JUDICIARY: CHAIRMAN NADLER STATEMENT AT SUBCOMMITTEE HEARING ON “ONLINE PLATFORMS AND MARKET POWER, PART III: THE ROLE OF DATA AND PRIVACY IN COMPETITION” - October 18, 2019

Washington, D.C. – Today, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) delivered the following opening remarks during a Subcommittee on Antitrust, Commercial and Administrative Law hearing on “Online Platforms and Market Power. Part III: The Role of Data and Privacy in Competition.”

"Digital technologies have provided Americans with a remarkable array of services. It has never been easier to share news and information, to publish content, and to communicate with loved ones, all at a moment’s notice.

"But, as with technological revolutions of the past, this transformation has upended the balance of power across our economy. It is important for Congress to study and understand how these imbalances are affecting Americans, what is causing these asymmetries of power, and whether these new and growing inequalities are compatible with our democratic values. The Committee’s ongoing oversight of competition in digital markets is a key part of this process.

"Today’s hearing will examine the role that data plays in creating and maintaining inequalities of power and how this affects competition. As previous hearings have shown, a growing share of commerce and communications is now controlled by a small number of companies. Because these platforms are, in essence, large intermediaries, they are perfectly positioned to closely track each transaction and communication that passes through their channels.

"While intermediaries have long-collected information on the economic activity that flows through their platforms, the large firms of the digital economy have unprecedented ability to track and surveil users across the Internet. This data collection includes information not only about a person’s shopping and reading habits, but also about the time that they wake up and go to sleep, their precise location at each hour of the day, and the content of their most private communications.

"Because several of these platforms derive the vast majority of their revenue through digital advertising, these firms also have an incentive to collect as much information as possible so that they can target consumers with precision. This trove of personal information can also be used by companies in even more nefarious ways to discriminate based on a user’s race, gender, or income, or otherwise to intrude on personal privacy.

"In light of these trends, there are at least two questions that I hope will be addressed in today’s hearing. First, how are digital technologies—and the constant data-collection they enable—affecting competition? Is there something unique about digital markets that enables firms to acquire and maintain market power in novel ways?

"In digital markets, maximizing data collection can provide a company with a significant competitive advantage. A large and constantly growing set of user data allows firms both to improve existing products and services and to expand into new lines of business, often with a competitive edge.

"Frequently, the most dominant companies in the digital economy are those that have captured the most data from as many sources as possible. In recent years, scholars have described this dynamic as leading to ‘winner-take-all’ markets, where the first company to establish a competitive lead wins the market, crushing any potential competition.

"In other words, competitors in digital markets have a strong incentive to collect as much information on users as possible—as quickly as possible—as part of a long-term strategy to compete in the marketplace and to achieve market dominance.

"This raises serious questions about whether it is good for society for unrelenting data collection to be the key dimension on which companies are looking to out-compete one another. The fact that several major digital platforms make most of their profits by selling targeted advertisements heightens these incentives.

"The second question that I hope will be addressed in today’s hearing is how data collection increases the number of ways that dominant companies can abuse their market power. Does the collection and use of data enable new forms of conduct that lawmakers and regulators should recognize as anti-competitive? For example, platforms that serve as intermediaries for commerce have critical insight into their rivals’ business models, a dynamic that raises significant competition concerns.

"With these issues in mind, I look forward to hearing from our esteemed panel of witnesses today, and I yield back the balance of my time."

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

JUDICIARY: Online Platforms and Market Power, Part 3: The Role of Data and Privacy in Competition - Bioethics In Modern Day Human Trafficking

Iceland has a generational genetic repository.

Penn State University seems to run the bioethics portion of modern day human trafficking in support of Iceland's commercialization of really, really, tiny humans, like genomes for genomic predictive modeling crap.

Wayne State University has the blood bank.

University of Michigan has the library system of predictive modeling crap.

Michigan State University looks to be the keyman for all the human lab rat experiments.

WHO definitions of genetics and genomics
 Genetics is the study of heredity.1 Genomics is defined as the study of genes and their functions, and related techniques. 1,2 The main difference between genomics and genetics is that genetics scrutinizes the functioning and composition of the single gene where as genomics addresses all genes and their inter relationships in order to identify their combined influence on the growth and development of the organism.

