Politicians have been poking at Section 230 for months. The DoJ doesn’t typically weigh in on legislation, but now, Barr is asking Congress to roll back critical aspects of Section 230. Not only is that unusual, it could add to speculation that some politicians are attempting to “bully tech companies into political submission,” as Senator Brian Schatz previously put it.

Both Democratic and Republican lawmakers have been looking for ways to alter Section 230 and better regulate Big Tech in general. But President Trump also seems to have a personal vendetta against social media platforms. In addition to accusing Facebook and Twitter of having an anti-conservative bias, Trump criticized Twitter after it flagged and hid one of his tweets “for making misleading health claims that could potentially dissuade people from participation in voting.” Earlier this year, shortly after Twitter hid another Trump tweet for glorifying violence, the President signed an executive order targeting social media platforms.

It’s unclear what the future holds for Section 230, but with a push from Barr and the DoJ, reform could arrive sooner rather than later.

The other major concern opponents of the EARN IT Act raise has to do with Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which says that companies are not liable for much of the content that users post. Originally, the EARN IT Act proposed requiring that companies “earn” Section 230 protections by following recommended practices outlined by a Department of Justice (DoJ) commission. Without those protections, companies like Twitter or Facebook might be compelled to remove anything that might prompt a legal challenge, which could threaten freedom of speech.

The amendments passed today strip the DoJ commission of any legal authority and will not require companies to earn Section 230 protections by following recommended practices. But the amended bill would change Section 230 to allow lawsuits from states, and state legislatures could restrict or outlaw encryption technologies. Plus, that could lead to inconsistent laws that vary state-by-state.

“The drafters of this bill obviously want to address real harms from abusive materials, but the amended bill creates an enormous opening for state-level liability,” said Gaurav Laroia, Free Press Action senior policy counsel, in a statement. “Even as amended today, it invites states to begin passing all sorts of laws under the guise of protecting against abuse, but replicating the problems with the original EARN IT Act’s text.”

The ACLU, which says the bill does little to “meaningfully address” the issue of child abuse,” also opposes the new amendments.

“While there are significant changes made in the amended version, these changes do not alleviate the concerns that the EARN IT Act will undermine the privacy of every single American, stifle our ability to communicate freely online, and harm LGBTQ people, sex workers, and protesters,” the ACLU wrote in a statement.

Politicians announced the policy and simultaneously launched a consultation last October. The document included a few alternative plate designs — a completely green licence plate, for instance, and one that included a small green dot — but these were ultimately rejected. The proposal was inspired by a similar scheme in Ontario, Canada. The city allowed EV drivers to use toll roads without being charged, which led to an increase in eligible car purchases.

The reaction to the scheme has been mixed, though. Nicholas Lyes, head of roads policy for breakdown company RAC, is worried that the ‘badge of honour’ will cause resentment among owners of fossil fuel-powered cars. David Bailey, professor of business economics at the University of Birmingham, told Wired that drivers could slap “a big sticker” on their car if they wanted to advertise its green credentials to other road users.

In its response to the initial consultation, the UK’s Surveillance Camera Commissioner warned that the scheme could encourage cloned plates. Obtaining such a plate would, therefore, need to be tightly controlled, the organization added.

Lyes believes that any financial discounts will be short-lived because local authorities desperately need the revenue associated with parking and zero-emission zones. And, “given their relatively high upfront costs, only those drivers that could afford to make the switch to an electric vehicle would benefit – leaving the vast majority who still rely on a petrol and diesel cars losing out,” he said back in October. Instead, he argued that the government should focus on providing better financial incentives at the point of purchase.

Alongside the green plates, the UK government announced a £12 million (roughly $15.2 million) fund for eco-friendly vehicle research. Roughly £10 million will be offered through a Zero Emission Vehicle Innovation Competition, organised by quango Innovate UK, for advancements in electric and hydrogen vehicles, as well as charging infrastructure. The remaining £2 million (roughly $2.5 million) will be given to small and medium-sized businesses researching batteries and other zero-emission technology that could be used by larger car manufacturers.

“The coronavirus pandemic has shown the science and technology gap between the United States and the rest of the world is closing fast and that threatens our long-term health, economic competitiveness, and national security,” Senator Schumer said in a statement. “America cannot afford to continue our decades-long underinvestment and expect to lead the world in advanced scientific and technological research.”

Under the bill, the National Science Foundation (NSF) would be renamed the National Science and Technology Foundation (NSTF) and a new deputy director would oversee the funding. The investment might be used to increase research spending at universities, create new scholarships, fellowships and training programs, develop fabrication facilities, coordinate with state and local economic development stakeholders and more.

