The bill was introduced recently into the Senate by Senator Kirsten Gillibrand of New York. It’s goal is “to require reporting on the capacity of foreign countries to combat cybercrime, to develop action plans to improve the capacity of certain countries to combat cybercrime, and for other purposes.” What are those other purposes? Let’s read the proposed bill and find out!

After the introduction and definitions of various parts of the bill, it gets into what the bill is all about. Section three is called the “Annual Report” and it requires the head of whatever new Federal agency is made to combat cybercrime to report to Congress. They are to report on “the extent and nature of activities relating to cybercrime that are attributable to persons or property based in the country and impact the United States Government, United States persons, or United States electronic commerce.” They are also to report on the “effectiveness of the laws” and “measures taken by the government to protect consumers from cybercrime.”

Section four, titled “Utilization of Foreign Assistance Programs” deals with how the U.S. will cooperate with foreign countries in battling cybercrime. The bill says that the President will give priority to improving “the effectiveness and capacity of the legal and judicial systems and the capabilities of law enforcement agencies with respect to cybercrime.”

The countries that will receive the most aid are those that the U.S. determines to have “a low capacity to combat cybercrime.”

The bill would also let the U.S. provide foreign countries with the tools to improve “critical infrastructure, telecommunications systems, financial industry, legal or judicial systems, or law enforcement capabilities of that country” to combat cybercrime.

Section five, titled “Action Plans for Combating Cybercrimes for Countries of Cyber Concern” says that after the report mentioned in section two is made to Congress that the President must create an action plan that will assist “the government of that country to improve the capacity of the country to combat cybercrime.”

There is also a provision that says the President will have to reassess the countries that have been placed under action plans. Countries may be removed and placed on action plans at will if they cease or become countries of “cyber concern.”

The President will be required, under section five, to meet with the leaders of each country of “cyber concern” to formulate action plans to combat cybercrime.

If a country fails to meet an action plan benchmark, which is one year after the action plan has been developed, the U.S. is given three courses of action to punish the country into complying with its request – block any new financing or loans for the countries in question, restrict trade to the countries in question and restrict foreign assistance.

Thankfully, there is an exception that states “the President may not suspend, restrict, prohibit, or withdraw assistance … that is provided for humanitarian or disaster relief or for projects related to building capacity or actions to combat cybercrime.”

The President is allowed to waive the requirement of an action plan if the President “determines that such a waiver is in the national interest of the United States” and “submits to Congress a report describing the reasons for the determination.”

Section six only details the responsibilities of the Secretary of State to designate a “high-level employee of the Department of State” to coordinate the combating of cybercrime on a state and international level.

Section seven details that the President appoint an “employee of the United States Government with primary responsibility with respect to matters relating to cybercrime policy.” This employee must also “consult with industry groups in the United States, civil society organizations, and other organizations with an interest in combating cybercrime.”

Finally at the end, section eight demands that the President take into account “the efforts of the government of that country to combat cybercrime” before finalizing or modifying any trade agreements.

This bill seems like the U.S. wants to be the head coordinator of a global cybercrimes unit. The fact that the bill gives the President the power to freeze funds and trade to countries that do not comply is somewhat worrying. The bill was referred to committee and could be up for a vote whenever they feel like it. We’ll keep you up to date on any changes.

The entire bill can be found on Open Congress. Read it for more information and become informed.

Do you think that the U.S. is trying to become an international cybercrime police force? Or is this just a step in the right direction in stopping cybercrime? Let us know in the comments.

The bill bans members of Congress from using knowledge gained in the performance of their duties to gain an advantage in the stock market. While the practice is already illegal for most of the population, members of the legislature were not specifically included.

The House version of the bill is slightly different than the version passed by the Senate – a fact which leads some to call it “watered down.” Since the bills are different, the two houses will have to work toward a version of the bill they can both agree on before it can go to the President for passage.

The House’s passage of the STOCK Act generated a significant amount of buzz on Twitter. Check out a sample of what people are saying below:

In a statement, Reid said “In light of recent events, I have decided to postpone Tuesday’s vote on the PROTECT IP Act.”

