7/2. The Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board (PCLOB) released a report [196 pages in PDF] titled "Report on the Surveillance Program Operated Pursuant to Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act".

Section 702 is the "outside" the U.S. provision of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). It is codified at 50 U.S.C. § 1881a. It was enacted by the bill titled "Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 Amendments Act of 2008", Public Law No. 110-261. Although, the 2008 Act replaced a temporary provision contained in a 2007 Act, titled the "Protect America Act".

Section 702 allows federal surveillance, without individualized court approval, under the FISA, of people believed to be outside of the US.

More specifically, it pertains to "the targeting of persons reasonably believed to be located outside the United States to acquire foreign intelligence information". However, information obtained under Section 702 can be used not only for intelligence and counter-terrorism purposes, but also in criminal prosecutions.

It is, along with Section 501 of the FISA, one of the more controversial provisions of surveillance law, because it allows the government to collect the content of communications, without warrants, and without any individualized or particularized suspicion. In contrast, the 4th Amendment requires a warrant "particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized".

The 4th Amendment does not apply to foreigners located outside of the U.S. But, as the report notes, "Although U.S. persons and other persons in the United States may not be targeted under Section 702, operation of the program nevertheless results in the government acquiring some telephone and Internet communications involving U.S. persons".

The 112th Congress extended the sunset on this provision to the end of 2017. See, HR 5949 [LOC | WW], the "FISA Amendments Act Reauthorization Act of 2012", Public Law No. 112-238.

This report finds that the surveillance program run pursuant to Section 702 is Constitutional and useful. These findings may disappoint some critics of the program. What may prove to be the most significant aspect of this report, however, is the detail that it provides about how the program is run.

This report states that the PCLOB "recognizes the considerable value that the Section 702 program provides in the government’s efforts to combat terrorism and gather foreign intelligence, and finds that at its core, the program is sound. However, some features outside of the program’s core, particularly those impacting U.S. persons, raise questions regarding the reasonableness of the program."

The report makes five recommendations.

First, the PCLOB recommends that "The NSA's targeting procedures should be revised to (a) specify criteria for determining the expected foreign intelligence value of a particular target, and (b) require a written explanation of the basis for that determination sufficient to demonstrate that the targeting of each selector is likely to return foreign intelligence information relevant to the subject of one of the certifications approved by the FISA court."

Second, the PCLOB recommends that "The FBI's minimization procedures should be updated to more clearly reflect actual practice for conducting U.S. person queries, including the frequency with which Section 702 data may be searched when making routine queries as part of FBI assessments and investigations. Further, some additional limits should be placed on the FBI's use and dissemination of Section 702 data in connection with non–foreign intelligence criminal matters."

Third, the PCLOB recommends that "The NSA and CIA minimization procedures should permit the agencies to query collected Section 702 data for foreign intelligence purposes using U.S. person identifiers only if the query is based upon a statement of facts showing that the query is reasonably likely to return foreign intelligence information as defined in FISA. The NSA and CIA should develop written guidance for agents and analysts as to what information and documentation is needed to meet this standard, including specific examples."

Fourth, the PCLOB recommends that "To assist in the FISA court’s consideration of the government’s periodic Section 702 certification applications, the government should submit with those applications a random sample of tasking sheets and a random sample of the NSA’s and CIA’s U.S. person query terms, with supporting documentation. The sample size and methodology should be approved by the FISA court."

Finally, the PCLOB recommends that "As part of the periodic certification process, the government should incorporate into its submission to the FISA court the rules for operation of the Section 702 program that have not already been included in certification orders by the FISA court, and that at present are contained in separate orders and opinions, affidavits, compliance and other letters, hearing transcripts, and mandatory reports filed by the government. To the extent that the FISA court agrees that these rules govern the operation of the Section 702 program, the FISA court should expressly incorporate them into its order approving Section 702 certifications."

Two members of the PCLOB, David Medine and Patricia Wald, wrote in a separate statement that the third recommendation does not go "far enough to protect U.S. persons' privacy rights when their communications are incidentally collected as a consequence of targeting a non-U.S. person located abroad under Section 702".

Rachel Brand and Elisebeth Cook wrote in a separate statement that "The core Section 702 program is clearly authorized by Congress, reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, and an extremely valuable and effective intelligence tool."

