1/14. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Michael Powell gave a speech [10 pages in PDF] in Washington DC titled "The Age of Personal Communications: Power to the People". He discussed new and forthcoming digital communications technologies, and offered his broad recommendations regarding appropriate policies for promoting new technologies. He discussed the appropriate regulatory framework for voice over internet protocol (VOIP) applications at some length, but without specificity.

Powell (at right) was clear that he does not want VOIP applications to be regulated like PSTN communications. However, he spoke in vague terms about continuing several categories of mandates, cross subsidies, and regulation from legacy phone to VOIP communications. He suggested that these might include CALEA, E911, contribution to universal service, making digital communications eligible for universal service support, and further expanding the scope of the schools and libraries program into information services.

He did not suggest applying old notions of price regulation, interconnection, facilities sharing, or access charges to VOIP applications. He did not expressly state that these should not be applied to VOIP. He simply left them out of his speech.

Powell stated that "We are starting to see the tools of the information age making their way into the hands of the people. The benefits to our citizens are enormous. They have more choices, they have better value and they have more control to tailor how they talk to friends and family." He said that "Credit for these successes rest primarily with entrepreneurs, but government's commitment to focus on innovation in its regulatory policies, remove unnecessary regulatory chains, place faith in the free market, and promote technology solutions has paid dividends."

He said that the FCC should "First Do No Harm. Government can make things better, but Government, too, can make a mess of things. It is particularly prone to the latter when addressing budding technology developments that it does not yet fully understand or appreciate. Regulation can smother the risk-taking oxygen young entrepreneurs need to survive. They can weigh down innovation with forms and filings and drain capital by adding significantly to the costs of the service. And the cost of government compliance can mean higher, less competitive, prices for consumers."

He continued that "there will be issues as Internet Voice becomes more widely adopted. We will need to ensure the legitimate concerns of public safety and law enforcement are addressed. And we will need to ensure our universal service goals are protected. It is important to have a government-industry partnership to keep an eye on these concerns."

He added that "But such issues are still far from being problems that demand hasty government action. Responsible policy will identify issues, study them and stay vigilant, but not jump in to regulate without clear and persistent evidence of harm."

The FCC has not yet initiated a rule making proceeding devoted to VOIP issues. However, there are several pending petitions filed by providers are various VOIP services and applications. See, story titled "Level 3 Files VOIP Petition With FCC" and "Summary of Other VOIP Proceedings at the FCC" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 815, January 14, 2004.

Powell also stated that "We cannot contort the character of the Internet to suit our familiar notions of regulation. Do not dumb down the genius of the net to match the limited vision of a regulator. The Internet has characters and attributes that should be recognized and accepted, not ignored or brushed aside as inconvenient, or irrelevant. To regulate the Internet in the image of a familiar phone service is to destroy its inherent character and potential. Governments are almost always about geography, jurisdiction and centralized control. The Internet is unhindered by geography, dismissive of jurisdiction, and decentralizes control.

He offered more specificity on universal service issues. He said that "We should actively promote a society where every single American can affordably connect everywhere -- giving them more choices and more control."

"So much of the ultimate promise of the connected society depends on saturating the country with broadband access, whether it be wired connections such as DSL and Cable Broadband or wireless services such as WiFi hot spots, or licensed broadband services like the 3G broadband network that Verizon is investing a billion dollars to deploy. The Commission will continue to support the growth and diversity of the network economy", said Powell.

He added that "I believe it a sacred duty to continue to protect important social values through the great digital migration. First among equals is the unflinching commitment to universal service. We must make sure that the digital migration brings the technologies of today and tomorrow to every single American at affordable prices."

He also stated that "Our schools and libraries and rural health funding efforts must continue to be modernized for this age, so that every community can reap the full benefits of this migration."

Powell also said that the FCC will hold another meeting. He stated that "this year, I will convene a Solutions Summit in which leaders in government and industry can come together to talk about creative ways to address some of these issues." The FCC held one meeting on December 1, 2003. See, story titled "FCC Holds VOIP Forum", December 1, 2003, also published in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 790, December 2, 2003.

