5/4. Rep. Rick Boucher (D-VA) and Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-FL) released a discussion draft [27 pages in PDF] of an untitled and yet to be introduced bill that would regulate the collection, use and expression of information. Its purpose is protecting individual privacy.

The draft imposes requirements on businesses -- both online and off line -- that collect personal information, such as names, phone numbers and e-mail addresses. It requires that these businesses make available detailed privacy policies that explain their collection, use, and sharing of information. The draft's basic rule is that businesses are presumed to have consent of individuals, but that individuals can opt out of collection and use of information about them.

However, the bill provides that an opt in regime applies if certain sensitive information, such as financial or medical records, is involved, or if information is shared with third parties, except in the case of web sites sharing information with ad networks.

The draft would also regulate providers of location based services, on an opt in basis. The draft would give APA rulemaking authority to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), and enforcement authority to the FTC and states.

This draft bill has much for privacy advocates. It also contains many compromises to win support from businesses that collect and use information about individuals. There is no data breach notification mandate. The draft expressly states that there is no private right of action. There is a strong state preemption clause. The general rule for many information collection and uses is that an opt out, rather than an opt in, regime applies.

This is a purely private sector bill. That is, it regulates the conduct of businesses. It does nothing to protect individual privacy from incursions and violations by government entities. Also, while it is a private sector bill, and it does amend Section 222, it does nothing else to protect individuals from privacy invasive conduct by phone companies.

Some of the most egregious privacy related conduct in recent years has involved the activities of the FBI and companies that provide voice and other communications services. The Department of Justice's (DOJ) Office of the Inspector General (OIG) has issued three lengthy reports detailing these problems. See for example, story titled "Another DOJ Inspector General Report Finds FBI Misconduct in Obtaining Phone Records" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 2,037, January 20, 2010. Yet, the just released draft bill would do nothing to address these problems.

This draft is multifaceted, conceptually complex, and heavily dependent on newly codified terms. It is 27 pages long, and likely to explode in size if it works its way through the legislative process.

If enacted, many uncertainties would remain or arise, in rulemaking proceedings, agency enforcement actions, and judicial review. The bill contains a vast array of terms not yet in the U.S. Code, the meanings and applications of which would be uncertain and disputed.

Also, while the bill attempts to address privacy issues associated with a wide range of new technologies, disputes would arise regarding how its terms apply to unanticipated and yet to be developed technologies. Finally, it would take some time to establish the Constitutionally imposed limits on the bill's constraints on the expression of certain types of information regulated by the bill.

If enacted, this bill would be a boon for privacy law specialists at major law firms. On the other hand, it would likely leave many small and mid sized businesses confused, and incapable of understanding what obligations the bill and implementing regulations impose upon them, and how agency enforcers might apply it against them.

Many prior legislative privacy related proposals discriminated upon the basis of technology. For example, some proposed to regulate certain online behavior, but not the analogous offline behavior. This bill is largely, but not entirely, technology neutral. It regulates information collected "through the Internet" differently from information collected "by any means that does not utilized the Internet" to the extent that its requires different methods of disclosure.

Rep. Boucher (at right) stated in a release that "Our goal is to encourage greater levels of electronic commerce by providing to Internet users the assurance that their experience online will be more secure. That greater sense of privacy protection will be particularly important in encouraging the trend toward the cloud computing".

He added that "Online advertising supports much of the commercial content, applications and services that are available on the Internet today without charge, and this legislation will not disrupt this well established and successful business model. It simply extends to consumers important baseline privacy protections".

Rep. Stearns stated that "I have been working for years to enact meaningful privacy protection legislation and this draft is advancing the process. While I may not support everything in the current draft bill, it is important to get the input of stakeholders."

Leslie Harris, head of the Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT), stated in a release that "It has been almost a decade since Congress last considered consumer privacy legislation. Since that time, commercial collection and use of consumer information both online and off has increased exponentially. Consumers deserve comprehensive privacy protection. Today's release of the staff discussion draft of the Boucher–Stearns consumer privacy bill is the first step to achieving this important goal."

Ari Schwartz added that the CDT wants "to perfect the bill, including, but not limited to, the incorporation of a modern and robust set of fair information practices".

Berin Szoka and Adam Thierer of the Progress & Freedom Foundation (PFF) stated in a release that "By mandating a hodge-podge of restrictive regulatory defaults, policymakers could unintentionally devastate the ``free´´ Internet as we know it. Because the Digital Economy is fueled by advertising and data collection, a ``privacy industrial policy´´ for the Internet would diminish consumer choice in ad-supported content and services, raise prices, quash digital innovation, and hurt online speech platforms enjoyed by Internet users worldwide."