Nuala O'Connor of the Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT) stated in a release that this "report is a tremendous disappointment ... Even in the few instances where it recognizes the privacy implications of these programs, it provides little reassurance to all who care about digital civil liberties". She added that "The weak recommendations in the report offer no serious reform of government intrusions on the lives of individuals. It also offers scant support to the U.S. tech industry in its efforts to alleviate customer concerns about NSA surveillance, which continue to harm the industry in the global marketplace".

Similarly, Jameel Jaffer of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) stated in a release that "This is a weak report that fails to fully grasp the civil liberties and human rights implications of permitting the government sweeping access to the communications of innocent people."

Ed Black, head of the Computer and Communications Industry Association (CCIA), stated in a release that "Although we hoped that the PCLOB would go farther in its 702 reform recommendations, we appreciate its thorough review of the NSA's implementation of the FISA Amendments Act. Although there was internal debate within the Board on how far reform recommendations should go, the report provides value in outlining how the NSA is using its surveillance authority. Going forward, this material will provide useable fodder for policymakers and privacy experts to debate and hopefully serve as an impetus for much needed reforms. In the future it will also be important to factor in broad strategic concerns when making policy in this area, such as trust, Internet freedom, and soft diplomatic and economic national priorities -- issues not clearly within the scope of the PCLOB."

7/1. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) filed a civil complaint in the U.S. District Court (WDWash) against T-Mobile USA alleging violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act, which is codified at 15 U.S.C. § 45(a), in connection with unauthorized third party charges on phone bills.

FTC Chairman Edith Ramirez stated in a release that "It's wrong for a company like T-Mobile to profit from scams against its customers when there were clear warning signs the charges it was imposing were fraudulent ... The FTC’s goal is to ensure that T-Mobile repays all its customers for these crammed charges."

T-Mobile USA provides services to its customers. It bills them for the services that it provides. This is not at issue in the action. Phone companies have a history of improperly charging their customers for services that they purported have provided, but that is another issue.

In addition, T-Mobile's phone bills (like those of other phone companies) include charges for services purportedly provided by third parties. This is the subject of this action.

Much of this third party billing is for services not authorized by the customer. Phone companies receive a share of the collections, and hence, have limited incentives to police third party billing.

The complaint alleges that T-Mobile USA is improperly profiting from allowing third parties to bill its customers for things that T-Mobile USA should know is fraudulent.

The complaint alleges, for example, that T-Mobile USA "has continued to charge consumers for Third-Party Subscriptions even after industry auditor alerts, law enforcement and other legal actions, and news articles indicated that the third-party merchants were not obtaining valid authorization from consumers for the charges".

The complaint further alleges that while T-Mobile USA's customers have complained about unauthorized charges, it "did not take sufficient steps to determine whether other consumers actually authorized the charges for Third-Party Subscriptions purportedly offered by the problematic third-party merchants".

The complaint also alleges that "when consumers have sought refunds for unauthorized charges" T-Mobile USA "frequently has refused to provide them", sometimes telling "consumers that there is nothing it can do about the unauthorized charges or that it would block future charges, but then failed to do so". In other instances, it "has instructed consumers to seek a refund directly from the third-party merchant", but has "failed to provide accurate contact information". The complaint also alleges that sometimes T-Mobile USA has "asserted that consumers authorized the charge, despite the fact that" it "did not have records of the purported authorization".

This is neither new, nor limited to T-Mobile USA. See for example, stories titled "Senate Commerce Committee Releases Report on Unauthorized Charges on Phone Bills" and "Senate Commerce Committee Holds Hearing on Phone Bill Cramming" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 2,258, July 14, 2011, story titled "Sen. Rockefeller Introduces Bill to Limit Third Party Billing by Phone Companies" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 2,579, June 18, 2013, and story titled "FCC Again Seeks Comments on Phone Bill Cramming" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 2,593, September 2, 2013.

What is notable about this action is that it is directed at a phone company, rather than the fraudulent third parties, that it is directed at a mobile phone service provider (historically, the problem of third party cramming has been more severe with landline than mobile service), and that the complaint alleges violation of the unfairness prong of the FTC Act.

The FTC held a roundtable on mobile cramming on May 8, 2013. See, event web site. However, the FTC lacks sectoral regulatory authority over the mobile service providers. Hence, the just filed complaint alleges violation of a broad consumer protection statute, which provides that "unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce, are hereby declared unlawful".

This two count complaint alleges violation of both the "unfair" and "deceptive" prongs. Until recently, the FTC has relied upon allegations of "deception" in Section 5 actions. "Deception" is a word with meaning that puts businesses on notice of when they risk a government enforcement action. In contrast, "unfair" is a word that does not provide guidance to businesses or regulators regarding what may or may not be prohibited..

