The FTC should penalize Google for allegedly violating the children’s privacy law (see 1906190045), Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass., and consumer groups wrote the agency separately Tuesday. Markey urged the agency to halt Google’s data collection of users under 13 and to delete all related data, as a result of alleged Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act infractions. He asked the agency to subject the company to yearly audits and force it to implement mechanisms ensuring the platform follows proper age requirements. He asked the commission to make sure any new Google products aimed at children are reviewed independently for compliance. The Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood and Center for Digital Democracy urged similar remedies, in their letter. The groups recommended the FTC make Google “remove all channels in the Parenting and Family lineup, as well as any other YouTube channels and videos directed at children, from YouTube.” An agency spokesperson confirmed receipt of the letters. The company didn’t comment.
Karl Herchenroeder
Karl Herchenroeder, Associate Editor, is a technology policy journalist for publications including Communications Daily. Born in Rockville, Maryland, he joined the Warren Communications News staff in 2018. He began his journalism career in 2012 at the Aspen Times in Aspen, Colorado, where he covered city government. After that, he covered the nuclear industry for ExchangeMonitor in Washington. You can follow Herchenroeder on Twitter: @karlherk
Government should verify whether platforms are moderating content fairly, Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., said Thursday in defense of a bill that would dramatically alter the tech industry’s Section 230 immunity (see 1906190047). “Government’s not policing speech [under the new bill],” he told reporters in response to comments from Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore. “These companies themselves aren’t speaking. They are moderating others’ content, so they are moderating others’ speech.”
Senate Banking Committee ranking member Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, expects Facebook to testify July 16 about its Project Libra cryptocurrency plans (see 1906180063). The committee announced the hearing for 10 a.m. in 538 Dirksen without listing witnesses. “We expect them to come before the committee,” Brown told us. “The public should know what they’re going to do before they move ahead with this, for sure.” The company didn’t comment. Brown expects the company to argue Project Libra will fill the needs of customers who can’t operate within the traditional banking system. “I think people around here are not particularly trusting of Facebook to look out for them. They’re going to look out for themselves -- no surprise there.” The committee needs “to review it very carefully,” Chairman Mike Crapo, R-Idaho, said, calling the concept “very intriguing.” It’s important to evaluate whether the appropriate regulatory authorities are in place to ensure proper oversight, Crapo told us. American Enterprise Institute Visiting Fellow Jim Harper noted Libra will be a separate entity from the company, and transaction data won’t be available to advertising systems: “Whatever results from stirring the currency and payments pot is likely to be better than what we have now. We might just end up with a secure, privacy-protective internet of money.” The House Financial Services Committee is also seeking a hearing with Facebook on Libra. Brown said the project raises privacy and data security concerns. The Banking Committee hearing will also focus on data privacy. It's time to get moving on privacy legislation to avoid a patchwork of state laws like in California, Senate Majority Whip John Thune, R-S.D., told reporters Tuesday. “My hope would be that we would be able to mark something up before the August break.” It’s unclear if the Senate Commerce Committee privacy group is nearing a draft proposal, he said. It’s going to take a willingness and acceptance of not “getting everything you want,” he added. “Unfortunately, there are some Democrats who are fine with the California law going into effect, and that isn’t going to be helpful obviously if we’re trying to push this through and have a sense of urgency about it.”
Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., introduced legislation to remove Section 230 immunity for big tech companies unless they prove to the FTC every two years that content removal decisions are politically neutral. The bill drew concern from House Judiciary Committee ranking member Doug Collins, R-Ga., and House Commerce Committee ranking member Greg Walden, R-Ore. They warned against government regulation of speech.
The FAA expects to publish an NPRM for drone remote identification by September (see 1805210045), more than a year after the original deadline for issuing a final rule, said Deputy Associate Administrator-Office of Security and Hazardous Materials Angela Stubblefield. Remote ID would allow authorities to identify unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) through device registration.
No Senate Commerce Committee privacy group meetings are scheduled for the six members (see 1905160021), but staffs continue talking, Senate Majority Whip John Thune, R-S.D., told reporters Thursday. Ranking member Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., said staffs met throughout the week, and she also got together with Chairman Roger Wicker, R-Miss. “I’m hoping we can get that jump-started because the California law kicks in January next year. If we don’t have a national standard in place by then, it’s going to be a free for all with the states," Thune said.
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., wants to avoid altering Communications Decency Act Section 230, he told us. Several key lawmakers are discussing the possibility of amending tech industry immunity from third-party content liability.
Amending Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act to hold tech companies more accountable for false and harmful content is worth “serious consideration,” House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., told reporters Thursday. “If social media companies can’t exercise a proper standard of care when it comes to a whole variety of fraudulent or illicit content, then we have to think about whether that immunity still makes sense.”
Big tech companies like Google might need to be broken up because Silicon Valley market power is threatening democracy, three Republican state attorneys general told the FTC Wednesday. During a competition policy hearing, Nebraska AG Doug Peterson (R) urged state enforcers to be fast, thorough and thoughtful in probing the industry: “Once we gather the information necessary, we have to consider whether or not to break things.”
The Senate Banking Committee invited data brokers to testify Tuesday, but they declined because they’re “probably a little bit embarrassed” by their data harvesting business models, ranking member Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, told reporters. Brown criticized the “cowardice” of the industry. He cited some of the biggest names: Acxiom, CoreLogic, Spokeo, ZoomInfo and Oracle. The Consumer Data Industry Association didn’t comment.