that departs from the multi-stakeholder model. Enlightened nations should draw a line in the sand against new regulations while welcoming reform that could include a nonregulatory role for the ITU.”

Late last month, at a U.S. House committee meeting, members of Congress on both sides of the aisle and the White House expressed warnings of this initiative as well. During the hearing, Vint Cerf, the Chief Internet Evangelist at Google and who is also known as one of the fathers of the Internet, voiced his fears about the issue saying:

“As a result of these efforts, there is a strong possibility that this December the ITU will significantly amend the International Telecommunication Regulations – a multilateral treaty last revised in 1988 – in a way that authorizes increased ITU and member state control over the Internet. These proposals, if implemented, would change the foundational structure of the Internet that has historically led to unprecedented worldwide innovation and economic growth.

The open Internet has never been at a higher risk than it is now.”

This proposal and more than likely others are expected to be debated in December at the World Conference on International Telecommunications. Each of the 193 country members of the U.N. will have 1 vote to decide on a new treaty. Once the vote is taken, the treaty will go back to the individual countries for approval.

There are lots of speculations that the United States will not reach the two-thirds minimum requirement to ratify it. However, if this is the case, the U.S. could still face problems since it has global business relations with countries who will likely approve it.

Incidentally, just this week, new leaked documents confirm fears that repressive governments truly are hoping to see the December WCIT meetings result in U.N.-sanctioned technologies for surveillance of Internet communications, which could essentially authorize censorship of the Web. Russia, specifically, is proposing an amendment that would give U.N. member states “unrestricted public access to international telecommunication services and the unrestricted use of international telecommunications, except in cases where international telecommunication services are used for the purpose of interfering in the internal affairs or undermining the sovereignty, national security, territorial integrity and public safety of other States, or to divulge information of a sensitive nature.”

Eli Dourado, who is one of the two researchers at George Mason University that is running the WCITleaks site, wrote a blog post discussing these developments and stated that this current dispute is really a battle between all Internet users and their governments:

“Who benefits from increased ITU oversight of the Internet? Certainly not ordinary users in foreign countries, who would then be censored and spied upon by their governments with full international approval. The winners would be autocratic regimes, not their subjects.”

Also earlier this week, Rep. Mary Bono Mack introduced a bipartisan resolution that is especially critical of the U.N.’s seemingly growing initiative to govern the Internet. The goal of it is to unify efforts of opposition to the ITU’s endeavors. The House Energy and Commerce Committee is expected to approve it very soon.

If the U.N. really is attempting to take over the Internet, is the U.S. doing enough to stop it from happening? Or, is it doing all it can at this point? What do you think? Let us know.

Privacy activists, on the other hand, have touted that concerns exist, but the majority of users do not appear to be worried.

(Click image to enlarge)

Most users simply enjoy the convenience and the fun that social media sites bring and don’t think about potential implications. Andrew Keen is terrified by this attitude and expresses his feelings in his new book Digital Vertigo: How Today’s Online Social Revolution Is Dividing, Diminishing, and Disorienting Us.

Are you worried about the long-term impact of society’s dependence on social media? Is it to the detriment of our culture? Why or why not? Let us know in the comments.

Keen is known for his controversial opinion of the Web after writing The Cult of the Amateur, in which he warns of the harmful consequences of the Web 2.0 culture. His latest book, however, targets social media and the negative impact that it is having on society.

“Digital Vertigo is a warning about the loss of privacy of the inner self that social media is doing to us,” said Keen.

Although his viewpoints have earned him nicknames such as the “Net’s supreme cyber-grump” and the “Antichrist of the Silicon Valley,” he prefers to think of himself as a “cheerful pessimist.” As he explained, he is not against the Internet or social media sites – he is, in fact, very active on Twitter – but he does think that we, as a society, take it too lightly.

“I recognize that the Web is the dominant reality… of the 21st century, but that doesn’t mean that we should accept it unthinkingly,” he said.

“As we retreat from real social things, and as we retreat from readily watching or listening to other people’s ideas – music, movies, books,” he continued, “we seem to be more and more preoccupied with broadcasting ourselves. And that, I think, is deeply narcissistic and ultimately doesn’t reflect well on ourselves as individuals or collectively as a species.”

Keen has made some very bold statements about the impact of sharing, or over-sharing as it may be, and even told CNET’s Dan Farber that it is “killing our species.” Although he downplayed his tone when he spoke with us, his point is that social media and the Internet need to be taken much more seriously than they both currently are.