Wayne Crews of the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) stated in a release that "Substituting federal regulations for competitive outcomes in the online privacy arena interferes with evolution of the very kind of authentication and anonymity technologies we urgently need as the digital era evolves".

The CEI's Ryan Radia stated that "This legislation flips the proper definition of privacy on its head, wrongly presuming that individuals deserve a fundamental right to control information they’ve voluntarily disclosed to others online. But in the digital world, information collection and retention is the norm, not the exception. Privacy rights, where they exist, arise from voluntary privacy policies. The proper role of government is to enforce these policies, not dictate them in advance".

Radia added that "If Rep. Boucher wants to strengthen consumer privacy online, he should turn his focus to constraining government data collection, which poses a far greater privacy threat than private sector data collection. A good starting point would be reexamining the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, the outdated 1986 law that governs governmental access to private communications stored online. Strengthening these privacy safeguards, as a broad coalition of companies and activist groups are now urging, will empower firms to offer stronger privacy assurances to concerned users".

5/4. The following is a summary of the discussion draft [27 pages in PDF] of the yet to be introduced Boucher Stearns privacy bill.

Basic Notice and Consent Requirements. Much of the bill applies to a "covered entity", which is defined as "a person engaged in interstate commerce that collects data containing covered information". (See, Section 2(4), at pages 2-3.)

The draft defines "covered information" to include "first name or initial and last name ... postal address ... telephone or fax number ... ", among other things. (See, Section 2(5), at page 3.)

A key provision of the bill is that "A covered entity shall not collect, use, or disclose covered information from or about an individual for any purpose unless such covered entity" first makes available a privacy notice containing numerous enumerated items. This provision further defines "covered information". It does not matter whether the "covered entity" acquires the information about an individual from that individual, or from elsewhere. The clause "from or  about an individual" covers information acquired from third parties -- even public records.

The bill further provides that for some information, an opt out regime applies, while for some other information, an opt in regime applies.

The bill provides that "A covered entity shall be considered to have the consent of an individual for the collection and use of covered information relating to that individual if" it has provided to the individual the privacy notice with all of the mandated components and "informing the individual that he or she has the right to decline consent to such collection and use ...". (See, Section 3(a)(3)(A), at page 12.)

However, there are circumstances in which the covered entity must first obtain consent, before collecting the information.

One circumstance is where "sensitive information" is involved. This includes "financial records", "medical records", and information about religion, race, and sexual orientation. (See, Section 2(10), at pages 6-7.)

Another circumstance is where "covered information" is disclosed to an "unaffiliated party". However, there is an exception to this for the case of third party advertising networks. An opt out regime applies when a web site shares covered information with a third party ad network, provided that there is a hyperlink to a web page for the ad network that allows an individual to edit his or her profile, and to opt out of having a profile, and further provided that the ad network does not share the information with others.

The draft bill also provides definitions of "transactional purpose" (Section 2(12), at pages 7-8) and "operational purpose" (Section 2(7), at pages 4-6). These terms are contrasted with other purposes, such as "marketing, advertising or sales purposes", which are not defined by the draft bill.

These definitions are significant because the draft bill provides an exemption from the privacy notice requirements for certain "covered information" that is "collected for a transactional purpose or an operational purpose". In addition, the draft provides that the "consent requirements" of Section 3 "shall not apply to the collection, use, or disclosure of covered information for a transactional purpose or an operational purpose, but shall apply to the collection by a covered entity of covered information for marketing, advertising, or selling, or any use of or disclosure of covered information to an unaffiliated party for such purposes." (See, Section 3(a)(5), at pages 13-14.)

Legislation that treats or classifies things according to their subjective "purposes", rather than their objective characteristics, can create uncertainty. First, it will not be clear whether certain information is transactional, operational, marketing, advertising or sales information. Second, the draft does not clarify whether purpose means only purpose, substantial purpose, or significant purpose; nor does the draft explain how things with multiple purposes are to be treated. Third, purpose goes to the subjective mental state of one party, which is often difficult to determine in adversarial proceedings.

Privacy Notice. The above referenced privacy notice must contain numerous elements. It must name the business collecting the information, describe the information that it collects, explain how it collects information, and specify its purposes. (See, Section 3(a)(B), at pages 9-12.)

It must also explain how it stores the information, and how it "may merge, link, or combine covered information collected about the individual with other information about the individual that the covered entity may acquire from unaffiliated parties".

It must also state for how long it will retain the covered information in identifiable form, and how it will dispose of or render anonymous information after expiration of the retention period.

It must also explain the "purposes for which covered information may be disclosed, and the categories of unaffiliated parties who may receive such information for each such purpose".

It must also explain its opt out procedure.

