Secretary of State Mike Pompeo played down concerns Thursday about potential strain in the U.S. intelligence sharing relationship with the U.K. after that country’s decision to allow equipment from Chinese telecom equipment manufacturer Huawei on “non-core” parts of its communications infrastructure (see 2001280074). House Commerce Committee ranking member Greg Walden, R-Ore., meanwhile, told reporters he believes the decision should put pressure on Congress to reach a deal on legislation to provide funding to help U.S. communications providers remove from their networks equipment determined to threaten national security.
The FTC will review social media advertising guidance in 2020, the agency confirmed (see 2001300032) Thursday. It will consider updating ad endorsement and testimonial guidance involving unfair and deceptive ad laws the FTC polices.
FCC Chairman Ajit Pai appears to be preparing to play C-band hardball, officials indicated. Pai is considering a proposal that satellite operators be given incentive payments totaling about $5 billion to move, regardless of how much money comes in through an auction (see 2001280063). Senior aide Nick Degani apparently told the companies in a meeting last week that if they won’t go along the FCC could “sunset” their licenses, forcing them off the band. Intelsat stock closed down 30 percent Wednesday at $3.78.
The office of Rep. Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill., is exploring Section 230-related legislation dealing with election misinformation, she said Tuesday at the State of the Net internet policy conference. “It’s very, very early right now, but I absolutely want to do something, even if it’s narrow on 230” of the Communications Decency Act, Schakowsky told reporters. “If we can craft something, there will definitely be some more hearings, no question about that.” Throughout her talk, she cited blatant lies hosted by Facebook.
CBP published notices in the Customs Bulletin revoking or modifying numerous rulings in 2019. These ruling revocations and modifications also apply to “any treatment previously accorded by CBP to substantially identical transactions.” When revoking or modifying a ruling, CBP is required by 19 USC 1625(c) to publish notice of the proposed action, and allow a period—generally one month—for comment before finalizing the action. An importer’s failure to advise CBP of “substantially identical transactions” or of a ruling not identified by CBP in these notices “may raise issues of reasonable care on the part of the importer or its agents for importations of merchandise subsequent to the effective date of this notice.” Rulings CBP revoked or modified in 2019 are as follows:
The office of Rep. Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill., is exploring Section 230-related legislation dealing with election misinformation, she said Tuesday at the State of the Net internet policy conference. “It’s very, very early right now, but I absolutely want to do something, even if it’s narrow on 230” of the Communications Decency Act, Schakowsky told reporters. “If we can craft something, there will definitely be some more hearings, no question about that.” Throughout her talk, she cited blatant lies hosted by Facebook.
Recent CBP regulations limiting the amount of drawback that can be claimed on excise taxes look set to be invalidated, after the Court of International Trade issued a decision Jan. 24 that found those limits contradict the legal framework created by Congress for drawback and legislative intent to expand the duty savings program.
The tribal window to apply for 2.5 GHz licenses was a big topic last month at a conference the American Indian Policy Institute (AIPI) hosted at Arizona State University with the National Tribal Telecommunications Association and Gila River Telecommunications, AIPI filed, posted Wednesday in FCC docket 18-120. AIP said tribes are grateful for the opportunity to get free spectrum licenses, but the 2.5 GHz band won’t solve the digital divide in their areas. Attendees opposed “adoption of a rural Tribal Lands definition, which excludes Tribal lands that are not located in an urbanized area with a population of less than 50,000 people,” AIPI said: “This decision abrogates the Commission’s federal trust responsibility to all Tribal Nations -- which applies regardless of population density -- in that it arbitrarily and disproportionately affects Tribal Nations and their respective citizens and communities.” All future spectrum opportunities “should be acted upon consistent with the trust responsibility the Commission has with all Tribal Nations,” the institute said. The 2.5 GHz band is also limited, the filing said: “A Tribal Priority should be analyzed for extension to all commercial licenses, given the communications challenges facing Tribal Nations.” The FCC’s six-month window opens Feb. 3 (see 2001140059).