1/12. The Cato Institute released a study [28 pages in PDF] titled "``Net Neutrality创 Digital Discrimination or Regulatory Gamesmanship in Cyberspace?" This report is a rebuttal of the network neutrality arguments that have been submitted to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) by an ad hoc group named the "Coalition of Broadband Users and Innovators" and by academics such as Lawrence Lessig and Timothy Wu.

The CBUI wants the FCC to adopt a rule that prohibits broadband network operators (and particularly cable broadband and DSL service providers) from discriminating. It wants the FCC to mandate that "A broadband network operator shall not, on a discriminatory or unreasonable basis, interfere with or impair subscribers' ability to use their broadband service to access lawful Internet content or services, use applications or services in connection with their broadband service, or attach nonharmful devices to the network."

The Cato report argues that this would be bad policy. It states that "A new group called the Coalition of Broadband Users and Innovators -- which counts among its members Microsoft, Amazon.com, Apple, Disney, EBay, and Yahoo! -- has petitioned the Federal Communications Commission to adopt rules to ensure that cable and telephone broadband service providers (BSPs) will not use their control of high-speed networks to disrupt consumer access to websites or other users. The CBUI proposal, or variations of it, has typically been labeled ``Net neutrality创 or ``digital nondiscrimination.创"

The Cato report states that "It is certainly plausible that BSPs might deny consumers access to Internet content or prohibit attachment of various devices or networks at the edge of the system. Although there are few examples of BSPs engaging in such activities today, there may exist situations in which it is perfectly sensible for a network owner to impose use restrictions or differential pricing schemes on its broadband customers. Network owners may want to discourage the use of certain devices on their networks to avoid system crashes, interference, or ``signal theft.创 They may want to price services differently to avoid network congestion or capture greater revenues on bandwidth-intensive services. They may want to vertically integrate content and conduit on their systems, or partner with other firms that can help them reach new customers and offer superior services. And there might exist scenarios in which blocking access to certain sites makes sense for network operators. They may want to block access to certain controversial websites that contain material some subscribers might find objectionable, or they may want to block sites simply to avoid running the ads of a leading competitor."

The Cato report continues that "Consumers will consider some restrictions, such as a prohibition on the release of viruses on a broadband network, trivial and entirely acceptable. Other restrictions, such as a restriction on access to the website of a competitor or a specific advertiser, will be considered an intolerable restraint by many. But the important question here is whether any of this should be considered illegal discrimination and prohibited by law."

The Cato report offers several more reasons for not adopting a network neutrality policy. First, it argues that "Discrimination in this context is remarkably difficult to define and open to much subjective wrangling. Disputes over what constitutes discrimination will lead to endless regulatory proceedings and open the door to a great deal of mischief by companies or organizations that feel they should have greater say over how broadband networks are operated, either in a good-faith effort to improve the operation of those networks or in a more self-centered effort to ``game创 the regulatory system to their own advantage."

The report also argues that "Net neutrality regulation also flouts the property rights BSPs possess in the infrastructure they own and operate. Worse yet, by ignoring property rights and opening the door to increased regulatory meddling, Net neutrality regulation threatens to retard innovation and investment in new broadband facilities."

Finally, it argues that "proponents of Net neutrality also tend to ignore the fact that network capacity use and the profit motive will provide very powerful checks on overly restrictive carrier activities. Carriers make money only by carrying more traffic."

The Cato report concludes that "The Net neutrality catfight points to a much more troubling trend in the emerging field of cyberlaw: the rapid proliferation of requests for federal intervention in high-tech markets for one reason or another." It adds that "many high-tech firms and trade associations have openly invited government to play a greater role in the outcome of various industry squabbles or difficulties."

The Coalition of Broadband Users and Innovators (CBUI) listed its membership in a November 18, 2002 comment [PDF] filed with the FCC: AeA, Alliance for Community Media, Amazon, Apple, Association for Competitive Technology (ACT), Association for Independent Video and Filmmakers, Association for Local Telecommunications Services (ALTS), Competitive Telecommunications Association, CompTIA, Consumer Electronics Association (CEA), eBay, Information Technology Association of America (ITAA), Media Access Project (MAP), Microsoft, National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), Radioshack, The Walt Disney Company, and Yahoo.