This complaint does not name as defendants any of the third party billers.

This complaint seeks "restitution, the refund of monies paid, disgorgement of ill-gotten monies" by T-Mobile USA. It also seeks unspecified injunctive relief. It does not expressly seek an injunction against all third party billing by T-Mobile USA.

The Congress or the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) could easily eliminate this problem, by prohibiting by statute or regulation the use of phone bills for third party billing. However, while they periodically hold hearings and request comments, the practice of third party billing, and its abuse, continues.

It might also be noted that the FCC's universal service subsidy programs, which have long been plagued by waste, fraud and abuse, are financed via consumers' monthly bills, and that the FCC has long induced companies to deceptively list these taxes.

On July 1 the FCC issued a short release that asserts that it too "is investigating complaints that T-Mobile billed its customers for millions of dollars in unauthorized third-party subscriptions and premium text messaging services".

This case is FTC v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, D.C. No. 2:14-cv-00967. T-Mobile USA is based in Bellevue, which is in the Western District of Washington.

6/16. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) published a notice in the Federal Register (FR) that requests public comments to assist it in preparing its report to the Congress, as required by Section 16 of the America Invents Act, regarding virtual marking of patented articles.

35 U.S.C. § 287 provides that a patentee cannot recover damages in an infringement action if the patentee does not mark the patented articles. Section 16 of the AIA amended Section 287 of the Patent Act to provide for virtual marking. That is, instead of printing patent numbers on products, patentees may display either "patent"' or "pat." and an internet address that provides the patent number.

Section 287(a), as amended by the AIA, provides that "Patentees, and persons making, offering for sale, or selling within the United States any patented article for or under them, or importing any patented article into the United States, may give notice to the public that the same is patented, either by fixing thereon the word ``patent´´ or the abbreviation ``pat.´´, together with the number of the patent, or by fixing thereon the word ``patent´´ or the abbreviation ``pat.´´ together with an address of a posting on the Internet, accessible to the public without charge for accessing the address, that associates the patented article with the number of the patent, or when, from the character of the article, this can not be done, by fixing to it, or to the package wherein one or more of them is contained, a label containing a like notice. In the event of failure so to mark, no damages shall be recovered by the patentee in any action for infringement, except on proof that the infringer was notified of the infringement and continued to infringe thereafter, in which event damages may be recovered only for infringement occurring after such notice. Filing of an action for infringement shall constitute such notice."

Section 16 of the AIA also requires that the USPTO write a report within three years of enactment.

This notice states that the USPTO seeks comments regarding "Experiences with creating and maintaining adequate and effective virtual marking Web sites", the "effectiveness of virtual marking, including experiences using virtual marking Web sites to locate relevant patent information", and "challenges presented by virtual marking in providing sufficient notice to the public, including sufficiently associating patent numbers with the corresponding product within the virtual marking Web site".

The USPTO also seeks comments regarding the "economic impacts of virtual marking, including costs differences between physical marking and virtual marking", the "advantages and disadvantages of virtual marking in comparison with physical marking", and "identification of other practical or legal concerns with virtual marking".

The deadline to submit comments is July 16, 2014. See, FR, Vol. 79, No. 115, June 16, 2014, at Page 34291.

6/20. Rep. Steve Stockman (R-TX) introduced HRes 635, a resolution titled "The Dog Ate My Tax Receipts Act", on June 20, 2014, in response to the Internal Revenue Service's (IRS) recent assertions regarding its loss of subpoenaed e-mail.

Lois Lerner was the head of the IRS Exempt Organizations Unit at the time that it targeted Republican leaning tea party groups. She has asserted her Constitutional right against self-incrimination, making her testimony unavailable to criminal and Congressional investigators. (There is a dispute too as to whether or not she waived her right, and the House of Representatives voted on May 7, 2014 to hold her in contempt based upon a finding of waiver.)

The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee (HOGRC), chaired by Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA), has doggedly pursued this matter for all the publicity that he can generate. The IRS most recently has asserted that it has both lost Lerner's e-mail, and destroyed the relevant hard drive. The HOGRC held its latest hearing on these subpoenaed e-mails on June 23 and 24, 2014.

Also in response to the IRS's latest assertions regarding lost e-mail, Rep. Steve Stockman (R-TX) introduced HRes 635. It provides that the IRS "must allow taxpayers the same lame excuses for missing documentation that the IRS itself is currently proffering". This resolution further provides that it should suffice for taxpayers to assert either a "computer malfunction" or that "the dog ate my tax receipts".