It must also state the "means by and the extent to which individuals may obtain access to covered information", and a "means by which an individual may contact the covered entity with any inquiries or complaints regarding the covered entity’s handling of covered information".

Information Security. The draft provides that "A covered entity or service provider that collects covered information about an individual for any purpose must establish, implement, and maintain appropriate administrative, technical, and physical safeguards" that the FTC "determines are necessary to ... ensure the security, integrity, and confidentiality of such information ... protect against anticipated threats ... protect against unauthorized access to and loss, misuse, alteration, or destruction of, such information ..." (See, Section 4(b), at pages 19-20.)

It also provides that "in the event of a security breach" a covered entity or service provider must "determine the scope of the breach, make every reasonable attempt to prevent further unauthorized access to the affected covered information, and restore reasonable integrity to the affected covered information".

Notably the draft contains no data breach notification requirement.

The FTC has already taken action under its "unfair or deceptive acts or practices" authority against businesses that do not maintain adequate information security. See, for example, story titled "FTC Takes Action Against Retailer for Lax Data Security Practices" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,264, December 2, 2005.

Section 5 of the FTC Act, which is codified at 15 U.S.C. § 45, provides that "Unfair methods of competition in or affecting commerce, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce, are hereby declared unlawful."

Accuracy and Access. Some prior legislative proposals have included provisions that individuals may access information about them, and obtain correction of inaccurate information.

The discussion draft addresses accuracy at Section 4(a), at page 19. It states here that "Each covered entity shall establish reasonable procedures to assure the accuracy of the covered information it collects." However, the draft does not provides here for any individual right of access, or process for obtaining redress for allegedly inaccurate information.

Hence, the FTC would not have authority under Section 4(a) to take action against a business for any inaccurate data in a collection of information. However, the FTC could pursue the business for failing to have established "reasonable procedures". The outcome would turn on the existence and reasonableness of its procedures, and not on the resulting accuracy of its data.

However, the section of the draft that sets forth the requisite components of the privacy notice, requires a statement of "The means by and the extent to which individuals may obtain access to covered information that has been collected by the covered entity". It also requires a statement of the "means by which an individual may contact the covered entity with any inquiries or complaints regarding the covered entity's handling of covered information." (See, Section 3(a)(2)(B)(xi)&(xii), at page 11.)

Thus, the draft lacks clarity regarding what are the obligations of businesses with regard to accuracy, access, and correction.

CPNI and Location Based Information. The discussion draft addresses the customer proprietary network information (CPNI) section of the Communications Act, which is codified at 47 U.S.C. § 222. (See, Section 6, at page 21.)

The draft provides that, except as provided in Section 222(d), which is the exceptions subsection, "any provider of a product or service that uses location-based information shall not disclose such location-based information concerning the user of such product or service without that user’s express opt-in consent. A user's express opt-in consent to an application provider that relies on a platform offered by a commercial mobile service provider shall satisfy the requirements of this subsection."

The draft would further amend the definitional subsection of Section 222 to add a new definition. It provides that "call location information" means "any location-based information".

FTC Enforcement, No Private Rights of Action, and Strong Preemption. The draft gives enforcement authority to the FTC. It further gives the FTC authority to write implementing rules. Moreover, the draft authorizes the FTC to write rules following the minimal and less transparent Administrative Procedure Act (APA) process, rather than the FTC's Magnusson Moss Act process, which requires more procedural fairness. (See, Section 8(a), at pages 22-23.)

The draft also allows for enforcement by states. (See, Section 8(b), at pages 23-25.)

The draft expressly provides that there is no private right of action. It states that "This Act may not be considered or construed to provide any private right of action. No private civil action relating to any act or practice governed under this Act may be commenced or maintained in any State court or under State law (including a pendent State claim to an action under Federal law). (Parentheses in original. See, Section 9, at pages 25-26.)

The draft also contains a strong preemption section. It provides in full that "This Act supersedes any provision of a statute, regulation, or rule of a State or political subdivision of a State, that includes requirements for the collection, use, or disclosure of covered information." (See, Section 10, at page 26.)

House Commerce Committee (HCC) bills are typically amended to include weaker preemption language, to allow for a wider range of state legislation.

5/4. The discussion draft [27 pages in PDF] of the yet to be introduced Boucher Stearns privacy bill would regulate the collection, use, selling and sharing of information. Collecting, using, selling and sharing of information is what reporters and news businesses do.

Government regulation of information privacy is in conflict with freedom of speech of the press. There is an inherent inconsistency, in some scenarios, between allowing the government to restrict the collection and dissemination of information by private actors for the purpose protecting privacy of the subjects of the information (which is the object of the Boucher Stearns bill), and disallowing the government from restricting the use and dissemination of information (which is the object of the First Amendment).

