Press Release

While many technology companies continue to step up their privacy game by adopting best practices to protect sensitive customer information when the government demands user data, telecommunications companies are failing to prioritize user privacy when the government comes knocking, an Electronic Frontier Foundation annual survey shows. Even tech giants such as Apple, Facebook, and Google can do more to fully stand behind their users.

EFF’s seventh annual “Who Has Your Back” report digs into the ways many technology companies are getting the message about user privacy in this era of unprecedented digital surveillance. The data stored on our mobile phones, laptops, and especially our online services can, when aggregated, paint a detailed picture of our lives—where we go, who we see, what we say, our political affiliations, our religion, and more. AT&T, Comcast, T-Mobile, and Verizon scored the lowest, each earning just one star. While they have adopted a number of industry best practices, like publishing transparency reports and requiring a warrant for content, they still need to commit to informing users before disclosing their data to the government and creating a public policy of requesting judicial review of all NSLs.

[Commentary] What might have been, decades ago, a compact between an audience and a trusted source of information—we’ll tell you who this gif-making guy is if you need us to—sours into something repugnant. At the same moment the president claims that the press is dangerous, has too much power … a press outlet (out of an overabundance of corporate caution) does something that looks like a dangerous abuse of power. This inversion plunks us all into the darkest possible timeline—the one where a president can “jokingly” hint at violence against reporters and his adherents feel empowered to threaten it more overtly.

On July 7, President Trump spent more than two hours with his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin, at the meeting of the G20 countries in Hamburg, and afterward Putin (as Machiavellian a leader as anyone could ask for) joked about the journalists who hurt the president. Presidents have more power than reporters (especially in Russia, where 82 journalists have been killed since 1993, most of them covering politics, corruption, and crime). But the fix is now in: The president says you can’t trust the press and the press says you can’t trust the president. If Machiavelli is right, that’s a recipe for an apocalypse.

In an age where fear of terrorism is high in the public consciousness, governments are likely to err on the side of safety. Over the past decade, the authorities have been pushing for – and getting – greater powers of surveillance than they have ever had, all in the name of national security. The downsides are not immediately obvious. After all, you might think you have nothing to hide. But most of us have perfectly legal secrets we’d rather someone else didn’t see. And although the chances of the authorities turning up to take you away in a black SUV on the basis of your WhatsApp messages are small in free societies, the chances of insurance companies raising your premiums are not.

The Federal Communications Commission’s Universal Service Fund initiatives are important, complex programs that are as necessary as they are challenging to manage. The Government Accountability Office Lifeline report provides additional evidence that flaws in these programs can be used by unscrupulous actors seeking to line their own pockets at the expense of taxpayers and populations truly in need; and that while the FCC’s Lifeline program is essential to those that need it, there is significant room for both improved efficiency and performance.

On June 28, the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity issued a letter requesting that states provide publicly available voter data as permitted under their state laws. At present, 20 states have agreed to provide the publicly available information requested by the Commission and another 16 states are reviewing which information can be released under their state laws. In all, 36 states have either agreed or are considering participating with the Commission's work to ensure the integrity of the American electoral system. While there are news reports that 44 states have "refused" to provide voter information to the Commission, these reports are patently false, more "fake news". At present, only 14 states and the District of Columbia have refused the Commission's request for publicly available voter information. Despite media distortions and obstruction by a handful of state politicians, this bipartisan commission on election integrity will continue its work to gather the facts through public records requests to ensure the integrity of each American's vote because the public has a right to know.

[Kris Kobach (R-KS) is Kansas Secretary of State and Vice Chair of the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity]

The operators of a lead generation business have agreed to settle charges brought by the Federal Trade Commission that the company misled consumers into filling out loan applications and sold those applications – including consumers’ sensitive data – to virtually anyone willing to pay for the leads.

In its complaint, the FTC alleges that Blue Global Media, LLC and its CEO Christopher Kay operated dozens of websites that enticed consumers to complete loan applications that the defendants then sold as “leads” to a variety of entities without regard for how the information would be used or whether it would remain secure. The websites, which operated under such names as 100dayloans.com, 1hour-advance.com, cashmojo.com and clickloans.net, offered services to consumers seeking a variety of loans, including payday and auto loans. The company claimed it would search a network of 100 or more lenders, and connect each loan applicant to the lender that would offer them the best terms.

The FTC charged that, in reality, the defendants:

• sold very few of the loan applications to lenders;
• did not match applications based on loan rates or terms; and
• sold the loan applications to the first buyer willing to pay for them.

Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai announced the appointment of Jerry Ellig as chief economist for the FCC. Dr. Ellig currently serves as a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University.

Dr. Ellig’s work focuses on the role of economic analysis in the U.S. regulatory process, competition policy in telecommunications, broadband and electronic commerce, and performance management in government agencies. Most recently, he has published a series of papers that assess the quality and use of regulatory impact analysis in both executive branch and independent agencies. These papers identify best practices, shortcomings, and reasons for variation in the quality of agencies’ analysis.

Dr. Ellig has worked as a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University since 1996. He previously served in the federal government as deputy director of the Office of Policy Planning at the Federal Trade Commission (2001-03) and as a senior economist at the Joint Economic Committee of the U.S. Congress (1995-96). He has also served as an associate professor of economics and adjunct professor of law at George Mason University. He holds a Ph.D. and M.A. in economics from George Mason University in Fairfax, VA, and a B.A. in economics from Xavier University in Cincinnati.

Federal Trade Commission Acting Chairman Maureen K. Ohlhausen announced that Abbott (Tad) Lipsky, Acting Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Competition, retired effective July 3, 2017. Lipsky was previously a partner in the law firm of Latham & Watkins LLP, and brought 40 years of experience in antitrust law to the position, including previously serving as Deputy Assistant Attorney General to President Reagan’s first Assistant Attorney General, William F. Baxter. He also served on the Trump administration transition team for the FTC.

Alan Devlin, an Acting Deputy Director of the Bureau of Competition also left the Commission July 3, 2017, for private practice.

Markus H. Meier, who has served as Acting Deputy Director of the Bureau of Competition since November 2015, replaces Lipsky as Acting Director of the Bureau of Competition. Meier has led the Health Care division within the Bureau of Competition since 2006. He brings nearly 30 years of experience in antitrust, serving previously in private practice and the U.S. Army. As part of these changes, Acting Chairman Ohlhausen has also appointed Haidee L. Schwartz as an Acting Deputy Director of the Bureau of Competition. Schwartz previously served as an Attorney Advisor to Acting Chairman Ohlhausen, and as a counsel practicing antitrust law at O’Melveny & Myers LLP in Washington D.C. Marian R. Bruno will continue to serve as Deputy Director, Bureau of Competition, a position she has held since 2008. She will continue to bring her strong leadership, immense skills and expertise to the Bureau’s mission.

Semiconductor manufacturer Broadcom Limited has agreed to establish a firewall to remedy the Federal Trade Commission’s concerns that its proposed $5.9 billion acquisition of Brocade Communications Systems, Inc. is anticompetitive. These concerns arise because of Broadcom’s current access to the confidential business information of Brocade’s major competitor, Cisco Systems, Inc., that could be used to restrain competition or slow innovation in the worldwide market for fibre channel switches.

Fibre channel switches are part of storage area networks that transfer data between servers and storage arrays in data centers. Because fibre channel switches can quickly and securely transfer large amounts of data, they are often used for mission-critical applications. According to the complaint, San Jose (CA)-based Broadcom makes the fibre channel application specific integrated circuits, or ASICs, that are custom-tailored to carry out the functions of each switch. Brocade and Cisco are the only two competitors in the worldwide market for fibre channel switches, and Broadcom supplies both companies with ASICs to make fibre channel switches. The complaint alleges that Broadcom’s acquisition of Brocade could harm worldwide competition in the fibre channel switch market because as Cisco’s supplier, Broadcom has extensive access to Cisco’s competitively sensitive confidential information.

In its analysis of data from 2012 through 2014, the Government Accountability Office was unable to confirm the eligibility of 30 percent of Lifeline users it examined. Opponents hail this finding as proof of widespread fraud. However, the GAO didn’t determine that these individuals were ineligible; it was simply unable to verify whether providers had complied with eligibility guidelines. The GAO also conducted undercover investigations, submitting a total of 21 Lifeline applications using false information and fabricated supporting documents. Investigators were able to secure service from 12 of the 19 Lifeline providers. Notably, the GAO underscored that the tests were “for illustrative purposes to highlight any potential internal control vulnerabilities and are not generalizable.”

Although investigators were able to leverage their expertise to deceive certain Lifeline providers, the GAO itself admits this effort doesn’t prove that the program is plagued by fraud. But none of that will stop Lifeline critics — including Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai — from using the GAO report to intensify attacks on the program and malign its users. They will continue to dismiss the tremendous opportunities Lifeline has provided for millions of people — and the millions more whose lives can be improved with Lifeline’s new broadband offerings.