In a January 8, 2003 comment [PDF], the CBUI announced that it added the following members: Alliance for Public Technology, Digital Media Association, Intertainer, Qualcomm, and Yankees Entertainment and Sports Network.

The CBUI argued in its comment [3 pages in PDF] filed on November 18, 2002 that "The myriad benefits of the Internet Age flow from one fundamental feature -- the ability of consumers and businesses to communicate with one another and lawfully to create, share and access information, all without obstruction from network service providers. ... We urge the Federal Communications Commission to bring this fundamental rule forward, into the broadband era."

The CBUI continued that "We are extremely concerned, however, that the robustness and innovativeness of the Internet will be at risk and broadband adoption will be slowed unless the FCC takes the necessary steps to preserve this principle. The Commission should assure that consumers and other Internet users continue to enjoy the unfettered ability to reach lawful content and services, and to communicate and interact with each other and reach desired Internet destinations without impediments imposed by transmission network providers. Despite our differences on the details of a solution, we are unanimous in our agreement that the Government must ensure that transmission network operators do not encumber relationships between their customers and destinations on the network."

The CBUI wrote in a comment [23 pages in PDF] filed on July 17, 2003 that "network operators have both the ability, via current technology, and the incentive, because they provide both the broadband pipe and Internet content, to impair consumer access to the Internet. ... Furthermore, while network operators have stated that they do not presently impair user access, they refuse to commit to not doing so in the future ... The Commission does not have to wait for harm to occur before acting".

The CBUI attached the following proposed rule to its July 17, 2003 comment.

"PREAMBLE: Until the market for the delivery of broadband services to consumers is deemed competitive, narrowband rules and principles that guarantee consumers (a) unfettered access to the Internet and (b) the ability to connect their choice of nonharmful devices to the network, should be applied to the provision of services by broadband network operators. Such protections would permit nondiscriminatory practices by broadband network operators, such as adopting a nondiscriminatory system of tiered pricing for consumers based on such consumers' actual use of the broadband service, or entering into promotional arrangements with third parties that solely give such parties an advantageous position on the first screen or other menu options presented to subscribers.

A broadband network operator shall not, on a discriminatory or unreasonable basis, interfere with or impair subscribers' ability to use their broadband service to access lawful Internet content or services, use applications or services in connection with their broadband service, or attach nonharmful devices to the network. Nothing herein shall prohibit such provider from managing its broadband network in a technically efficient manner or from implementing reasonable measures to prevent unlawful conduct."

See, also, CBUI comment [11 pages in PDF] filed on March 31, 2003, and comment [8 pages in PDF] filed on August 28, 2003.

Law professors Lawrence Lessig (Stanford) and Timothy Wu (University of Virginia) submitted a comment [17 pages in PDF] to the FCC on August 22, 2003 urging that it adopt a network neutrality rule.

"There are two reasons the Commission should care about maintaining a neutral network," wrote the two professors. "First, guaranteeing a neutral network eliminates the risk of future discrimination, providing greater incentives to invest in broadband application development today. Second, a neutral network facilitates fair competition among applications, ensuring the survival of the fittest, rather than that favored by network bias."

They elaborated on this first point. "A network that is as neutral as possible is predictable: all applications are treated alike. Since the Commission wants to maximize the incentives to invest in broadband applications, it should act now to eliminate the unpredictability created by potential future restrictions on network usage."

"Unfortunately the nature of todays broadband networks makes investment in mass broadband applications a far riskier proposition. The nation抯 broadband network is in its infancy, just now reaching tens of millions of users, like the narrowband Internet in the mid-1990s. At this critical juncture, the broadband networks, particularly those operated by cable operators, have imposed a confusing patchwork of contractual and technical restrictions, enforced in an unpredictable manner. The reasons for these bans and restrictions are a mix: they range from legitimate security concerns all the way to interests in promoting competing products. Since every provider acts independently, neither developers nor consumers can predict whether a new, innovative application will be banned in certain parts of the country", wrote Lessig and Wu.

They also elaborated on their point that "a neutrality regime also promotes policies of innovation through competition". They stated that "Most recently, in its broadband infrastructure inquiries, the Commission has favored ``multiple platform competition,创 promoting a fair fight between DSL, cable, and other broadband access infrastructures. The same underlying principles, namely, an evolutionary model of technological innovation, favor the promotion of a neutral network today."