From the Senator’s Twitter feed:

This comes less than 24 hours after top Republican Senator Mitch McConnell called for the PIPA vote to be delayed. He urged the Senate Majority to shelve the bill until more study can be done.

Support for both PIPA and SOPA has been waning, and it looks like Wednesday’s internet-wide protests have had a major impact on the Congress as a whole. On that day, Republican Senator Marco Rubio (a co-sponsor of the legislation) dropped his support.

And Congressional support for the legislation has waned. The supporter/opponent chart available on tracking site SOPA Opera has literally inverted since before the protests. It currently stands at 26 supporters and 100 opponents (with both bodies combines)

On that note, another key member of the Senate has voiced concern about PIPA. Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell said:

While we must combat the on-line theft of intellectual property, current proposals in Congress raise serious legal, policy and operational concerns. Rather than prematurely bringing the Protect IP Act to the Senate floor, we should first study and resolve the serious issues with this legislation. Considering this bill without first doing so could be counterproductive to achieving the shared goal of enacting appropriate and additional tools to combat the theft of intellectual property. I encourage the Senate Majority to reconsider its decision to proceed to this bill

McConnell’s statement injects some partisanship into things and while it is definitely no “kill the bill” battle cry, it does suggest that public outrage against the legislation has forced even the top Republican Senator in the land to seriously rethink the measure.

A procedural vote on PIPA is scheduled for Tuesday and with any luck, it won’t hit the floor next week.

PIPA’s House of Representative cousin SOPA has lost much more support in the past couple of days than PIPA has, so we’ll have to wait and see if enough support remains to bring it back up later. SOPA was delayed earlier this week, but author Lamar Smith said that markup of the act will resume in February.

[Lead Image Via Facebook]

Yesterday we brought you news that Republican senator Marco Rubio had backed down from his support of PIPA, of which he was listed as a co-sponser. Now it seems that Orrin Hatch of Utah, also a co-sponsor, has joined the ranks of senators rushing to withdraw their support. Hatch made the following statement late yesterday:

After listening to the concerns on both sides of the debate over the Protect IP Act, it is simply not ready for prime time and both sides must continue working together to find a better path forward. Rushing something with such potential for far-reaching consequences is something I cannot support and that’s why I will not only vote against moving the bill forward next week but also remove my cosponsorship of the bill. Given the legitimate vocal concerns, it is imperative that we take a step back to allow everyone to come together and find a reasonable solution.

Though neither SOPA nor PIPA are quite dead yet, news like this is encouraging. Hopefully more senators will follow Hatch’s example.

As of right now, there is a bill in the United States Senate that would penalize those who stream copyrighted materials over the internet. S.978 would make this action a felony, punishable with up to 5 years in prison.

Here’s the crux of the bill, as defined on Open Congress –

Makes unauthorized web streaming of copyrighted content a felony with a possible penalty of up to 5 years in prison. Illegal streaming of copyrighted content is defined in the bill as an offense that “consists of 10 or more public performances by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copyrighted works” and has a total economic value, either to the copyright holder or the infringer, of at least $2,500.

The bill, introduced back in May by Democratic Senator Amy Klobuchar and co-sponsored by Republican John Cornyn and Democrat Chris Coons, is supported by the MPAA, RIAA, Directors Guild, Screen Actors Guild and many more.

Some are quite concerned at the implications to the bill, saying that it could criminalize things that millions and millions of internet users do everyday. And here’s where Justin Bieber comes in.

Under the proposed law, you could spend time in jail for posting a video to YouTube of you covering a famous song, as long as it got more than 10 views in 6 months. The site freebieber.org explains it in this way:

This is a video of child celebrity Justin Bieber singing “With You” by the artist Chris Brown. YouTube videos like this one were what made him famous. Tons of kids do this for fun, and many now-popular artists got started in this same way.

Copyright law is so extreme, just singing somebody else’s song in public could be infringement. Because he and his mother posted the videos to advance his music career, it’s commercial infringement. And a new bill would make this a felony.