For a more general and thorough exposition of the conflict between free speech and information privacy, see Eugene Volokh's 2000 article titled "Freedom of Speech and Information Privacy: The Troubling Implications of a Right to Stop People from Speaking About You", 52 Stanford Law Review 1049.

Volokh wrote then that "the right to information privacy -- my right to control your communication of personally identifiable information about me -- is a right to have the government stop you from speaking about me".

This article focuses on how the Boucher Stearns discussion draft, if enacted, specifically could limit the activities of two types of reporters -- those who collect and disseminate information to aid the public in understanding political and governmental actions and processes, and business and financial reporters.

Rep. Rick Boucher (D-VA) and Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-FL) released this draft on May 4, 2010. It is only a draft. If it does progress through the legislative process, it would likely be substantially revised several times. That process might address the issues raised in this article.

Reporters and news media who cover the activities and operations of government sometimes collect information about legislators, policy level government officials, lobbyists, and political campaign contributors. This information collection unavoidably includes "covered information" such as names and numbers of individuals, and would thus be regulated by the draft bill.

In addition, either because some of this information is defined by the draft to be "sensitive", or because news media are in the business of sharing information with others, the draft's burdensome opt in regime would apply. This could render compliance with the mandates of the draft bill prohibitively costly, and infeasible, for some activities that are arguably protected by the First Amendment.

Names, phone numbers, e-mail addresses, internet addresses (which are all enumerated in the discussion draft's definition of "covered information") are often collected and used by reporters. Reporters engaged in more thorough and detailed examinations may combine such information with voting records and other politically relevant data.

The discussion draft creates a special category of information -- "sensitive information". This includes "financial records and other financial information". Some reporters and news media collect not only "covered information", such as names and numbers of Senators, Representatives, and their key staff, but also "sensitive information" -- "financial records" such as salaries, campaign expenditures, and campaign contributions.

This information may be combined with other information, such as individual legislators' party (which is also defined to be "sensitive information"), religion (also "sensitive information"), roll call votes, bills sponsored, and other politically relevant information. Similarly, information may be collected regarding lobbyists, including names, addresses, and phone numbers (all "covered information"), as well as campaign contributions, campaign expenditures, and Lobby Disclosure Act data (which requires disclosure of "covered information" and some "sensitive information").

Reporters may then use such collections of data, often organized in electronic databases, to assist them in writing news stories, to verify statements in stories, and to generate statistics. Some collections of data are used to create tables which are then published. Some information may be placed online, where subscribers or users can use a web interface to in effect query the databases.

As another example, financial and business reporters may collect both "covered information" and "sensitive information" about senior executives of major corporations, such as executive compensation, stock option grants, sales of company stock, and other "financial records". And then, in various ways, these reporters may share this information with readers, subscribers, and users.

The draft bill contains no language that would have the effect of carving out exceptions for First Amendment related activities, news gathering and dissemination, or expression.

Reporters and news media do not collect most of this information from individual legislators, lobbyists, or executives. Pursuant to federal statutes, most of this information must be disclosed, and made publicly available. But, the discussion draft covers "information from or about an individual". It covers information obtained from public records. (See, Section 3(a)(1), at page 8.)

The draft also provides that a "covered entity" does not include "any person that collects covered information from fewer than 5,000 individuals in any 12-month period and does not collect sensitive information". (See, Section 2(4)(B)(ii), at page 2.)

This would exempt some businesses with small businesses with small information collection operations. However, it would not provide relief to reporters in the above described hypothetical scenarios, because these reporters collect "sensitive information".

The Cato Institute's Jim Harper has defined privacy as "the subjective condition people experience when they have power to control information about themselves." See for example, August 4, 2004, paper titled "Understanding Privacy -- and the Real Threats to It".

He added that "Because privacy is subjective, government regulation in the name of privacy can only create confidentiality or secrecy rules based on politicians' and bureaucrats' guesses about what ``privacy´´ should look like."

The discussion draft, in seeking to protect privacy, does not take into account that legislators, for example, run for office, sponsor bills, vote, get paid, and receive campaign contributions in a very public and open process without any subjective expectation of privacy. Even if some legislators were to assert such a right, it would neither be one that is reasonable, nor one that society is prepared to recognize, because of disclosure legislation. Yet, the discussion draft would not only bring the reporters who collect, use and disseminate this information within the scope of the bill -- it would subject them to the opt in regime.