Lessig and Wu proposed the following language:

"Broadband Users have the right reasonably to use their Internet connection in ways which are privately beneficial without being publicly detrimental. Accordingly, Broadband Operators shall impose no restrictions on the use of an Internet connection except as necessary to:

(1) Comply with any legal duty created by federal, state or local laws, or as necessary to comply with any executive order, warrant, legal injunction, subpoena, or other duly authorized governmental directive;

(2) Prevent physical harm to the local Broadband Network caused by any network attachment or network usage;

(3) Prevent Broadband users from interfering with other Broadband or Internet Users' use of their Internet connections, including but not limited to neutral limits on bandwidth usage, limits on mass transmission of unsolicited email, and limits on the distribution of computer viruses, worms, and limits on denial-of-service-or other attacks on others;

(4) Ensure the quality of the Broadband service, by eliminating delay, jitter or other technical aberrations;

(5) Prevent violations of the security of the Broadband network, including all efforts to gain unauthorized access to computers on the Broadband network or Internet;

(6) Serve any other purpose specifically authorized by the Federal Communications Commission, based on a weighing of the specific costs and benefit of the restriction."

The House is in adjournment. (It will convene on January 20, 2004.)

The Senate is in adjournment. (It will convene on January 20, 2004.)

9:30 AM. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) will hold a meeting. The event will be webcast. Location: FCC, 445 12th Street, SW, Room TW-C05 (Commission Meeting Room). See, agenda [PDF].

9:30 AM. The U.S. Court of Appeals (DCCir) will hear oral argument in Advanced Communications Corp. v. FCC, No. 03-1082. Judges Rogers, Garland and Williams will preside. Location: 333 Constitution Ave. NW.

Deadline to submit comments to the National Institute of Standards and Technology's (NIST) Computer Security Division (CSD) in response to its Change Notice [2 pages in PDF] regarding Federal Information Processing Standard (FIPS) 180-2, the Secure Hash Standard. Comments should be addressed to ebarker@nist.gov. See also, FIPS 180-2 [75 pages in PDF], released on August 1, 2002.

Martin Luther King Day.

Iowa Presidential Caucuses.

The House and Senate will return from recess. The Senate will resume consideration of HR 2673, the omnibus appropriations bill for Fiscal Year 2004.

12:00 NOON - 1:45 PM. The AEI-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Studies will host a panel discussion titled "What's Right and What's Wrong with Corporate Finance Governance in the U.S. Today?". The speakers will be Robert Hahn (AEI-Brookings), Randall Kroszner (University of Chicago), Paul Atkins (SEC Commissioner), and Steven Kaplan (University of Chicago). See, notice. Location: American Enterprise Institute, Twelfth floor, 1150 17th St., NW.

12:00 NOON. The Federal Communications Bar Association's (FCBA) Transactional Practice Committee will host a brown bag lunch. The topic will be contract enforceability and dispute resolution provisions, including arbitration versus judicial resolution, choice of law, and choice of forum. For more information, contact Laurie Sherman at laurabsherman@hotmail.com or 703 216-3150. Location: Skadden Arps, 1440 New York Ave., 11th floor.

8:30 AM - 6:00 PM. The Catholic University School of Law and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) will host a one day conference titled "The Journey to Convergence". Advance registration is required. See, conference web site. Location: Columbus School of Law, The Catholic University of America, 3600 John McCormack Rd., NE.

10:00 AM - 3:00 PM. The Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) Technological Advisory Council will meet. See, notice in the Federal Register, December 19, 2003, Vol. 68, No. 244, at Pages 70796 - 70797. Location: FCC, 445 12th St., SW, Room TW-C305.

