Public Knowledge - Blogging, Events, and Action Alerts (Full Text)

Video: Gigi Sohn on GRITtv

Mehan Jayasuriya — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 15:08:00 -0400

Public Knowledge president and co-founder Gigi Sohn did a brief segment for Laura Flanders' GRITtv this past week, outlining PK's mission in broad strokes. Gigi's segment is embedded above--click here to see it in context as part of the full-length episode.

Cell Phone Jamming For Prisons: Because There's Nothing Like A "Solution" That Creates Problems and Solves Nothing.

Harold Feld — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 14:27:19 -0400

As I’ve blogged over at Tales of the Sausage Factory, my even snarkier and wonkier blog, a company called CellAntenna continues to try to leverage the problem of cell phone smuggling into prisons t expand its product line. Sadly, they keep gaining momentum, as lots of people (particularly prison wardens) would like to believe that a new tech gadget can solve their problems. Not only have a bunch of prison wardens filed a Petition for Rulemaking at the FCC, but they are backing a bill that would require the FCC to authorize cell phone jamming in prison.

You can find general background on CellAntenna, their quest to monetize security breaches in prisons, and why this is a bad idea in my Wetmachine post. Also, in preparation for tomorrow’s Senate Hearing on the issue, we have sent this letter (press release here) to Chairman Rockefeller and Ranking Member Hutchison. We’ve also put up another Five Minutes With Harold Feld giving the short version of why this is a really bad idea. But to run through a few headlines:

1) It won’t work. As this Wired article notes, you can beat the jamming with a few pieces of aluminum foil. That doesn’t even consider the human element that prison personnel compromised enough to smuggle in cell phones can also diddle the jamming system.

2) On the other hand, as noted by frequency coordination managers, public safety orgs, and commercial licensees like CTIA, this is very likely to screw up legal wireless communication. I will note that while CellAntenna is real big on applying for permission to do flashy demos under controlled circumstances, they don’t seem terribly eager to submit any actual engineering data to back up their claims that they can jam contraband cell phones in prison areas without interfering with (a) authorized phones used by guards, (b) neighboring public safety frequencies, or (c) anyone outside the prison.

3) OTOH, while this probably won’t do squat to solve the problem of contraband cell phone use, it almost certainly will make it a heck of a lot easier to get cell phone jammers in the U.S. Which has the potential to create real problems for commercial and public safety communications generally.

4) If we really want to address the problem, we need to do better than fake security from expensive new gadgets that won’t work. Cell phone network operators can work with prisons to block all but explicitly authorized phones (called “white listing”) or can monitor cell traffic that originates in prisons that comes from unauthorized sources. We can also reduce the outrageous cost of collect calls from prisoners to their families. As Beiser’s Wired article notes, most prisoners use contraband cell phones to stay in touch with their families because they cannot afford the high rates of prison calls. This makes renting cell phones to prisoners extremely lucrative. Reduce the profit from renting contraband cell phones and you reduce (although do not eliminate) the incentive to bring in cell phones.

Hopefully, folks will wise up to CellAntenna’s scam. It’s not just that bad, easily circumventable security is worse than no security. It’s not just that money spent on jammers that leak like sieves could go to measures that would improve security in prisons and crackdown on contraband. It’s that authorizing this stuff is actually dangerous for everyone who uses wireless — which these days means everybody.

Jamming Prison Cell Phones Threatens Public Safety, Groups Tell Senate

Art Brodsky — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 11:12:45 -0400

For Immediate Release:

July 14, 2009

A day in advance of a Senate Commerce Committee hearing on legislation (S. 251) to allow interference with cellular phones in prisons, nine public interest groups and consumer organizations told the Committee in a July 14 letter that the legislation would cause more serious problems than it would solve.

“Jamming prison cell phones would jeopardize public safety because there is no way to jam only phones used by prisoners. All wireless communications could be shut down within a prison,” said Harold Feld, legal director for Public Knowledge, adding, “Jamming won’t work. You can beat jammers with a few pieces of tin foil. We have better ways of dealing with the problem. Feld also warned: “Once such a jamming device is built, it will inevitably become available on a wider basis. Who knows what chaos that will cause?” According to the letter, “Only a complete prohibition on cell phone jammers has successfully limited the sale and deployment of them in this country. Despite their availability in other countries, use of cell phone jammers in this country is forced underground and does little to interfere with commercial or public safety wireless use.” The threat of widespread jammers is one reason commercial and public safety licensees oppose the attempts of one company, CellAntenna, to deploy the technology.

The letter noted that there is no reason to believe that only signals from certain phones can be blocked: “As spectrum experts have explained, jamming contraband cell phone signals without jamming authorized communications presents an extremely difficult engineering challenge. Cell phone signals use many bands, often proximate to or shared with public safety operations.”

As alternatives, the groups suggested instead beefing up prison security to make certain prisoners don’t get telephones and making certain that telephone rates for prisoners are reasonable. The letter noted: “As documented in a recent report by the Media Justice Fund and Funding Exchange, it can cost the family of a prison inmate $300 a month in collect charges to maintain minimal contact with an imprisoned father, mother, son or daughter. As further documented in Wired Magazine, the high cost of authorized telephone calls makes renting contraband cell phones in prison a lucrative business for prisoners and guards alike. While lowering the coast of legal phone calls between prisoners and families will not entirely eliminate the incentive to smuggle in contraband cell phones, it will help reduce the incentive and make the existing problem far more manageable.”

A brief video on the issue is here: http://www.publicknowledge.org/node/2539

5 Minutes With Harold Feld: "The Prison Problem: Cell Phone Jamming and Shrimp Scampi"

Mehan Jayasuriya — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 10:39:38 -0400

Tomorrow, the Senate Commerce Committee will hold a hearing on the topic of cell phone jamming technologies. Specifically, the Committee will address the issue of whether the government should allow correctional facilities to utilize such technologies to combat the problem of mobile phone use in prisons. In the latest episode of “5 Minutes With Harold Feld,” