Thursday the Senate Judiciary Committee will markup a location privacy bill (S 1223) that would require companies to notify consumers when their cellphone or mobile device is being used to track their location. The markup should be an excellent indication of where the panel stands on the issue of general privacy protections and on specific rules regarding how companies treat private data collected from consumers. The issue of privacy regulations has gained some steam recently due to the scandal involving former CIA Director David Petraeus, which highlighted how much access the FBI and other law enforcement agencies have to data stored online. Privacy regulations that would apply to law enforcement still appear to be a tough sell going forward, but industry-focused bills like this one, which targets mobile app developers, might stand a slightly better chance of passage.
The location privacy legislation is unlikely to move through Congress this session, but chief sponsor Al Franken, D-Minn., has requested a markup to set a record on privacy for next year. Franken chairs the new Judiciary Subcommittee on Privacy, which is expected to take the lead on proposing new regulations to protect consumers' digital privacy. His bill would establish rules for mobile apps and how they treat private data, an area that is largely unregulated. It would require companies to alert users and get their permission before collecting and sharing location data from mobile phones and tablets. The bill has drawn opposition from online marketers and the mobile app industry, who argue they should be allowed to self-regulate. Privacy advocates predictably disagree, pointing to reports of numerous popular apps that transfer users' information to third parties without their consent.
Franken has shown a willingness to work with industry to modify his proposal, adding to its eventual chance of success. Related proposals (S 1212, HR 2168) from Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., and Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, that would require a warrant from government officials before they can track suspects using mobile data face a much tougher road. The success of that proposal will likely be dictated by whether Congress eventually approves a related measure from Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., that would require an email before officials can access emails or data stored online.
House Signs Off on Internet Governance Resolution: The House voted unanimously Wednesday in favor of a Senate measure that expresses Congress' opposition to expand government control of the Internet. The vote to support the resolution comes as the United Nation's International Telecommunications Union (ITU) is meeting in Dubai to discuss the current governance model for the Internet. U.S. companies, advocacy groups and lawmakers are united in their opposition to any change in the multistakeholder governance model, under which a host of nonprofits govern the Web. A proposal from the U.S. and Canada to limit the ITU's rules to only telecom operators and not Web companies such as Google and Facebook reportedly failed in Dubai already, though U.S. Ambassador Terry Kramer has denied those reports. Senate Democrats Block Vote on STEM Visa Bill: Democrats stymied an attempt by Senate Republicans on Wednesday to take up a bill (HR 6429) that would abolish the visa lottery program and re-direct those 55,000 green cards to immigrants who earn graduate degrees in STEM fields from American universities. Democrats argued the bill would pit two immigrants groups against each other by abolishing the lottery program, which is aimed at increasing the diversity of the immigrant population. A counter proposal (S 3553) from New York Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer would open up 55,000 green cards for STEM graduates without abolishing the lottery program, but Senate Republicans denied his request to take up that legislation. The skirmish demonstrates once again that Democrats and the White House are unwilling to move on skilled immigration changes — despite bipartisan support for allowing STEM graduates to remain in the U.S. — unless Republicans also make some allowance regarding undocumented workers. NASA Going Back to Mars, But Why? Babbage has a new blog post at The Economist examining NASA's motivation for sending a second rover to Mars in 2020 at a cost of roughly $1.5 billion. Given the current fiscal climate, interplanetary travel would seem not to be a top priority. Babbage argues political calculations are at play — missions to more unexplored places like the moons of Jupiter would likely cost a good deal more. The Mars rover mission, by contrast, is much less risky and allow the agency to maintain its current rate of spending. The mission's goal remains undecided, but one aspect clearly seems to preserve NASA's budget while it dreams up more interesting trips for the future.