The maximum sentence would be five-years, just for singing a cover! Other online video “crimes” could include: videos of a school play, a professional baseball game, or videos with incidental background music (even just a ringtone). Nuts, right?

They ask you to sign a petition against Senate bill 978,

If you remember that Justin Bieber’s path to superstardom began with some YouTube covers of Chris Brown songs, you see why they are using Bieber as a poster boy for this bill. It sounds crazy, but under the proposed new law they say that Bieber could be facing 5 years in prison.

Of course, chances are slim that we’ll ever see Bieber in jail (until he hits his rebellious Lindsay Lohan phase). And this website is a hyperbolic but humorous way to raise awareness. But the implications of the bill are a bit disturbing. Imagine all the ways that it could alter the online video landscape.

Here’s a video about the campaign –

What do you guys think? Let us know in the comments.

Stoppelman shared his testimony on the Yelp blog today:

Yelp Testimony

Google has a post here with “responses to senate hearing witness claims”. Here are the responses to claims from Stoppelman:

1. CLAIM: “Google is no longer in the business of sending people to the best sources of information on the web. It now hopes to be a destination site itself for one vertical market after another, including news, shopping, travel, and now, local business reviews. It would be one thing if these efforts were conducted on a level playing field, but the reality is they are not.”



RESPONSE: Unfortunately, what Yelp and other sites are proposing is that the government intervene in one company’s product design — specifically by regulating search results. While competitors may like that, ultimately we believe that regulation of search results will make make search engines less useful for consumers.

FairSearch sent us an email with findings from a FairSearch-sponsored survey about Americans and the FTC’s antitrust investigation of Google. The main findings, as presented by the organization are:

• Most Americans support the FTC investigation of Google.
• The majority of Americans are troubled by Google’s dominance of the online marketplace, both in the abstract and when Google is named.
• Majorities find Google’s business practices unfair.
• Over six in ten (63%) say it is unfair for Google to use the profits it makes from its dominant position in search advertising to buy smaller, innovative companies at an early stage, preventing them from becoming competitors.
• Eight in ten (79%) Americans favor the FTC’s investigation of the company for restricting fair competition and misleading consumers. Half (49%) say they strongly favor the FTC’s actions.
• Over eight in ten (84%) say it is unfair for Google to take content from other websites and present it as its own, depriving these other websites of potential consumer traffic.
• Three-quarters (74%) say it is unfair for Google to raise prices for advertising without notice and to favor large e-commerce companies over small local businesses.
• Over six in ten (64%) believe a single company that controls 79% of the market for a good or service should be subject to existing antitrust laws. Only a quarter (23%) say such a company should not be subject to these laws and 13% are not sure.
• Almost six in ten (57%) feel that Google’s control of 79% of the search advertising market is bad for consumers. Only a third (33%) consider this a good thing for consumers.
• Two thirds (65%) believe Google’s control of the mobile search market is bad for consumers.

Do you think Google is anti-competitive? Let us know in the comments.

The FairSearch Coalition, the organization made up mainly of travel sites (including Microsoft’s Bing), gave WebProNews the following statement:

“The members of FairSearch.org are encouraged by reports that the FTC is preparing to launch a broad antitrust investigation into Google’s business practices. Google engages in anti-competitive behavior across many vertical categories of search that harms consumers by restricting the ability of other companies to compete to put the best products and services in front of Internet users, who should be allowed to pick winners and losers online, not Google. The result of Google’s anti-competitive practices is to curb innovation and investment in new technologies by other companies. These anti-competitive practices include scraping and using other companies’ content without their permission, deceptive display of search results, manipulation of search results to favor Google’s products, and the acquisition of competitive threats to Google’s dominance. Google’s practices are deserving of full-scale investigations by U.S. antitrust authorities, and are already the subject of reviews by the European Commission, and the Texas Attorney General.”

Bloomberg put out a report indicating that Google may get subpoenaed by the Senat Antitrust Subcommittee, as it seeks testimony from either CEO Larry Page or former CEO and current Executive Chairman Eric Schmidt about the company’s business operations. According to the report, which quotes letters and emails from the subcommittee and Google, Google only wants to provide its Chief Legal Officer David Drummond, who it has deemed “the executive who can best answer their questions”. Drummond also serves as SVP of corporate development at Google.