It was referred to the House Ways and Means Committee. Rep. Stockman is not a member.

It is highly unlikely that this resolution will pass the House. Moreover, it is only a resolution. It would not amend the Internal Revenue Code, or bind the IRS.

The reasons for Rep. Stockman introducing this resolution, for the IRS destroying Lerner's e-mail, for the HOGRC holding numerous hearings, and for the Obama administration targeting these groups, are likely all the same -- to influence the outcomes of future Congressional and Presidential elections.

The IRS has a long history, in both Democratic and Republican administrations, of being used for politically motivated retaliation. It might recalled, for example, that on July 27, 1974, when the House Judiciary Committee (HJC) passed an impeachment resolution for then President Nixon, it alleged that he "has, acting personally and through his subordinates and agents, endeavored to ... cause ... income tax audits or other income tax investigations to be initiated or conducted in a discriminatory manner."

The House will meet at 1:00 PM in pro forma session only. See, Rep. Cantor's schedule.

The Senate will meet at 2:00 PM.

9:00 AM - 3:00 PM. Day one of a five day event hosted by the University of Maryland's (UM) Maryland Cybersecurity Center and Google title "Cybers Defense Training Camp". This event is provided for high school juniors and seniors. For more information, contact Cristin Caparotta at 301-405-6735 or ccapa at umd dot edu. See, notice. Location: __, UM, College Park, MD.

4:00 - 6:00 PM. The New America Foundation (NAF) will host a panel discussion titled "National Insecurity Agency: How the NSA's Surveillance Programs Undermine Internet Security". The speakers will be Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL), Joe Hall (Center for Democracy & Technology), Danielle Kehl (NAF), David Lieber (Google), Bruce Schneier (NAF), Amie Stepanovich (Access Now), and Kevin Bankston (NAF). Free. Open to the public. Webcast. See, notice. Location: NAF, Suite 400, 1899 L St., NW.

Deadline to submit initial comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to its Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM) regarding its quadrennial review of its broadcast ownership rules, and the FCC's Report and Order (FCC 07-217), sometimes referred to as the diversity order, which the U.S. Court of Appeals (3rdCir) remanded in its July 7, 2011 opinion in Prometheus Radio Project v. FCC. The FCC adopted this FNPRM on March 31, 2014, and released it on April 15, 2014. It is FCC 14-28 in MB Docket Nos. 14-50, 09-182, 07-294, and 04-256. See, notice in the Federal Register, Vol. 79, No. 97, May 20, 2014, at Pages 29009-29064. See also, story titled "3rd Circuit Issues Opinion Regarding FCC Regulation of Media Ownership" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 2,256, July 12, 2011.

Deadline to submit public comments to the U.S.International Trade Commission (USITC) regarding whether issuance of a Section 337 exclusion order against Nokia and ZTE affecting certain wireless devices with 3G or 4G capabilities would be in the public interest. This is USITC Investigation No. 337-TA-868. See, notice in the Federal Register, Vol. 79, No. 119, June 20, 2014, at Pages 35383-35384.

Deadline to submit written comments to the Department of State (DOS) regarding the rechartering of the International Telecommunications Advisory Committee (ITAC). The ITAC's current charter expires on August 9. See, notice in the Federal Register, Vol. 79, No. 119, June 20, 2014, at Pages 35404-35405.

The House will meet at 12:00 NOON for morning hour, and at 2:00 PM for legislative business. It will consider several items under suspension of the rules, including HR 4263 [LOC | WW], the "Social Media Working Group Act of 2014", and HR 4289 [LOC | WW], the "Department of Homeland Security Interoperable Communications Act". Votes will be postponed until 6:30 PM. See, Rep. Cantor's schedule.

10:00 AM - 12:00 NOON. The Senate Banking Committee (SBC) will hold a hearing titled "The Role of Regulation in Shaping Equity Market Structure and Electronic Trading". The witnesses will be Jeffrey Sprecher (Intercontinental Exchange, Inc.), Kenneth Griffin (Citadel LLC), Kevin Cronin (Invesco, Ltd), James Angel (Georgetown University business school), Thomas Wittman (NASDAX OMX Group, Inc.) and Joe Ratterman (BATS Global Markets, Inc.). See, notice. Location: Room 538, Dirksen Building.