12:15 PM. The Federal Communications Bar Association's (FCBA) Young Lawyers Committee will host a brown bag lunch. The topic will be "Hot Communications Issues on the Hill". The speakers will be Neil Fried (Republican Counsel, House Commerce Committee), Gregg Rothschild (Democratic Counsel, House Commerce Committee), Lee Carosi (Republican Counsel, Senate Commerce Committee), and Paul Nagle (Attorney-Advisor, FCC Office of Legislative Affairs). For more information, contact Jason Friedrich at 202 354-1340 or jasonfriedrich@dbr.com or Pam Slipakoff at 202 418-7705 or pslipako@fcc.gov. Location: Drinker Biddle & Reath, 1500 K Street, 11th Floor.

Deadline to submit reply comments to the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) regarding the operation and effectiveness of, and the implementation of and compliance with, the World Trade Organization (WTO) Basic Telecommunications Agreement, other WTO agreements affecting market opportunities for U.S. telecommunications products and services, the telecommunications provisions of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), Chile FTA and Singapore FTA, and other telecommunications trade agreements. See, notice in the Federal Register, December 8, 2003, Vol. 68, No. 235, at Pages 68444 - 68445.

Extended deadline to submit comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking [35 pages in PDF] regarding unlicensed devices. See, notice in the Federal Register, December 10, 2003, Vol. 68, No. 237, at Pages 68823 - 68831. The FCC adopted this NPRM on September 10, 2003. See, FCC release [PDF]. The FCC released the NPRM [35 pages in PDF] on September 17, 2003. This NPRM is FCC 03-223 in ET Docket No. 03-201. See also, stories titled "FCC Announces NPRM Regarding Unlicensed Devices" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 739, September 15, 2003, and "FCC Announces Deadlines for Comments on Unlicensed Devices NPRM" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 800, December 16, 2003. See also, FCC order [PDF] extending the deadline from January 9 to January 23.

1/13. The General Services Administration's (GSA) Regional Inspector General for Auditing, Great Lakes Region, released a memorandum [61 page PDF scan] dated January 8, 2004 and titled "Audit of Federal Technology Service's Client Support Centers."

This audit states that it "identified numerous improper task order and contract awards. In making these awards, CSC officials breached Government procurement laws and regulations, and on a number of occasions, processed procurement transactions for goods and services through the Information Technology Fund that were well outside the fund's legislatively authorized purposes."

Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA), the Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, wrote a letter [2 pages in PDF] to Stephen Perry, Administrator of the GSA, regarding this audit.

Sen. Grassley wrote that "I understand that FTS is responsible for contracting for information technology equipment, software and related services for the federal government. Instead, however, the three CSCs examined give every appearance of having run virtually unchecked and amuck, and have committed almost every conceivable contracting irregularity. Incredibly, many of these violations were neither onetime, nor isolated to just a single office. Instead, they seem to reflect an endemic and epidemic pattern of gross mismanagement, failed oversight, a flawed rewards system, and potential malfeasance by some FTS managers and staff."

"As I see it, a thorough housecleaning of FTS is in order -- from top to bottom", concluded Sen. Grassley.

1/14. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) released its Memorandum Opinion and Order [228 pages in PDF] in its proceeding titled "In the Matter of General Motors Corporation and Hughes Electronics Corporation, Transferors, And The News Corporation Limited, Transferee, For Authority to Transfer Control".

This item approves News Corporation's acquisition of a de facto controlling interest in Hughes Electronics, and hence, its subsidiary, DirecTV Holdings, which provides direct broadcast satellite service (DBS) in the U.S. The FCC announced this order on December 19, 2003. At that time it released a document [29 pages in PDF] titled "Public Notice" that summarizes the MOO.

However, the FCC but did not release the text until January 14, 2004. This proceeding is MB Docket No. 03-124.

See also, story titled "FCC Approves News Corps.' Acquisition of DirecTV, With Conditions" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 804, December 22, 2003.

1/14. Carolyn Brandon was named VP for Policy of the Cellular Telecommunications & Internet Association (CTIA), effective February 2, 2004. She currently is a partner in the Washington DC office of the law firm of Wilkinson Barker & Knauer. She has also worked for the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the House Commerce Committee. See, CTIA release.

1/14. Bob Bolster was named Director for Congressional Affairs at the Cellular Telecommunications & Internet Association (CTIA), effective January 20, 2003. He has worked for the House Financial Services Committee, the General Services Administration, Rep. Lee Terry (R-IA), who is a member of the House Commerce Committee and its Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet, and former Rep. Steve Largent (R-OK), who is now the P/CEO of the CTIA. See, CTIA release.