Years ago, the Obama administration pushed for increased spending for AI research. While President Trump signed an executive order “prioritizing” AI and the White House launched AI.gov, there hasn’t been a major investment like the one proposed by this bill. This isn’t guaranteed to pass in a Republican-led Senate, but it could be a tremendous help to R&D if it does. 

As proponents of similar measures have said in the past, the Endless Frontiers Act could also create much-needed jobs.

“Particularly at a moment when so many folks are in need of stable employment, Congress should do everything in our power to develop sustainable industries across our country that will be here to stay, or else risk losing our competitive edge to China,” Rep. Khanna said.

This would theoretically prevent Apple, Google and government agencies from collecting more data than they should, or funnelling it into the hands of marketers and others who might abuse it.

However, privacy advocates are concerned it doesn’t do enough and might even worsen consumer safeguards. Public Knowledge Policy Counsel Sara Collins claimed that the bill only covers contact tracing data, not other health or location info, and could still let companies determine who was infected. The bill also “gratuitously preempts” the FCC’s stronger privacy measures for carriers, Collins said, and doesn’t give the FTC the resources or authority to take action. On top of this, the bill could force states to adopt federal rules even if they want to implement stronger approaches.

There’s no guarantee the Act will become law, at least as-is. Provided the Republican-backed bill passes in the Senate, a counterpart bill still has to go through the Democrat-led House. There could be significant disagreements over key points, especially if Democrats share Collins’ belief that it’s really a deregulatory measure in disguise. Nonetheless, this shows how the privacy implications of COVID-19 tracking apps have become hot issues no matter what your political leanings might be.

While the phone tracking hasn’t been detailed in earnest, it’s believed to involve anti-terrorism tech from the Shin Bet domestic security agency. The tracking was used to enforce quarantines, flagging infected people who left home.

The government isn’t happy with the decision. Energy Minister Yuval Steinitz claimed the technology made a “critical contribution” to limiting the pandemic and helping businesses reopen. Israel partly lifted lockdown measures on April 26th.

The government won’t have much choice, though, and its approach has been more invasive than most. Other countries have begun rolling out some form of COVID-19 tracking, but usually through contact tracing apps that require consent. It’s another matter to snoop on the whereabouts of infected people without asking or having an established legal framework. The case may serve as a warning to other countries thinking of using similarly aggressive tactics to curb the spread of the new coronavirus.

The draft does ask the commission to consider issues like privacy and security when establishing the practices. However, the 15-person commission would be led by the Attorney General, and current AG William Barr has been a vocal opponent of end-to-end encryption. As the draft law would let Barr modify the rules without a consensus, it wouldn’t take much for him to require a backdoor and thus weaken encryption for everyone by creating a hacker-friendly vulnerability.

Riana Pfefferkorn, an Associate Director at the Stanford Center for Internet and Society, also warned that the commission wouldn’t have much oversight. She also noted that the last modification of Section 230, for FOSTA-SESTA, is facing a constitutional challenge and appears to have done more to hurt sex workers than curb sex trafficking.

This is a draft bill and isn’t guaranteed to reach the Senate Judiciary Committee as-is, let alone make it to the floor for a vote or pass both sides of Congress. Senator Richard Blumenthal was supposed to co-sponsor the bill, but there hasn’t been any sign of this so far. It does illustrate some congressional attitudes toward liability for online content, though, and suggests that Section 230 might be vulnerable in the future.

The bill was passed in June with strong support, sailing through both the state Senate and the state Assembly will minimal opposition. The new legislation was particularly desired by delivery workers, according to StreetsBlog NYC, who often prefer e-bikes for their work.

However, Gov. Cuomo chose to veto the bill due to a lack of included safety measures. The bill did not include mandatory helmet requirements, for example, although municipalities could still have chosen to enforce a helmet rule if they had wanted to. A copy of the veto message was posted on Twitter by senior advisor to Gov. Cuomo, Rich Azzopardi.

Here is a copy of the e-bike / e-scooter veto message. The short version is that significant safety provisions were left out of the final version. This will be worked in next session. pic.twitter.com/HwD9k3E61T

— Rich Azzopardi (@RichAzzopardi) December 26, 2019

To move forward from here, the New York legislature will have to come up with a new version of the bill, pass it again and send it back to Cuomo will the hope that he will approve it this time.

The drone inspections could alleviate staff shortages at NYC’s building department while saving money. More importantly, they could save lives. The council proposal comes days after falling debris from a fined building killed architect Erica Tishman while she was walking below. Ideally, this would have helped pinpoint and fix the problem.

There’s one problem: right now, the 1948-era airspace laws would forbid drones. The city would have to relax those laws for this concept to move forward. If that happens, though, drones might soon be a regular part of NYC’s landscape.