9:00 AM - 3:00 PM. Day two of a five day event hosted by the University of Maryland's (UM) Maryland Cybersecurity Center and Google title "Cybers Defense Training Camp". This event is provided for high school juniors and seniors. For more information, contact Cristin Caparotta at 301-405-6735 or ccapa at umd dot edu. See, notice. Location: __, UM, College Park, MD.

9:30 AM - 3:00 PM. The Department of Health and Human Services' (DHHS) Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology's (ONC/HIT) HIT Policy Committee will meet. See, DHHS notice and notice in the Federal Register, Vol. 78, No. 243, December 18, 2013, at Page 76627. Location: __.

11:00 AM - 1:00 PM. The Heritage Foundation HF) will host a pair of panel discussions titled "The Supreme Court's 2013-2014 Term". The speakers on the first panel will be Noel Francisco (Jones Day), Mark Rienzi (Catholic University law school), Paul Smith (Jenner & Block), and John Malcolm (HF). The speakers on the second panel will be Jess Bravin (Wall Street Journal), Adam Liptak (New York Times), David Savage (Los Angeles Times), and James Swanson (HF). Free. Open to the public. Webcast. See, notice. Location: HF, 214 Massachusetts Ave., NE.

12:15 - 1:30 PM. The Federal Communications Bar Association's (FCBA) Telehealth Committee will host a panel discussion titled "Topic: Broadband and Health Data: Opportunities and Issues". The speakers will be Thomas Martin (HIMSS North America), Matt Quinn (Director of the FCC's Health Care Initiatives), Tom Reid (Southern Ohio Health Network), and Zachary Rothstein (Samsung Electronics). No webcast. Free. Bring your own lunch. Location: CTIA Wireless Association, Suite 600, 1400 16th St., NW.

The House will meet at 10:00 AM for morning hour, and at 12:00 NOON for legislative business. See, Rep. Cantor's schedule.

9:00 AM - 3:00 PM. Day three of a five day event hosted by the University of Maryland's (UM) Maryland Cybersecurity Center and Google title "Cybers Defense Training Camp". This event is provided for high school juniors and seniors. For more information, contact Cristin Caparotta at 301-405-6735 or ccapa at umd dot edu. See, notice. Location: __, UM, College Park, MD.

10:00 AM. The U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir) will hear oral argument in Wireless Ink Corporation v. Google, App. Ct. No. 13-1683, an appeal from the U.S. District Court (SDNY) in a patent infringement case. Defendants Google and Facebook won judgments of non-infringement. They then moved for attorneys fees for exceptional circumstances under 35 U.S.C. § 285, which provides that "The court in exceptional cases may award reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party." See, December 17, 2013 Memorandum and Order denying their motions. The District Court case is D.C. No. 10 Civ. 1841 (PKC), Judge Kevin Castel presiding. HR 3309 [LOC | WW], the "Innovation Act", the patent bill passed by the House on December 5, 2013, would amend Section 285 to provide that the general rule would be for the award of reasonable attorneys fees to the prevailing party. Panel C. Location: Courtroom 402, 717 Madison Place, NW.

10:00 AM. The U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir) will hear oral argument in SSL Services v. Citrix Systems, App. Ct. No. 13-1419, an appeal from the U.S. District Court (EDTex) in a patent infringement case involving technology for remotely accessing computer systems. Panel B. Location: Courtroom 201, 717 Madison Place, NW.

10:00 AM. The Copyright Office (CO) will host a roundtable regarding a new procedure to allow copyright owners to audit the Statements of Account and royalty payments that cable operators and satellite carriers deposit with the CO. The deadline to submit requests to participate is June 26, 2014. Free. Open to the public. See, notice in the Federal Register, Vol. 79, No. 106, June 3, 2014, at Pages 31992-31995. Location: Room LM-403 Madison Building, Library of Congress, 101 Independence Ave., SE.

The House will meet at 10:00 AM for morning hour, and at 12:00 NOON for legislative business. See, Rep. Cantor's schedule.

9:00 AM - 3:00 PM. Day four of a five day event hosted by the University of Maryland's (UM) Maryland Cybersecurity Center and Google title "Cybers Defense Training Camp". This event is provided for high school juniors and seniors. For more information, contact Cristin Caparotta at 301-405-6735 or ccapa at umd dot edu. See, notice. Location: __, UM, College Park, MD.

9:30 AM. The Senate Judiciary Committee (SJC) will hold an executive business meeting. The agenda includes consideration of S 517 [LOC | WW], the "Unlocking Consumer Choice and Wireless Competition Act". Webcast. See, notice. Location: Room 226, Dirksen Building.