“I’m not saying that the Internet is killing our species or that social networking is killing our species,” pointed out Keen. “What I am saying is that we need to make the Internet more suitable for human beings.”

“I’m worried that, what I would call the new collectivism of the social age – grouping the publicness of much discourse – is resulting in losing something essential about what it means to be human.”

According to him, not all social networking is really social behavior. While there have been some very good uses of social platforms such as what we saw in the Middle East and in Russia, Keen believes that, many times, these so-called demonstrations are merely “an aggregation of individuals.” For instance, he thinks this is why the Occupy Wall Street Movement hasn’t developed into a viable political movement.

Despite his worries, Keen does have some solutions for improving the influence of both the Internet and social networks on society. For starters, he thinks that people need to take responsibility for their own actions and approach social media with caution.

“We all have a responsibility as social media users to understand that, when we reveal everything about ourselves… we are impoverishing ourselves,” explained Keen. “We are taking away the best part of ourselves… the internal mystery of what it requires to build personality.”

Keen also believes that government intervention, particularly in the form of Do Not Track regulation, would help solve this problem surrounding the social Web. Furthermore, in terms of the government, he thinks bringing technologically-minded individuals to Washington would ensure more up-to-date processes for issues such as privacy.

“We need to figure out a way to reinvigorate government to make smart people go back into it and to enable it to keep up with technology,” he said. “The government needs to be more proactive, faster, [and] more aggressive.”

Ideally, Keen would like to see the Web become humanized. He wants companies such as DuckDuckGo, Everyme, and others that focus on privacy to really take off. In terms of social, he wants networks to grow and flourish but not replace physical connections.

“The biggest problem at the moment with the Internet is it hasn’t learned how to forget,” he said. “If we are to civilize the Internet [and] make it a habitable place for the 21st century, we need to teach it to forget.”

“People say I’m an antichrist and… I’m not actually,” he continued. “I’m an ex-Silicon Valley entrepreneur, I’m involved in technology every day, I’m on these networks all the time, I like my devices, but unless we can clean this thing up, unless we make it more civil, more habitable, I think we’re risking a massive Luddite reaction of kids.”

Although his perspective appears harsh, is Keen’s message accurate? We’d love to hear your thoughts in the comments.

Testifying as part of a panel before the House Energy and Commerce CommitteeSubcommittee on Communications and Technology, Cerf told Congress he fears that the International Telecommunication Union, an agency of the United Nations, could exert regulations that would potentially undermine the openness of the global internet. Cerf went on to describe how the success of the internet is perceived as a potential threat by some countries, prompting those governments “to create new international rules that would jeopardize the network’s innovative evolution and its multi-faceted success.”

Among the culprits, Cerf listed Russia, China, Brazil, India, and other countries that have attempted to influence the ITU to increase the amount of control it has over internet governance. He went on to warn against a government-endorsed centralized entity charged with regulating the internet.

Such a move holds profound – and I believe potentially hazardous – implications for the future of the Internet and all of its users. If all of us do not pay attention to what is going on, users worldwide will be at risk of losing the open and free Internet that has brought so much to so many.

[...]

As a result of these efforts, there is a strong possibility that this December the ITU will significantly amend the International Telecommunication Regulations – a multilateral treaty last revised in 1988 – in a way that authorizes increased ITU and member state control over the Internet. These proposals, if implemented, would change the foundational structure of the Internet that has historically led to unprecedented worldwide innovation and economic growth.

Some have interpreted Cerf’s comments as an alarm against a potential insurrection of the internet by Communist interests while others have perceived his statements more generally as a defense for the open nature of the internet, the latter being a cause that Cerf has never hesitated to champion. Regardless of which yard you stand in, Cerf maintains the position that an internet that has to answer to any form of government is vulnerable to specific interests that could potentially diminish the unmitigated freedom of communication afforded by the internet.

Cerf has previously spoken out against proposed regulation of the internet by the European Union as well as any manner of closed-circuit internet business that prohibits the free-flowing stream of information on the internet.

In other words, don’t tread on Mr. Cerf’s open internet. You wouldn’t like him when he’s angry.

Cerf’s full testimony to Congress can be found… here.