Bioethics is just another reengineered component when it comes to the residuals of the peculiar institution, which is what shall eventually aid in the obviation of policy and law, specifically in the areas of procurement for inurement.

https://www.decode.com/

https://cofs.lara.state.mi.us/CorpWeb/CorpSearch/CorpSummary.aspx?ID=801050160&SEARCH_TYPE=3

Michigan

It all started in Detroit.

Iceland Inc on the Ethics of Commercial Population Genomics by Beverly Tran on Scribd

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

A Cultural Shift: Anti-Tiny Human Trafficking Public Awareness Campaign

Can you tell the difference between child trafficking and something that has always been considered "cute" enough to share in a public venue for anyone to see, and I mean "anyone"?

Pedophilia: You Can Not Stop Those Who Have Never Been Caught

Is it time to stop the marketing of children?

Something to think about.

Happy Child Abuse Propaganda Month.

Michigan Adoption Resource Exchange

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Day 40.8 Carpenter vs. US

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Statement of the Honorable John Conyers, Jr., Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary, for the Markup of H.R. 906, the “Furthering Asbestos Claim Transparency (FACT) Act of 2017”

Dean of the U.S. House
of Representatives
John Conyers, Jr.

Mr. Chairman -- I have several serious concerns with H.R. 906, the “Furthering Asbestos Claim Transparency Act,” or the so-called “FACT Act.”

To begin with, the bill’s reporting and disclosure requirements are an assault against the privacy of asbestos victims who seek payment for their injuries from bankruptcy trusts established for that purpose.

In particular, H.R. 906 would force these trusts to publicly disclose sensitive, personal information of these asbestos claimants, including their names and exposure histories. 

As a result, their private information will be irretrievably released into the public domain available via the Internet.

Just imagine what insurance companies, prospective employers, lenders, and data collectors could do with this private information.  Worse yet, these asbestos victims will be more vulnerable to predators.

By exposing their personal information to the public, H.R. 906 will allow asbestos victims to be re-victimized notwithstanding the fact that such disclosure has absolutely nothing to do with compensation for asbestos exposure.

While H.R. 906's supporters claim that it is intended to help victims of asbestos exposure,  asbestos victims vigorously oppose H.R. 526.  

           

In fact, I am not aware of a single asbestos victim who supports H.R. 526.

Because of this serious shortcoming of the bill,  I intend to offer an amendment that will protect the privacy of asbestos claimants.

Another problem with H.R. 906 is that it is fundamentally inequitable.  

Although the bill requires bankruptcy asbestos trusts to make certain disclosures, it makes no comparable demands on those whose products killed or injured millions of unsuspecting American workers, servicemembers, and consumers. 

In fact, some manufacturers intentionally concealed known risks of asbestos exposure and used every trick in the book to avoid liability.  They even fought the federal government’s efforts to ban its use.

           

As a result, asbestos continued to be widely used in constructing our homes, offices and public schools.  This very building in which we are sitting is in the midst of a nearly 20-year asbestos abatement effort. 

And now, these very same manufacturers ask  Congress to help them by passing H.R. 906, which effectively shifts some of the costs of discovery away from them to asbestos bankruptcy trusts.

Unfortunately, H.R. 906 is nothing more than an attempt by asbestos defendants to do an end-run around the discovery process available under non-bankruptcy law.

           

Finally, contrary to the claims of proponents of this legislation, there is no evidence of endemic fraud warranting such an invasive measure as H.R. 906.

The Government Accountability Office reported that there is no empirical evidence of such fraud with respect to the trusts’ claims processing system.

While not perfect, the trust system set up under Bankruptcy Code section 524(g) has generally proven to be beneficial to both asbestos victims and to corporations facing mass tort liability for causing asbestos injuries. 

           

In exchange for agreeing to fund these trusts, companies are able to shed their massive asbestos tort liabilities and re-enter the business community on a competitive basis for the benefit of their creditors and those who they injured.           