10:00 AM. The House Intelligence Committee (HIC) will hold a closed hearing titled "Ongoing Intelligence Activities". No webcast. See, notice. Location: Room HVC 304, Capitol Building.

10:00 AM. The U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir) will hear oral argument in Wi-LAN USA v. Ericsson, App. Ct. No. 13-1485, and in Wi-LAN. v. Alcatel-Lucent USA, App. Ct. No. 13-1566. Panel D. Location: Courtroom 201, 717 Madison Place, NW.

10:00 AM. The U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir) will hear oral argument in Gammino v. Sprint Communications, App. Ct. No. 13-1636. Panel F. Location: Courtroom 203, 717 Madison Place, NW.

10:00 AM. The U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir) will consider on the briefs Tse v. Google, App. Ct. No. 14-1222, and Tse v. Blockbuster, App. Ct. No. 14-1223. Panel E.

The House will meet at 9:00 AM for legislative business. See, Rep. Cantor's schedule.

9:00 AM - 3:00 PM. Day five of a five day event hosted by the University of Maryland's (UM) Maryland Cybersecurity Center and Google title "Cybers Defense Training Camp". This event is provided for high school juniors and seniors. For more information, contact Cristin Caparotta at 301-405-6735 or ccapa at umd dot edu. See, notice. Location: __, UM, College Park, MD.

10:00 AM. The U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir) will hear oral argument in Multimedia Patent Trust v. Apple, App. Ct. No. 13-1620, and in Multimedia Patent Trust v. LG Electronics, App. Ct. No. 13-1621. Panel G+. Location: Courtroom 201, 717 Madison Place, NW.

10:00 AM. The U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir) will hear oral argument in American Radio v. Qualcomm, App. Ct. No. 13-1641. Panel G. Location: Courtroom 201, 717 Madison Place, NW.

10:00 AM. The U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir) will hear oral argument in Mformation Technologies, Inc. v. Research in Motion, App. Ct. No. 12-1679. Panel H. Location: Courtroom 402, 717 Madison Place, NW.

10:30 AM. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) will host an event titled "Open Meeting". See, agenda. Location: FCC, Commission Meeting Room, Room TW-C305, 445 12th St., SW.

12:00 NOON. The Internet Caucus will host a panel discussion titled "The NSA Surveillance Programs: Assessing The Damage to U.S. Commerce, Confidence & Credibility". The speakers will be __. See, notice. Location: Room __, Rayburn Building.

Deadline to submit comments to the National Institute of Standards and Technology's (NIST) Computer Security Division (CSD) regarding its draft SP 800-160 [121 pages in PDF] titled "Systems Security Engineering: An Integrated Approach to Building Trustworthy Resilient Systems".

Deadline for the U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) to submit to the Senate Finance Committee (SFC) its report titled "Digital Trade in the U.S. and Global Economies, Part 2". See, USITC release, and notice in the Federal Register, Vol. 78, No. 162, August 21, 2013, at Pages 51744-51746. See also, story titled "USITC Releases First Report on Digital Trade" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 2,589, August 26, 2013.

Deadline to submit initial comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to its Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM) regarding wireless broadband services in the 3550-3650 MHz band.. The FCC adopted and released this item on April 23, 2014. It is FCC 14-49 in 12-354. See, notice in the Federal Register, Vol. 79, No. 105, June 2, 2014, at Pages 31247-31282. See also, story titled "FCC Adopts NPRM Regarding 3550-3650 MHz Band" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 2,645, April 23, 2014.

Deadline to submit reply comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to its Public Notice (PN) that requests comments on a proposal of the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) to relax FCC rules that require the filtering of Travelers' Information Stations (TIS) audio frequencies between 3 and 20 kHz. The FCC released this PN on April 16, 2014. It is DA 14-508 in PS Docket No. 09-19. See, NAB's November 22, 2013, filing and notice in the Federal Register, Vol. 79, No. 103, May 29, 2014, at Pages 30788-30790.

Deadline to submit applications for membership on the Department of Commerce (DOC) National Advisory Council on Innovation and Entrepreneurship. See, notice in the Federal Register, Vol. 79, No. 116, June 17, 2014, at Pages 34488-34489.

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 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
3034 Newark St. NW, Washington DC, 20008.

Privacy Policy
Notices & Disclaimers
Copyright 1998-2014 David Carney. All rights reserved.