The fact that the mobile app environment is still very new only adds to this issue. As Jules Polonetsky, the Director and Co-Chairman of the Future of Privacy Forum, explained to us, it wasn’t too many years ago that consumers bought phones from carriers that had apps and services already baked into them. At that time, the carriers were in charge of making sure the services ran as they were supposed to. But today, thanks to Apple, Google and other platforms, the system has opened up.

While these developments have given consumers a lot more choice in what they have on their mobile devices, Polonetsky told us that they have also resulted in privacy confusion for many people including consumers, developers, and policymakers. The reason is due to the lack of standards or guidelines for the parties involved to follow.

What’s more, according to a recent study from the Future of Privacy Forum, only one-third of all apps have privacy policies. The think tank reviewed the most popular free and paid apps and found that 66 percent of the privacy apps surveyed had privacy policies, while only 33 percent of the paid apps had them.

Polonetsky told us that the free ones are more apt to have policies because they make money by gathering data. In other words, these apps want to collect data in order to provide more targeted advertising and make money in return.

Although most consumers don’t pay very much attention to privacy policies, they still want apps to have them.

“It’s great that they [developers] can get data, because it’s the data that’s really made these apps really interesting,” said Polonetsky.

“We want these apps to have the data that is on that mobile device,” he continued,” but we need to know that they’re gonna use it in a respectful way.”

Privacy advocates, including Polonetsky, believe that it is critical to address mobile privacy concerns now before the issues get worse. At this point, nearly every major company has an app, which means that a lot of data is floating around. Furthermore, if something goes wrong with this data, it could result in some very bad situations for consumers.

There are already some issues being raised as social discovery apps or “ambient social networking apps” become more popular. After this year’s SXSW event, we saw apps such as Highlight, Glancee, and Banjo really take off. These location-based apps run in the background on mobile devices and notify users when their connections and acquaintances are around them.

Some people enjoy the discovery that these types of apps bring, but at the same time, they don’t want every aspect of their lives to be public. In addition, some of these apps including Socialcam and Viddy publicly share user actions without the user’s knowledge, which could greatly harm reputations.

“It’s really critical that we help draw the lines – that the platforms draw the lines and that these apps, on their own, draw the lines,” Polonetsky explained, “so that we can have the viral excitement of new discovery and easy sharing to expand the way people find content online without anyone ever accidentally sharing and being embarrassed.”

“We don’t want people uncomfortable about something that’s in their pockets,” he added.

Polonetsky went on to say that the responsibility in solving these concerns falls on many people. He thinks that the platforms, the app developers, and even the consumers play a role. However, he was quick to point out that app developers, in particular, needed to step up to find solutions.

“We gotta get it right and we gotta look at the app developers to lead the way,” he said.

The platforms are responsible for the base restrictions, and users do have some responsibility. But, since app developers have to make the most decisions about the data they collect and also make it easy for users to understand, Polonetsky believes that largest weight falls on them. He did say that a lot of developers want to handle user data appropriately but struggle when it comes to how to do so.

Privacy concerns have grown so much in recent months that some action is already beginning to take place. In February, the state of California reached an agreement with all the major mobile platforms including Apple, Google, Research In Motion, Amazon, Hewlett-Packard and Microsoft that require all the apps to provide privacy policies.

More recently at the App Developer Privacy Summit, Joanne McNabb of California’s Office of Privacy Protection announced that the state would issue a set of guidelines for mobile app developers. These rules are expected to be released this summer and will offer advice to app developers on data collection, data sharing, and more.

While Polonetsky thinks these are positive steps in the right direction, he did warn that the government would likely intervene if the problems weren’t addressed.

“App developers – don’t wait for the government to show you what to do,” he said. “I’d rather see the innovators innovate their way out of this and delight people with the way data is used.”

“We have a window,” he went on to say, “but it’s not going to be long that, if we continue to see alarming behavior, we’ll have the serious threat of government regulation.”

CISPA, and other cybersecurity bills, has recently become front and center as cyber threats have grown more prevalent. Numerous lawmakers are pushing for legislation in hopes of lessening the concerns.

But, what would CISPA actually do? And, would it have the same impact that SOPA would have had? According to the bill itself, the goal is:

“To provide for the sharing of certain cyber threat intelligence and cyber threat information between the intelligence community and cybersecurity entities, and for other purposes.”

How do you feel about CISPA? Are you for or against it? Why or Why not? Please share.