The trusts, in turn, owe a fiduciary duty to all beneficiaries to ensure that only proper claims are paid to the extent possible.

These are just a few of the serious concerns that I have with this legislation.  So, accordingly, I must urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this seriously flawed measure.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

With Rule 41 the FBI Is Now Officially the Enemy of All Computer Users

I am loving every single moment.

It is called "exigent circumstances" and it comes straight out the child welfare playbook.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

CONYERS & POE LEAD BIPARTISAN HOUSE COALITION TO STOP GOVERNMENT SURVEILLANCE AND HACKING

WASHINGTON, D.C.—Congressman John Conyers (D-MI) and Congressman Ted Poe (R-TX) along with Congressman Blake Fahrenthold (R-TX) and Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren (D-CA)introduced H.R. 5321 the Stop Mass Hacking Act. This is the companion bill to legislation introduced on the Senate side by Senators Ron Wyden (D-OR) and Rand Paul (R-KY). The Department of Justice has recently moved to make an administrative rule change to Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure that would give the government the ability to hack the computers of a massive amount of American citizens just by obtaining a single warrant.  If Congress does not act by December 1, 2016, this change will be in effect. The Stop Massive Hacking Act prevents these changes to Rule 41 from going into effect.

Dean of the U.S. House
of Representatives
John Conyers, Jr.

“I stand by the Stop Mass Hacking Act because I am not yet convinced that the proposed changes to Rule 41 are wise or necessary,” said Rep. Conyers. “This rule change is designed to streamline investigative techniques that allow law enforcement to gain unauthorized access and control to remote computer systems.  Until Congress has had an opportunity to examine this proposal in detail—and until we have adequately addressed the privacy concerns raised by my colleagues—this rule change should not take effect.”

“Government does not have the authority to unilaterally legalize widespread government hacking,” said Rep. Poe.  “Americans have rights. It is Congress’ responsibility to safeguard the constitutional rights of the people they represent from a power hungry Executive Branch. As such, we are moving to stop this change that condones hacking the property of the very people we are entrusted to protect.”

“This bill hits pause on a new rule which facilitates hacking of foreign entities and hijacking devices owned by the victims of malware attacks without their permission,” said Rep. Lofgren.  “These troubling activities, and the international, privacy, and security ramifications which may arise as a result, deserve serious deliberation and debate in Congress.”

“We’re in the midst right now of one of the biggest battles in the privacy world that we have faced,” said Rep Farenthold. “Because of the horrendous terrorist attacks we’ve witnessed, there’s a willingness to give up some of our freedoms and privacy in order to feel safe. That’s completely understandable, but if we keep down this path, we’re going to wake up in a few years in George Orwell’s ‘1984.’ This is why, as we fight for security, the intrusion on privacy

necessary to fight the war on terror needs to be narrowly tailored and aggressively overseen.”

“Representatives Poe, Conyers, Farenthold and Lofgren are leading the fight to protect Americans’ freedoms by introducing the Stopping Mass Hacking Act in the House of Representatives,” said Senator Wyden. “They’re proof that a growing, bipartisan coalition agrees that this expansion of the government’s hacking and surveillance authority simply goes too far.”

Stop Mass Hacking Act Summary by Beverly Tran

Read a one-page bill text of the Stopping Mass Hacking (SMH) Act.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

To My Dearest Superfans...

STOP JACKING MY COMPUTER AND PHONE!!!

Now, that I have that off my chest and your undivided attention, listen to me very carefully...I will type extremely slow so you will not miss a single word of what I am about to state.

As a public figure and in the capacity of a really happy gal, I extend invitation to you.

Call me.

We shall set a date and time for you to come over and I shall walk you through my skill sets while I serve you home baked scones and high tea as I dazzle you with my passion.

Oh, what merriment we shall make.

Ciao bellos & bellas!

#DOJ

Conyers Considering Legislation to Curb Government Hacking

Dean of the U.S. House
of Representatives
John Conyers, Jr.

The top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, Michigan Rep. John Conyers, is looking into joining Sen. Ron Wyden’s (D-Ore.) movement to reverse Supreme Court-approved changes to federal criminal procedure that could expand government-run hacking operations. The change would allow judges to grant warrants for computer and data investigations in any jurisdiction.