Much of the information being collected in the above described hypothetical scenarios is defined by the draft to be "sensitive information" which requires opt in treatment. Moreover, the sharing of information also requires opt in treatment. That is, the draft provides that "A covered entity may not sell, share, or otherwise disclose covered information to an unaffiliated party without first obtaining the express affirmative consent of the individual to whom the covered information relates". (See, Section 3(a)(4), at page13.)

An "unaffiliated party" means "any entity that is not related by common ownership or affiliated by corporate control with a covered entity". (See, Section 2(13), at page 8.) The very essence of a news business is sharing information with "unaffiliated parties". These parties would include anyone who stuffs quarters into a newspaper vending machine, visits a news web site, or reads a news blog.

Under the discussion draft, certain reporters, to continue their information collection and use, would need to ask for permission from legislators, government officials, lobbyists, and corporate executives. They could not proceed "without first obtaining the express affirmative consent of the individual to whom the covered information relates" for every data point in every cell in every column of their databases that falls within the draft's definition of covered or sensitive information.

If not, the subjects of such news coverage could complain to the FTC, which could take action. One might not expect the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), which is given enforcement authority under the draft, to seek an injunction of the dissemination of information by the Washington Post. It has the financial resources to seek a judicial decree holding the FTC's action unconstitutional. (Also, the FTC Chairman's wife, Ruth Marcus, works for the Washington Post.) But, smaller publications and bloggers have reason to fear disparate and discriminatory treatment by the FTC. The FTC has a record of according lower First Amendment protection to "bloggers" than to "traditional media". See, story titled "FTC Makes Law Abridging the Freedom of Bloggers" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,997, October 6, 2009.

It should also be noted that while the Boucher Stearns draft would only impact a small fraction of reporters and reporting, it would harm a segment that provides particularly detailed and data driven information to the public about political processes.

Perhaps also the Supreme Court's 1991 opinion in Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co., 499 U.S. 340, is pertinent.

The Supreme Court essentially held in Feist that collections of data are not entitled to copyright protection. The Feist opinion took away a financial incentive for news media to collect information. The Boucher Stearns draft would add a substantial disincentive to collecting such information.

There were serious attempts in prior Congresses to enact legislation to limit or undo the effects of Feist. Rep. Boucher, who is a cosponsor of the discussion draft, was one of the leaders of the successfully efforts in the House to prevent those bills from becoming law.

For a review of legislative activity in the 106th through 108th Congresses, see story titled "House Judiciary Committee Approves Database Protection Bill" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 822, January 23, 2004.

The Supreme Court's holding in Feist did not address the applicability of the First Amendment to collections of data, or to information privacy regulation. The Supreme Court has yet to take up these issues.

Rep. Boucher's discussion draft is silent on the subject of application of the First Amendment to collections of information. There is no exception for, or reference to, news gathering or reporting, expression, freedom of speech or of the press, the First Amendment, or any other part of the Constitution.

The House will meet at 10:00 AM for legislative business. The agenda for May 5 and 6 includes consideration of HR 1722 [LOC | WW], the "Telework Improvement Act", a bill pertaining to teleworking by federal employees. See, Rep. Hoyer's schedule for the week of May 3.

7:30 AM - 3:30 PM. Day two of a two day partially closed meeting of the National Science Foundation's (NSF) National Science Board. The items on the open agenda for May 5 include "Next Generation of STEM Innovators White Paper". See, notice in the Federal Register, April 28, 2010, Vol. 75, No. 81, at Pages 22432-22433. Location: 4201 Wilson Blvd., Rooms 1235 and 1295, Arlington, VA.

9:00 AM. Day one of a two day meeting of the Department of Commerce's (DOC) Bureau of Industry and Security's (BIS) Information Systems Technical Advisory Committee (ISTAC). The May 5 session is open to the public, and will be teleconferenced. See, notice in the Federal Register, April 21, 2010, Vol. 75, No. 76, at Page 20817. Location: DOC, Room 3884, 14th Street between Constitution and Pennsylvania Avenues, NW.

10:00 AM. The U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir) will hear oral argument in Teknowledge v. Cellco, App. Ct. No. 2009-1523, an appeal from the U.S. District Court (EDTex) in a patent infringement case involving technology for sending notices to cell phones. Location: Courtroom 402, 717 Madison Place, NW.

10:00 AM - 5:00 PM. The Department of Health and Human Services' (DHHS) Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality will host an event titled "Meeting for Software Developers on the Technical Specifications for Common Formats for Patient Safety Data Collection and Event Reporting". See, notice in the Federal Register, April 2, 2010, Vol. 75, No. 63, at Pages 16817-16818. Location: Hyatt Regency Baltimore, 300 Light Street, Baltimore, MD.

10:15 AM. The House Judiciary Committee (HJC) will hold a hearing titled "U.S. Patent and Trademark Office". The HJC will web cast this event. See, notice. Location: Room 2141, Rayburn Building.