Aside from the Internet-related legislation, CISPA is not very similar to SOPA. CISPA is geared toward cybersecurity concerns and, primarily, the sharing of cyber threat information between the private sector and the government. SOPA, on the other hand, was focused on intellectual property and was pushed by the entertainment industry to address piracy issues.

“The bills don’t have many similarities beyond the basic idea that they are both forms of government overreach,” Ryan Radia, the Associate Director of Technology Studies at the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), told WebProNews.

The reason, however, that so many have associated the bills with each other is due to the implications they would have. According to Radia, the basis of CISPA is well intentioned, but the wording of it is dangerous.

As he explained to us, even though the bill has had multiple amendments, it is still too vague. The main controversy is in how “cyber threat information” would be interpreted and, also, what the government would do with it.

“The information that you hand over to, say, Google, Facebook, Yahoo, etc., may have some nexus to a so-called cyber threat – that information could end up in the government’s hands not only for use in fighting off cyber attacks, but for use in, say, run of the mill criminal prosecutions,” said Radia.

For instance, he told us that language such as “unauthorized access” could not only apply to hackers, but that it could also apply to users’ stretching the truth online. In other words, it could give the government access to Facebook users that lie about their age or to people that use their employer’s computers to watch YouTube videos.

“Should lying about your age and weight on an online dating site be a federal crime?” asked Radia. “I don’t think so… this bill doesn’t make it a crime but gives government access to information that could relate to such crimes.”

With this broad language, CISPA could drastically change all existing laws pertaining to criminal, civil, statutory, contractual, and various other cases. Although the government would not be able to use the information it receives for regulation purposes, Radia told us that CISPA would be a “prosecutor’s dream” since they could avoid obtaining court orders and other forms of red tape.

As a result of these implications, privacy activists believe CISPA is a violation of consumer privacy rights. Radia agrees saying it poses “a very real risk to privacy.”

“Under CISPA, we could see a whole host of information being shared with the government in ways that do represent a very real threat to privacy and that offend the basic 4th Amendment principle that we should be free from unreasonable searches,” said Radia.

There are numerous petitions to stop CISPA, including one from Demand Progress and one from Avaaz. The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) has also been particularly outspoken about the harm CISPA would bring and even launched a campaign last week in protest of the bill. The EFF is hoping to give the government too much information in the form of its CongressTMI hashtag in order to “showcase the types of unnecessary private data that could be swept up under CISPA.”

While these campaigns to stop CISPA are reminiscent of the Internet blackout in January in protest of SOPA, the Internet community has been less than active in regards to this latest piece of legislation. If you recall, almost every corner of the Internet had some form of protest from Reddit going dark to the Internet community creating memes in protest of SOPA.

It’s not entirely clear if it’s due to apathy or just ignorance of the bill, but CISPA doesn’t face as much criticism from the Internet as a whole as SOPA did. The Avaaz petition, which is also referenced on Reddit’s front page, has over 700,000 signatures, but it pales in comparison to the anti-SOPA petition that received over 3 million signatures. It’s clear that many people just don’t see the same threat in CISPA that they did in SOPA.

Incidentally, Tim Berners-Lee, who is one of the “fathers of the World Wide Web,” recently spoke to the Guardian and expressed his concern for CISPA.

“[It] is threatening the rights of people in America, and effectively rights everywhere, because what happens in America tends to affect people all over the world. Even though the Sopa and Pipa acts were stopped by huge public outcry, it’s staggering how quickly the US government has come back with a new, different, threat to the rights of its citizens.”

Unlike SOPA, Internet giants such as Google and Facebook support CISPA, which has produced a divided perspective from the Internet community. Radia, however, told us that many of these companies are backing the bill for its core purpose – to make sharing information easier.

“Companies aren’t supporting this generally because they really want to screw consumers or take away their privacy, but rather, they want more freedom to share information,” he said.

“How much is less clear,” Radia continued. “This bill would give them, perhaps, too much freedom and give government too much freedom.”

In addition to CISPA, there are several other cybersecurity bills in Congress. One is the Cybersecurity Act of 2012, which puts a regulatory approach on cybersecurity, and is backed by Sens. Joe Lieberman and Susan Collins. Senator John McCain has also introduced a bill called the Secure IT Act that focuses on information sharing and gives more power to the private sector instead of the government.