1/14. Corey Booth was named Chief Information Officer and Director of the Office of Information Technology at the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). The SEC stated in a release that Booth "will oversee a comprehensive review of all information technology (IT) efforts and lead the development of a comprehensive, multi-year strategic plan. The IT strategic plan will be designed to support the many new initiatives needed to enhance the agency's programs."

1/14. Mark Stone was named Deputy Chief of the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) Enforcement Bureau's (EB) Telecommunications Consumers Division. See, FCC release.

1/14. Elizabeth Mumaw was named legal advisor to the Chief of the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) Enforcement Bureau (EB). She was previously an attorney advisor in the Wireline Competition Bureau's (WCB) Telecommunications Access Policy Division. Before that, she worked in the WCB on common carrier matters such as mergers, Section 271 applications, and the Triennial Review. She has also worked at MCI WorldCom on federal law and public policy issues. See, FCC release.

1/14. Christopher Olsen was named Deputy Chief of the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) Enforcement Bureau (EB). He will oversee the common carrier enforcement activities of the EB's Market Disputes Resolution Division, Telecommunications Consumers Division and Investigations and Hearings Division. He was previously Assistant Chief of the Market Disputes Resolution Division of the EB. He also previously was a partner in the Washington DC office of the law firm of Howrey Simon Arnold & White. See, FCC release.

1/14. President Bush gave a speech at NASA headquarters in Washington DC in which he outlined his proposals for space exploration. He also argued that space programs lead to technological innovation. He put it this way. "We have undertaken space travel because the desire to explore and understand is part of our character. And that quest has brought tangible benefits that improve our lives in countless ways. The exploration of space has led to advances in weather forecasting, in communications, in computing, search and rescue technology, robotics, and electronics. Our investment in space exploration helped to create our satellite telecommunications network and the Global Positioning System. Medical technologies that help prolong life -- such as the imaging processing used in CAT scanners and MRI machines -- trace their origins to technology engineered for the use in space."

1/14. Rep. Rick Boucher (D-VA) (at right), a senior member of the House Commerce Committee and its Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet, commented on the Supreme Court's January 13 opinion [22 pages in PDF] in Verizon v. Trinko. The Supreme Court held that a claim alleging a breach of an ILEC's duty under the 1996 Telecom Act to share its network with competitors does not state a violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act. See, story titled "Supreme Court Holds That There is No Sherman Act Claim in Verizon v. Trinko", also published in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 815, January 14, 2003. Rep. Boucher stated in a release that "I applaud the Supreme Court's Trinko decision, in which the Court recognized that violations of the facilities sharing requirements of the Telecommunications Act are not grounds for antitrust claims. To have decided otherwise would have dramatically expanded antitrust law in a manner never intended by Congress. Congress enacted the landmark Telecommunications Act to open local markets to competition, and, as the Court recognized, the comprehensive regulatory scheme administered under the Act is more than adequate to accomplish that objective. Adding a new layer of antitrust liability for regulatory infractions would be inappropriate. Telecommunications companies that violate established antitrust doctrine will continue to be subject to liability under the antitrust laws, but the Court wisely recognized that nothing in the Telecommunications Act creates new antitrust causes of action." Rep. Boucher is also a member of the House Judiciary Committee, which would have jurisdiction over any legislative proposal to create an antitrust remedy for plaintiffs such as Trinko.

1/12. The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) submitted a comment [9 pages in PDF] to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) regarding a DHS announcement regarding the Arrival Departure Information System (ADIS). See, DHS's notice in the Federal Register, December 12, 2003, Vol. 68, No. 239, at Pages 69412 - 69414. This DHS stated that "This notice addresses the previously established ADIS system, a portion of which is the U.S. Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology (US-VISIT) program. This notice allows the ADIS system to collect biometric and biographic data for US-VISIT." The EPIC submitted its comment "to ask that DHS not exempt ADIS from any Privacy Act requirements, to urge the agency to reduce its 100-year data retention proposal, and to consider the significance of international privacy standards in the collection and use of personal information by U.S. agencies on non-U.S. citizens."