12:00 NOON - 2:00 PM. Bob Bahr, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's (USPTO) acting Associate Commissioner for Patent Examination Policy will give a speech titled "The Patent Office Speaks" to the DC Bar Association. This event is closed to reporters. The price to attend ranges from $55 to $70. See, notice. Location: City Club of Washington at Franklin, 1300 I St., NW.

12:15 - 1:30 PM. The Federal Communications Bar Association (FCBA) will host a lunch titled "Technologies of the Future: Current DARPA Research That Might Lead to Future Commercial Technologies". For more information, contact Laura Stefani at 202-429-4900 or lstefani at g2w2 dot com. Location: Wiley Rein, 1776 K St., NW.

2:00 PM. The House Judiciary Committee's (HJC) Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties will hold a hearing titled "Electronic Communications Privacy Act Reform". The HJC will web cast this event. See, notice. Location: Room 2141, Rayburn Building.

6:00 - 8:30 PM. The Federal Communications Bar Association's (FCBA) Intellectual Property Committee will host an event titled "How the Internet Works: A Tech Tutorial for Communications and Copyright Attorneys". This event qualifies for continuing legal education credit. The price to attend ranges from $25 to $150. The deadline to register is 5:00 PM on May 3. See, registration form. Location: Dow Lohnes, 1200 New Hampshire Ave., NW.

Day three of a three day conference titled "Sea Air Space Expo 2010". At 10:00 - 11:15 AM there will be a panel discussion titled "Cyber Warfare and Security". The speakers will be James Woolsey, Charles Shugg (Brig. Gen., USAF), Steven Wade Smith (Maj. Gen., U.S. Army, and Chief Cyber Officer, Office of Army Chief Information), David Glenn (Rear Adm., USCG), Bernard McCullough (Vice Adm., USN, and Commander, U.S. Fleet Cyber Command). See, conference web site. Location: Gaylord National Hotel and Convention Center, 201 Waterfront Street, National Harbor MD.

The House will meet at 10:00 AM for legislative business. See, Rep. Hoyer's schedule for the week of May 3.

9:00 AM. Day two of a two day meeting of the Department of Commerce's (DOC) Bureau of Industry and Security's (BIS) Information Systems Technical Advisory Committee (ISTAC). The May 6 session is closed to the public. See, notice in the Federal Register, April 21, 2010, Vol. 75, No. 76, at Page 20817. Location: DOC, Room 3884, 14th Street between Constitution and Pennsylvania Avenues, NW.

10:00 AM. The Senate Commerce Committee (SCC) will hold a hearing titled "America Wins When America COMPETES: Building a High-Tech Workforce". See, notice. Location: Room 253, Russell Building.

11:00 AM. The House Judiciary Committee's (HJC) Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law will hold a hearing titled "State Taxation: The Role of Congress in Developing Apportionment Standards". See, notice. The HJC will webcast this event. Location: Room 2141, Rayburn Building.

10:00 AM. The Senate Judiciary Committee (SJC) will hold an executive business meeting. The agenda includes consideration of the several judicial nominations: Gordon Liu (to be a Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit), Ray Lohier (USCA/2ndCir), Kimberly Mueller (USDC/EDCal), Richard Gergel (USDC/DSCar), Michelle Childs (USDC/DSCar), Catherine Eagles (USDC/MDNC), and Leonard Stark (USDC/DDel). The SJC rarely follows its published agendas. The SJC will webcast this event. See, notice. Location: Room 226, Dirksen Building.

2:30 PM. The Federal Trade Commission's (FTC) Bureau of Economics will host a presentation by Stephan Meier (Columbia University business school). For more information, contact Loren Smith at lsmith2 at ftc dot gov or Tammy John at tjohn at ftc dot gov. Location: FTC, Room 4100, 601 New Jersey Ave., NW.

2:30 - 5:30 PM. The President's National Security Telecommunications Advisory Committee will hold its annual meeting. See, notice in the Federal Register, March 31, 2010, Vol. 75, No. 61, at Pages 16159-16160. Location: U.S. Chamber of Commerce, 1615 H St., NW.

Deadline to submit comments to the National Archives and Records Administration's (NARA) Information Security Oversight Office (ISOO) regarding its proposed amendments to National Industrial Security Program Directive No. 1. The NARA stated that these changes provide "guidance to agencies on release of certain classified information (referred to as ``proscribed information´´) to contractors that are owned or under the control of a foreign interest and have had the foreign ownership or control mitigated by an arrangement known as an Special Security Agreement (SSA)". See, notice in the Federal Register, April 6, 2010, Vol. 75, No. 65, at Pages 17305-17307.