Other bills including the Security Amendments Act of 2012, the Cybersecurity Enhancement Act, and the Precise Act, are also being discussed but have not received as much media attention as the others.

“Every one of these bills has a broad immunity grant for private sector information sharing with government,” said Radia. “None of them, in their current versions, have careful limits on the use and on… the conditions the government can place on private entities.”

He believes that the Precise Act is the best one introduced up to this point but that, even it, borrows from the broad language of CISPA.

In spite of all this focus on cybersecurity, Jerry Brito, the Director of the Technology Policy Program at George Mason University, recently told us that, the rhetoric in Washington about it is being overblown.

“There really is little evidence for us to believe that we are on the brink of real calamity,” said Brito.

Radia agrees with Brito and even suggested that cybersecurity legislation may not provide a real solution to the concerns. He, like Brito, is not convinced that a law, especially one of the bills already introduced, would actually reduce cyber threats.

“What we need is a rifle shot – a narrow, careful target approach to ensure that the very specific types of cyber threat information are being shared with private entities and with government,” he pointed out.

In terms of CISPA, specifically, Radia thinks it has a 50/50 chance of becoming a law. He said that it could pass the House but, beyond that, it could go either way.

Last week, the White House issued a statement to The Hill that indicated its opposition to the bill. Although she avoided calling out CISPA directly, National Security Council spokeswoman Caitlin Hayden said:

“The nation’s critical infrastructure cyber vulnerabilities will not be addressed by information sharing alone. Also, while information sharing legislation is an essential component of comprehensive legislation to address critical infrastructure risks, information sharing provisions must include robust safeguards to preserve the privacy and civil liberties of our citizens. Legislation without new authorities to address our nation’s critical infrastructure vulnerabilities, or legislation that would sacrifice the privacy of our citizens in the name of security, will not meet our nation’s urgent needs.”

The White House putting their weight behind the anti-CISPA efforts will help, but it seems that the bill is already undergoing some changes to improve the legislation. A recent OP-ED on Mashable reveals that the authors of the bill are currently in talks with Internet companies to reach a compromise that would satisfy all parties, including privacy-minded citizens. It’s this willingness to work with Internet companies to reach a compromise that may set CISPA apart from SOPA the most.

The House of Representatives is scheduled to vote on CISPA this week. On Digital Trends, Andrew Couts points out that, according to House Majority Leader Eric Cantor’s schedule, the House will begin debating CISPA on Thursday, April 26, and that a vote will happen no later than Friday afternoon.

Could CISPA help reduce cyber threats, or is it a threat itself? Please share your thoughts.

Additionally, Apple is being investigated by the Department of Justice over e-book pricing. This week, the FTC also subpoenaed Apple in hopes of gaining further information in its antitrust investigation of Google.

Although these investigations are still pending, one can’t help but wonder what might come of them.

Is antitrust enforcement effective? Let us know in the comments.

An event held earlier this week hosted by the Federalist Society looked at these issues and found that many antitrust specialists are against regulation. The Honorable James Miller III, a senior advisor with the Husch Blackwell law firm, was among the panelists and spoke to WebProNews about the discussion.

As the former Budget Director under President Reagan and the former chair of the FTC, Miller told us that antitrust concerns often arise when one company wants to get an upper hand on another company.

“A lot of the big companies are trying to use the government to suppress competition,” he said. “It’s a very cheap way of getting a jump on your competition – having the government do this job for you.”

When done with these motives, he believes antitrust enforcement is wrong. The problem he has is that it gives the government the ability to dictate how companies should operate. In addition, he said the companies lose focus on their products as a result of the investigations, which ultimately harms consumers.

In December, search industry organization SEMPO voiced these same concerns on behalf of the search industry in a letter to the FTC, saying:

“Search is not a government-run utility, established by law and thus subject to bureaucratic oversight. It is a service provided to consumers and businesses by companies, which have set up their operations using their own principles, proprietary technologies and algorithms. Each company is free to develop its own approach, fulfilling the needs of its customers as it perceives them.”

What’s more, the costs involved in this scrutiny are staggering to both the companies involved and the economy. At the slightest news of an investigation, most companies see their stock drop. Interestingly, Miller told us that, while he was over the FTC, the agency tried to keep its work confidential to avoid such a reaction.

With industries such as technology specifically, Miller said that antitrust enforcement is especially difficult since the tech space changes at a rapid pace. In other words, a company that may appear to have monopoly power could, in theory, disappear in 6 months. As a result, he thinks the government should be hesitant about regulating it.