“Many in the House, both Democrats and Republicans, remain concerned about the investigatory techniques at the heart of this discussion,” Conyers said late Thursday. “We will continue to study the issue and, when appropriate, we hope to join Senator Wyden in his call to block the change.”

Wyden introduced a bill on Thursday to reverse changes to federal criminal procedure “Rule 41,” approved by the Supreme Court in late April. Upon the introduction of the bill, Wyden’s office indicated a House companion bill is expected soon to reverse what Wyden called “dramatic expansion of the government’s hacking and surveillance authority.”

“These rule changes will allow the government to search millions of computers with the warrant of a single judge,” Wyden added in a Thursday post on Medium.

Sens. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), Steve Daines (R-Mont.) and Jon Tester (D-Mont.) cosponsor the Senate measure.

The Department of Justice requested the changes after three years of negotiations, and have disputed privacy advocates’ interpretation of the rule change.

“The amendment would not authorize the government to undertake any search or seizure or use any remote search technique not already permitted under current law, and the amendment does not change any of the traditional protections and procedures, such as the requirement that the government establish probable cause,” a DOJ spokesman said in an emailed statement Thursday.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Statement of Ranking Member John Conyers, Jr. Full Committee Hearing: “The Encryption Tightrope: Balancing Americans’ Security and Privacy”

Dean of the U.S. House
of Representatives
John Conyers, Jr.

“Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  I want to associate myself with your comments about our jurisdiction. 

“It is not an accident that the House Judiciary Committee is the committee of primary jurisdiction with respect to the legal architecture of government surveillance. 

“In times of heightened tension, many of our colleagues will rush to do something, anything, to get out in front of an issue.  We welcome their voices in the debate—but it is here, in this Committee room, that the House begins to make decisions about the tools and methods available to law enforcement.

“I believe that it is important to say up front, before we get into the details of the Apple case, that strong encryption keeps us safe even as it protects our privacy. 

“Former NSA Director Michael Hayden said last week that ‘America is more secure . . . with unbreakable end-to-end encryption.’

“In this room, just last Thursday, former Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff testified that, in his experience, strong encryption helps law enforcement more than it hinders any agency in any given case.

“The National Security Council has concluded that ‘the benefits to privacy, civil liberties, and cybersecurity gained from encryption outweigh the broader risks . . . created by weakening encryption.’

           

            “And Director Comey has put it very plainly:

‘Universal strong encryption will protect all of us—our innovation, our private thoughts, and so many other things of value—from thieves of all kinds.  We will all have lock-boxes in our lives that only we can open and in which we can store all that is valuable to us.  There are lots of good things about this.’

“Now, for years, despite what we know about the benefits of encryption, the Department of Justice and the FBI have urged this Committee to give them the authority to mandate that companies create back doors into their secure products. 

“I have been reluctant to support this idea for a number of reasons.  The technical experts have warned us that it is impossible to intentionally introduce flaws into secure products—often called ‘back doors’—that only law enforcement can exploit, to the exclusion of terrorists and cyber criminals. 

“The tech companies have warned us that it would cost millions of dollars to implement and would place them at a competitive disadvantage around the world. 

“The national security experts have warned us that terrorists and other criminals will simply resort to other tools, entirely outside the reach of our law enforcement and intelligence agencies.

“And I accept that reasonable people can disagree with me on each of these points.

“What concerns me, Mr. Chairman, is that in the middle of an ongoing congressional debate on this subject, the FBI would ask a federal magistrate to give them the special access to secure products that this Committee, this Congress, and the Administration have so far refused to provide.

“Why has the government taken this step and forced this issue?  I suspect that part of the answer lies in an email obtained by the Washington Post and reported to the public last September. 

“In it, a senior lawyer in the intelligence community writes that although ‘the legislative environment towards encryption is very hostile today . . . it could turn in the event of a terrorist attack or criminal event where strong encryption can be shown to have hindered law enforcement.’

“He concluded that there is value in ‘keeping our options open for such a situation.’

“I am deeply concerned by this cynical mindset.  And I would be deeply disappointed if it turns out that the government is found to be exploiting a national tragedy to pursue a change in the law.

“I also have doubts about the wisdom of applying the All Writs Act—which was enacted in 1789, codified in 1911, and last applied to a communications provider by the Supreme Court in 1977—to a profound question about privacy and modern computing in 2016.

“I fear that pursuing this serious and complex issue through the awkward use of an inapt statute was not, and is not, the best course of action.

“I am not alone in this view.  Yesterday, in the Eastern District of New York, a federal judge denied a motion to order Apple to unlock an iPhone under circumstances similar to those in San Bernardino.

“The court found that the All Writs Act, as construed by the government, would confer on the courts an ‘overbroad authority to override individual autonomy.’

“Moreover, ‘nothing in the government’s argument suggests any principled limit on how far a court may go in requiring a person or company to violate the most deeply-rooted values.’

“We could say the same about the FBI’s request in California.  The government’s assertion of power is without limiting principle and likely to have sweeping consequences—whether or not we pretend that the request is limited to just this device, or just this one case.

“This Committee, and not the courts, is the appropriate place to consider those consequences—even if the dialogue does not yield the result desired by some in the law enforcement community.

“I am grateful that we are having this conversation today, back in the forum in which it belongs: the House Judiciary Committee.  I thank the Chairman, and I yield back.”

Testimony of Bruce Sewell Senior Vice President and General Counsel of Apple on iPhone Encryption March 1,...

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

House Judiciary Committee to Hold Hearing on Encryption

Dean of the U.S. House
of Representatives
John Conyers, Jr.

Washington, D.C.  – On Tuesday, March 1, 2016 at 1:00 p.m., the House Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing titled “The Encryption Tightrope: Balancing Americans’ Security and Privacy.” The House Judiciary Committee previously held member briefings on encryption, which included a briefing from technology companies and a classified briefing from the government. 

Below is a statement from House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) and Ranking Member John Conyers (D-Mich.) on this hearing.

“The widespread use of strong encryption has implications both for Americans’ privacy and security. As technology companies have made great strides to enhance the security of Americans’ personal and private information, law enforcement agencies face new challenges when attempting to access encrypted information. Americans have a right to strong privacy protections and Congress should fully examine the issue to be sure those are in place while finding ways to help law enforcement fight crime and keep us safe.

“Next week, the House Judiciary Committee will continue its examination of encryption and the questions it raises for Americans and lawmakers. As we move forward, our goal is to find a solution that allows law enforcement to effectively enforce the law without harming the competitiveness of U.S. encryption providers or the privacy protections of U.S. citizens.”

As encryption has increasingly become much more widespread among consumers, there is an ongoing national debate about the positive and negative implications it poses for consumers’ security and privacy. Encryption is used to strengthen consumers’ privacy but it also has presented new challenges for law enforcement seeking to obtain information during the course of its criminal investigations. For example, following the December 2015 terrorist attack in San Bernardino, California, investigators recovered a cell phone belonging to one of the terrorists responsible for the attack. After the FBI was unable to unlock the phone and recover its contents, a federal judge recently ordered Apple to provide “reasonable technical assistance to assist law enforcement agents in obtaining access to the data” on the device.

Witnesses for the hearing are:

Panel I

·         The Honorable James B. Comey, Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation

Panel II

·         Mr. Bruce Sewell, Senior Vice President and General Counsel, Apple, Inc.

·         Ms. Susan Landau, Professor, Worcester Polytechnic Institute

·         Mr. Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York County

This hearing will take place in 2141 Rayburn House Office Building and will be webcast live at http://judiciary.house.gov/. Camera crews wishing to cover must be congressionally-credentialed and RSVP with the House Radio-TV Gallery at (202) 225-5214.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Senior House Judiciary Committee Democrats Express Concern Over Government Attempts to Undermine Encryption

Earlier this week, through a court order, the United States government demanded that Apple Inc. help the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) develop software in an effort to break the encryption on an iPhone that was recovered after the recent shootings in San Bernardino, California.  The government cited the “All Writs Act,” enacted in 1789, to demand that the technology company create a new version of the iPhone operating system to circumvent several security features on the device.  Apple has five days to respond to the court’s order.  The House Judiciary Committee will hold an oversight hearing on the encryption debate on March 1.