They don’t want Drummond, however. They want Page or Schmidt. It’s interesting that the company is allegedly resisting offering one of these two.

From Drummond’s official bio:

David Drummond joined Google in 2002, initially as vice president of corporate development. Today as senior vice president and chief legal officer, he leads Google’s global teams for legal, government relations, corporate development (M&A and investment projects) and new business development (strategic partnerships and licensing opportunities).

David was first introduced to Google in 1998 as a partner in the corporate transactions group at Wilson Sonsini Goodrich and Rosati, one of the nation’s leading law firms representing technology businesses. He served as Google’s first outside counsel and worked with Larry Page and Sergey Brin to incorporate the company and secure its initial rounds of financing. During his tenure at Wilson Sonsini, David worked with a wide variety of technology companies to help them manage complex transactions such as mergers, acquisitions and initial public offerings.

Either way, it would appear that the company is really in for some major scrutiny, between this and the FTC ordeal, which Bloomberg has said may take years to complete. The company is also undergoing regulatory scrutiny from the Department of Justice with relation to its proposed acquisition of AdMeld, an ad optimization company.

The DoJ had no problem approving the company’s acquisition of ITA Software, however, which was the catalyst to the formation of the FairSearch Coalition to begin with, though the organization continues to pursue continued obstacles for Google’s search dominance, and the DoJ didn’t let that ITA deal go by without some stipulations.

She will discuss the ways innovation can help preserve journalism, and how Google is "doing its part by driving significant traffic to online news publishers, by helping them generate revenue through advertising, and by providing tools and platforms that enable them to reach millions of people," as the company describes it on the Google Public Policy Blog.

Google has made Mayer’s entire testimony available for download (pdf). "Every day, millions of people search the web for relevant answers to their questions," says Mayer. "In response, search engines strive to connect each user with the right results, and those results can come in any number of different forms: a web page, an image, a video, a map, or a news story – something of particular relevance to today’s hearing."

"In each of those cases, search engines play the role of connecting users with high-quality content — often journalistic — ultimately sending traffic to the publisher’s website. Google is one such search engine that people use to find answers online," she adds.

The testimony is broken down into three main points – how search acts as a conduit for journalism, creating economic opportunities for publishers, and the structure of the web and its impact on publishers.

Within that last one, Mayer discusses "the atomic unit of consumption," the living story," and "keeping users engaged." Others speaking at the event include Senator Ben Cardin, Alberto Ibargüen, David Simon, Steve Coll, James Moroney, and Ariana Huffington.

After much petition and long after the House of Representatives had done so, a feed showing all votes from individual Senators is now available. Previously, only how the Senate voted as a group was easily accessible, and only through unanimous agreement could one easily decipher how his or her representative voted.

Jim DeMint

“I want to thank Senators Schumer and Bennett for helping us increase Senate transparency and accountability,” said Sen. Jim DeMint (R-South Carolina).  Last week, a group of Senators on both sides of the aisle sent them a letter asking them to publish Senate votes in the XML format so the public can use computers to search, sort, and visualize voting records in new ways.

“This simple but important change will help give Americans real transparency on their Senator’s voting record.”

Many of government records are stored on databases not accessible to the public. Often, if the information is available, it’s only available in less user friendly formats. XML is a standard that makes it easy to publish and mash up data.

Making Senate votes available in XML was included on a list created by participants in a survey conducted at Show Us the Data, which created a list of the top eight types of government information people wanted more access to. They include:

1.    Congressional committee votes
2.    Earmarks
3.    Foreign Travel Reports
4.    Legal Defense Funds
5.    Senate Votes in XML
6.    Senior Executive Service
7.    High Level Diplomatic Visits
8.    The CIA World Factbook 

Though much of the above information is currently available, often it is located in hard to reach places, like cumbersome, difficult to search and manage PDF files on obscure government websites.