Rep. Hoyer's schedule for the week of May 3 states that "no votes are expected in the House".

8:30 AM - 5:00 PM. The National Science Foundation's (NSF) Advisory Committee for Computer and Information Science and Engineering will meet. See, notice in the Federal Register, April 14, 2010, Vol. 75, No. 71, at Page 19428. Location: NSF, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Room 1235, Arlington, VA.

9:00 AM - 3:00 PM. The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) and International Trade Administration (ITA) will hold a meeting titled "Information Privacy and Innovation in the Internet Economy". See, notice in the Federal Register, April 16, 2010, Vol. 75, No. 73, at Page 19942. Location: Polaris Room, Ronald Reagan International Trade Center, 1300 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.

9:00 - 10:45 AM. The Progress & Freedom Foundation (PFF) will host an event titled "What Should the Next Communications Act Look Like?". The speakers will be Tom Tauke (Verizon Communications), Peter Pitsch (Intel), Walter McCormick (US Telecom), Ray Gifford (Wilkinson Barker & Knauer), Michael Calabrese (New America Foundation), Barbara Esbin (PFF), and Adam Thierer (PFF). See, notice. Location: National Press Club., Holeman Lounge, 13th Floor, 529 14th St., NW.

2:00 - 4:00 PM. The Department of Health and Human Services' (DHHS) Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology's (ONCHIT) HIT Policy Committee's Privacy & Security Policy Workgroup will hold a webcast meeting. See, notice in the Federal Register, April 26, 2010, Vol. 75, No. 79, at Page 21630. The ONCHIT publishes inconsistent information about its meetings in the Federal Register and its web site.

Mothers Day.

10:00 AM - 1:00 PM. The Department of Health and Human Services' (DHHS) Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology's (ONCHIT) HIT Policy Committee's NHIN Workgroup will hold a webcast meeting. See, notice in the Federal Register, April 26, 2010, Vol. 75, No. 79, at Page 21630. The ONCHIT publishes inconsistent information about its meetings in the Federal Register and its web site.

12:00 NOON - 1:30 PM. The American Bar Association (ABA) will host a panel discussion titled "Cyber on the Hill: Congressional Cybersecurity Oversight, Legislation & Initiatives for 2010". The ABA will webcast this event. See, notice. The price to attend, or receive webcast, is $10. Location: Crowell & Moring, 1001 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.

12:15 - 1:30 PM. The Federal Communications Bar Association's (FCBA) Young Lawyers Committee will host a brown bag lunch for planning purposes. Send nominations by May 3 to Cathy Hilke chilke at wileyrein dot com and Micah Caldwell at mcaldwell at fh-law dot com. Location: Fleischman & Harding, 6th floor, 1255 23rd St., NW.

12:30 - 2:00 PM. The New America Foundation (NAF) and others will host a panel discussion titled "Open Data: Philanthropy’s Future Fuel For Change". See, notice. Location: NAF, Suite 400, 1899 L St., NW.

Third of four suggested dates for submitting "white papers" to the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) regarding the NIST's Technology Innovation Program (TIP). The fourth suggested submission date is July 12, 2010. The final deadline is September 30, 2010. See, notice in the Federal Register, September 4, 2009, Vol. 74, No. 171, at Pages 45823-45825.

Deadline to submit comments to the Department of Justice's (DOJ) Antitrust Division regarding the proposed Final Judgment in U.S. v. Daily Gazette Company and Medianews Group, Inc. See, notice in the Federal Register, March 11, 2010, Vol. 75, No. 47, at Pages 11681-11727.

Deadline to submit initial comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) regarding numerous proposed changes to the FCC's procedural rules and organizational rules. The FCC adopted this item on February 18, 2010, and released the text [23 pages in PDF] on February 22, 2010. It is FCC No. 10-32 in GC Docket No. 10-44. See, notice in the Federal Register: March 25, 2010, Vol. 75, No. 57, at Pages 14401-14409.

Deadline to submit initial comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) regarding making minor changes to its rules pertaining to ex parte communications with the FCC. The FCC adopted this item on February 18, 2010, and released the text [27 pages in PDF] on February 22, 2010. It is FCC No. 10-31 in GC Docket No. 10-43. See, notice in the Federal Register, March 25, 2010, Vol. 75, No. 57, at Pages 14409-14417.

8:00 - 10:00 AM. Broadband Census News LLC will host a panel discussion titled "The Google Book Search Case and E-Book Licensing". The speakers will be Sarah Stirland, Michael Capobianco, and others. Breakfast will be served. The price to attend is $45. This event is open to the public. Location: Clyde's of Gallery Place, 707 7th St.,  NW.