Dean of the U.S. House
of Representatives
John Conyers, Jr.

Senior Democratic Members of the House Judiciary Committee, Reps. Conyers, Nadler, Lofgren and Jackson Lee, released the following statement in response:

“The terrorist attack in San Bernardino was a tragic event.  We agree that heightened vigilance is necessary to combat the threat of home grown extremism in all of its forms.  In this effort, we commit our full support to law enforcement agencies at the local, state, and federal levels and hope to provide them with the resources and tools they require to perform their jobs. 

“But there is little reason for the government to make this demand on Apple—except to enact a policy proposal that has gained no traction in Congress and was rejected by the White House.

“Properly understood, strong encryption is our best defense against online criminals—including terrorist organizations.  It is the backbone of the Internet economy and vital for the protection of both free expression and privacy.  The government’s demand on Apple would coerce a private U.S. company to hack its own device, threatening the trust of millions of customers and placing our technology industry at a significant disadvantage abroad. 

“In a September 2015 article, the Washington Post  cited an email from a top intelligence community official which stated: ‘the legislative environment is very hostile today . . . it could turn in the event of a terrorist attack or criminal event where strong encryption can be shown to have hindered law enforcement.’  We are concerned that the heartbreaking event in San Bernardino is being exploited to undertake an end-run around the legislative process in just this fashion.”

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Floor Statement of the Honorable John Conyers, Jr., Ranking Member of the Committee on the Judiciary on H.R. 1927, the “Fairness in Class Action Litigation and Further Asbestos Claims Transparency Act of 2015"

“Mr.  Chair – I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 1927, the ‘Fairness in Class Action Litigation and Furthering Asbestos Claims Transparency Act of 2015."

“I oppose this legislation because it shields corporate wrongdoers by making it more difficult for those who have been harmed by their actions from obtaining justice and allows these wrongdoers to further victimize their victims."

“Among H.R. 1927's many flaws is the fact that this legislation will have the effect of denying individuals access to justice and threatening victims of corporate wrongdoing, all in the name of protecting the powerful."

“This legislation is just the latest attempt to take power away from ordinary citizens and place it in the hands of the most powerful corporations and industries."

“Whether it is by making it almost impossible for ordinary people to pursue their day in court through the important class action mechanism or threatening the privacy of asbestos victims, it is clear that H.R. 1927 does not have the interests of ordinary people in mind".

“And it raises the broader question of who rightfully should hold power in a representative democracy like ours – politically unaccountable corporations who seek only to maximize their own profit, or the people, who are supposed to be sovereign.  I say it is the people."

“Section 2 of H.R. 1927 will make it virtually impossible for victims of corporate wrongdoing to obtain relief through class actions in cases seeking monetary relief by requiring a party seeking class certification to show that every potential class member suffered the same type and scope of injury at the certification stage."

“Class actions are an important means for consumers to hold wrongdoers accountable without having to engage in multiple duplicative actions."

“Most importantly, class actions make it financially feasible for those who have smaller, but not inconsequential injuries to obtain justice. "

“These injuries include such diverse matters as breach of warranty, products liability, and employment discrimination."

“As it is, class actions are very difficult to pursue.  Under current procedure, the courts strictly limit the grounds by which a large group of plaintiffs may be certified as a class, including the requirement that their claims raise common and factual legal questions and that the class representative’s claims are typical of those of the other class members."

“Rather than improving upon this class certification process, however, H.R. 1927 imposes requirements that are almost impossible to meet, effectively undermining the use of class actions."

“Finally, section 3 of H.R. 1927 gives asbestos defendants – the very entities whose products injured millions of Americans– new weapons with which to harm their victims. "

“Section 3 requires a bankruptcy asbestos trust to report on the court’s public case docket – which is then made available on the Internet – the name and exposure history of each asbestos victim who receives payment from such trust as well as the basis of any payment made to the victim. "

“As a result, the confidential personal information of asbestos claimants – including their names and exposure histories – would be irretrievably released into the public domain. "

“Just imagine what identity thieves, and others, such as insurers, potential employers, lenders, and data collectors could do with this sensitive information."