In response to the scrutiny that Google is getting over its search power, Miller said that consumers still have options. If a user doesn’t like the experience on the search engine, according to Miller, the act of clicking to another search engine is “easy as pie.” He went on to say that it would be difficult to make these choices any better or easier for consumers.

Although Miller did not take a position in the DoJ’s antitrust case against Microsoft, he told us today’s issues were very different.

“You have here an industry that is extraordinary, and America is leading the world,” he said. “To have our federal government come in and sort of mix things up, you need to be very careful that you don’t slow things down and hurt consumers in the process.”

Miller believes the government should approach tech companies with the future in mind. He said they should think about the long-term costs that these cases result in for the companies and taxpayers.

Interestingly, a new report from the Heritage Foundation on regulation as whole found that new federal regulations from the Obama administration are costing $46 billion dollars annually and that more expensive regulations are coming.

“It is correct that the regulation activity has grown leaps and bounds over the past several years and is imposing enormous costs on the American economy and reducing the rate of innovation and creativity from American companies,” said Miller.

Based on new research from the National Taxpayers Union, most consumers are against government intervention in search. As WebProNews reported last week, the study revealed that when users were asked if “the federal government should regulate the content and appearance of search engines and their results,” 64 percent strongly disagreed while only 3 percent strongly agreed.

Since it’s unclear how the DoJ and FTC will handle the current antitrust cases, it appears that this debate is a long way from being over.

Does antitrust enforcement produce harmful results? And, is the American economy suffering for this reason? Please share you thoughts.

Is government regulation needed in search engines? Please comment.

Interestingly, new research reveals how the majority of Americans feel about these issues. A poll from Zogby International and commissioned by the National Taxpayers Union found that most people in the U.S. are satisfied with the search options they currently have and do not want the government to get involved.

Pete Sepp, the Executive Vice President of NTU, told WebProNews that 87 percent of the more than 2,000 respondents agreed with the following statement: “I feel I can easily switch to a competing search engine if I’m not happy with the results I receive.”

“The majorities are quite overwhelming,” said Sepp. “In fact, when asked if people thought that they could always switch to a new search if they were dissatisfied with the results they were getting, by nearly an 11-1 margin, they said so… versus those who thought that they were trapped or locked into a current search engine.”

“There’s obviously a great deal of consumer freedom, as expressed in these poll results,” he added.

Sepp also told us that the skepticism regarding government regulation was also “overwhelming.” When respondents were asked if “the federal government should regulate the content and appearance of search engines and their results,” 64 percent strongly disagreed while only 3 percent strongly agreed.

“We found overwhelming majorities saying that government had no business in trying to determine how search engine results should appear or how search engines should work in the first place,” said Sepp.

The NTU found that most consumers believe that if the government gets involved in search engines, that the results would be harmful. Specifically, they think that it would lead to reduced consumer choice and innovation.

The poll surveyed Americans across various demographic categories, including age, income, educational level, and ideology. However, Sepp pointed out that it was interesting how both self-identified Democrats and Republicans were against government regulation of search engines.

“It appears that once people are made aware of this issue, [they] are very, very concerned that further government and involvement will simply lead to disastrous results,” he said.

How would you vote in this poll? Let us know.

Sepp went on to say that since the message from consumers is loud and clear, the government should “speak very carefully” and “tread very lightly” in these matters.

If you remember, as WebProNews previously reported, President Obama recently released his privacy proposal that calls for Congress to implement a Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights. NTU is hoping that its findings will be heard by policymakers before they take any steps toward regulating the Web.

Incidentally, a new report out today from the Pew Internet and American Life Project shows that even though Americans are very satisfied with the quality of search results, they are concerned with how search engines collect and use their data. According to the report, users are particularly concerned with data collection being used to personalize results and for ad targeting purposes.

In fact, the research found that three-quarters of searchers are against data collection for personalizing results.

Also, Pew found that two-thirds of Web users have an “unfavorable” view of online targeted advertising because they do not like having their behaviors tracked and analyzed.

Based on the research from both NTU and Pew, it appears that consumers have mixed feelings about their search experience and privacy. What’s your take? Are you worried about search engines collecting your data but not enough for government to intervene? Or, would like to for the government to regulate these practices? Share your thoughts with us.