8:30 AM - 3:15 PM. The National Institute of Standards and Technology's (NIST) Technology Innovation Program Advisory Board will meet. See, notice in the Federal Register, April 29, 2010, Vol. 75, No. 82, at Page 22553. Location: NIST, Advanced Measurement Laboratory, Building 215, Room C103, Gaithersburg, MD.

9:00 - 11:00 AM. The Department of Health and Human Services' (DHHS) Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology's (ONCHIT) HIT Policy Committee's Strategic Plan Workgroup will hold a webcast meeting. See, notice in the Federal Register, April 26, 2010, Vol. 75, No. 79, at Page 21630. The ONCHIT publishes inconsistent information about its meetings in the Federal Register and its web site.

12:15 - 1:30 PM. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) will host an event titled "Meet the Audio Services Division Experts". The speakers will be Tom Hutton, Mike Wagner and Kelly Donohue of the FCC's Media Bureau's (MB) Audio Services Division. The FCBA asserts that this is an FCBA event. Location: National Association of Broadcasters, 1771 N St., NW.

2:00 - 3:30 PM. The Department of Justice's (DOJ) Antitrust Division will host a seminar presented by Tracy Lewis (Duke University) titled "__". For more information, contact Patrick Greenlee at 202-307-3745 or atr dot eag at usdoj dot gov. Location: DOJ, Liberty Square Building, 450 5th St., NW.

Deadline to submit reply comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) regarding assessment and collection of regulatory fees for Fiscal Year 2010. The FCC adopted this NPRM on April 12, 2010, and released the text [53 pages in PDF] on April 13, 2010. It is FCC 10-51 in MD Docket No. 10-87. See, notice in the Federal Register, April 26, 2010, Vol. 75, No. 79, at Pages 21536-21567.

? 9:00 AM - 12:00 NOON. The Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board will hold a hearing on proposed changes to its Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines regarding self service machines, point of sales machines, and ticketing kiosks. See, notice in the Federal Register, April 13, 2010, Vol. 75, No. 70, Pages 18781-18782. Location: Embassy Suites, DC Convention Center, 900 10th St., NW.

? 9:00 AM - 12:00 NOON. The Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board will hold an event titled "Public Hearing on Information and Communication Technology Standards and Guidelines". See, notice in the Federal Register, April 27, 2010, Vol. 75, No. 80, at Pages 22100-22101. Location: Embassy Suites, DC Convention Center, 900 10th St., NW.

? 10:00 - 11:00 AM. The Department of Health and Human Services' (DHHS) Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology's (ONCHIT) HIT Standards Committee's Clinical Operations Workgroup/Vocabulary Task Force will hold a webcast meeting. See, notice in the Federal Register, April 26, 2010, Vol. 75, No. 79, at Page 21629. The ONCHIT publishes inconsistent information about its meetings in the Federal Register and its web site.

10:00 AM. The Senate Judiciary Committee's (SJC) Subcommittee on Terrorism and Homeland Security will hold a hearing titled "The Espionage Statutes: A Look Back and A Look Forward". The SJC will webcast this event. See, notice. Location: Room 226, Dirksen Building.

12:00 NOON - 1:30 PM. The American Bar Association (ABA) will host a panel discussion titled "Analysis of Innovation in Merger Investigations". The speakers will be Kari Wallace (Federal Trade Commission), Scott Stempel (Morgan Lewis & Bockius), Robert Maness (Charles River Associates), and Karen Bokat (Wiley Rein). The ABA will webcast this event. See, notice. The event is free to attend, or receive webcast. Location: Wilson Sonsini, 1700 K St., NW.

Day one of a two day conference hosted by the Computer and Communications Industry Association (CCIA) titled "2020 Washington Caucus: Internet Policy, Innovation and Job Creation". See, notice. For more information, contact Danielle Yates at 202-783-0070 or dyates at ccianet dot org. Location?

Tech Law Journal publishes a free access web site and a subscription e-mail alert. The basic rate for a subscription to the TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert is $250 per year for a single recipient. There are discounts for subscribers with multiple recipients.

Free one month trial subscriptions are available. Also, free subscriptions are available for journalists, federal elected officials, and employees of the Congress, courts, and executive branch. The TLJ web site is free access. However, copies of the TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert are not published in the web site until two months after writing.

For information about subscriptions, see subscription information page.

Tech Law Journal now accepts credit card payments. See, TLJ credit card payments page.

TLJ is published by David Carney
Contact: 202-364-8882.
carney at techlawjournal dot com
P.O. Box 4851, Washington DC, 20008.

Privacy Policy
Notices & Disclaimers
Copyright 1998-2010 David Carney. All rights reserved.