“Essentially, this bill re-victimizes asbestos victims by exposing their private information to the public – information that has absolutely nothing to do with compensation for asbestos exposure."

      

“This explains why asbestos victims vigorously oppose this legislation as it is an assault against their privacy interests."

“In sum, H.R. 1927 is a seriously flawed bill that only benefits those who caused harm to others. Not surprisingly, the White House issued a veto threat, stating that the Administration ‘strongly opposes House passage of H.R. 1927 because it would impair the enforcement of important Federal laws, constrain access to the courts, and needlessly threaten the privacy of asbestos victims."

“For these reasons, I urge strong opposition to H.R. 1927 and I reserve the balance of my time.”

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Statement of the Honorable John Conyers, Jr. on H.R. 699, “The Email Privacy Act”

Dean of the U.S. House
of Representatives
John Conyers, Jr.

“As of this morning, the bill has earned 304 cosponsors—191 Republicans, 113 Democrats, and 27 members of the House Judiciary Committee.  What do all of these members have in common?

           

“First, we all agree that the Electronic Communications Privacy Act is outdated and provides unjustifiably inconsistent standards for government access to our stored communications.

           

“This statute continues to serve as one of the main guarantees of our digital privacy.

           

“But the law was designed in 1986, when few of us used email, and fewer imagined a world in which we could so freely share information online.

            “The consequences of applying a thirty-year-old understanding of technology to modern communications are inconsistent, at best. 

            “For example, the law seems to apply different standards for government access to the same email at different points in its lifecycle—when it is drafted, when it is transmitted, when it opened by its recipient, and when it is archived in the cloud.

            “We are not well-served by a law whose application is unpredictable, and that the courts have had great difficulty interpreting. 

            “Because of the rapid pace of technological change, this situation will only get worse if we do not act.

            “Second, the sponsors of this bill agree that the government should be obligated to show probable cause before it can force a provider to disclose the content its customer’s email—no matter how old the message is.

            “This standard is consistent with the holding of the Sixth Circuit in U.S. v. Warshak in 2010.  That case motivated the Department of Justice to voluntarily adopt a warrants-for-email standard. 

            “It also effectively ended the unconstitutional use of subpoenas to compel third parties to produce content in civil enforcement actions.

            “Current law requires the government to show probable cause and obtain a warrant only for email that has been in storage for 180 days or less.  But the government can use an subpoena for the same email if it is stored for one day longer.

           

“This is no longer acceptable to most Americans.  As the Sixth Circuit rightly observed, citizens have the same reasonable expectation of privacy in their email before and after the 180-day mark.

            “And as the Department of Justice testified soon thereafter, “there is no principled basis to treat email less than 180 days old differently than email more than 180 days old.”

            “Third, the sponsors of H.R.699 all agree that current law is not adequate to protect new forms of digital communication.

            “Content is content.  Our expectation of privacy does not diminish merely because Congress didn’t think of the medium when it last visited the statute.  The law should protect electronic communications across the board:  email, text messages, private messaging of all sort, and other forms of digital information stored in the cloud.

           

“Finally, the sponsors of this bill agree that we must act without delay.

            “We have an obligation to provide clear standards to law enforcement with respect to emerging technologies.

            “We should also recognize that American businesses cannot sustain these new technologies if consumers cannot trust them.

            “As the Committee takes up this bill, we should ensure that it does not conflict with the basic notion that the government’s seizure of our email without a warrant violates the Fourth Amendment.

            “But we should note that this principle has already taken hold across the federal government.  The Department of Justice already uses warrants for email in criminal cases. 

            “The government stopped using lesser process in the civil context years ago."

            “In short, Mr. Chairman, this legislation accomplishes two vital tasks: it updates the statute for modern use, and it does so without any significant interruption to law enforcement."

            “We should come together on this bill as soon as possible."

            “I thank the witnesses for their testimony today and I urge my colleagues to give this measure their full support.”    

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©