Washington state House members shared a plethora of questions Wednesday about the Senate’s proposed privacy bill, especially on enforcement and facial recognition. “This bill is not yet scheduled for executive session, so we have some time to work on it,” said Innovation, Technology and Economic Development Committee Chairman Zack Hudgins (D), concluding the hearing livestreamed from Olympia. “I have a list of about 20 items that I heard come up over and over again that we need to look at.” Members may not “love every word,” but the bill’s basic concepts are important, said Rep. Shelley Kloba (D), sponsor of the bill’s House version (HB-2742). Rep. Norma Smith, the committee’s ranking Republican, asked Microsoft Senior Director-Public Policy Ryan Harkins to explain why the company doesn’t support a private right of action here even though Microsoft Corporate Vice President Julie Brill seemed to support a limited such right at a recent U.S. Senate Commerce Committee hearing (see 1912040045). Hudgins said he had the same question, but citing time constraints, told Harkins and other witnesses to answer members’ questions later in writing. Witnesses raised concerns about the bill instead opting for enforcement by the state attorney general. Hudgins sees a “spectrum” of enforcement options, not a “binary” choice. Smith asked the Washington State Association for Justice if it has suggestions to trim the exemptions list, which she said exceed the pages devoted to consumer rights. Kloba asked Consumer Reports Policy Analyst Maureen Mahoney for more detail on her comment that there’s widespread noncompliance with the California Consumer Privacy Act. Members asked academic witnesses to get back to them about facial recognition queries. Smith asked how the bill would apply online, since it deals mainly with use on physical premises. Rep. Gael Tarleton (D) asked for more on how individuals use that technology. Rep. Vandana Slatter (D) asked about a facial recognition moratorium sought by the American Civil Liberties Union and others, including how long it would last and if studies would continue. The hearing was "to begin the discussion on the policy and to recognize the positive work done over the interim, ahead of the bill being voted out of the Senate," Hudgins emailed stakeholders Tuesday. "The legislature has less than half the time this short session to keep up with the rapid and evolving discussion on privacy. I hope to be a 'fast follower' of the Senate discussion so as to accelerate progress in the House." He and Smith told us the chambers remain at loggerheads (see 2001170021).
Washington state House members shared a plethora of questions Wednesday about the Senate’s proposed privacy bill, especially on enforcement and facial recognition. “This bill is not yet scheduled for executive session, so we have some time to work on it,” said Innovation, Technology and Economic Development Committee Chairman Zack Hudgins (D), concluding the hearing livestreamed from Olympia. “I have a list of about 20 items that I heard come up over and over again that we need to look at.” Members may not “love every word,” but the bill’s basic concepts are important, said Rep. Shelley Kloba (D), sponsor of the bill’s House version (HB-2742). Rep. Norma Smith, the committee’s ranking Republican, asked Microsoft Senior Director-Public Policy Ryan Harkins to explain why the company doesn’t support a private right of action here even though Microsoft Corporate Vice President Julie Brill seemed to support a limited such right at a recent U.S. Senate Commerce Committee hearing (see 1912040045). Hudgins said he had the same question, but citing time constraints, told Harkins and other witnesses to answer members’ questions later in writing. Witnesses raised concerns about the bill instead opting for enforcement by the state attorney general. Hudgins sees a “spectrum” of enforcement options, not a “binary” choice. Smith asked the Washington State Association for Justice if it has suggestions to trim the exemptions list, which she said exceed the pages devoted to consumer rights. Kloba asked Consumer Reports Policy Analyst Maureen Mahoney for more detail on her comment that there’s widespread noncompliance with the California Consumer Privacy Act. Members asked academic witnesses to get back to them about facial recognition queries. Smith asked how the bill would apply online, since it deals mainly with use on physical premises. Rep. Gael Tarleton (D) asked for more on how individuals use that technology. Rep. Vandana Slatter (D) asked about a facial recognition moratorium sought by the American Civil Liberties Union and others, including how long it would last and if studies would continue. The hearing was "to begin the discussion on the policy and to recognize the positive work done over the interim, ahead of the bill being voted out of the Senate," Hudgins emailed stakeholders Tuesday. "The legislature has less than half the time this short session to keep up with the rapid and evolving discussion on privacy. I hope to be a 'fast follower' of the Senate discussion so as to accelerate progress in the House." He and Smith told us the chambers remain at loggerheads (see 2001170021).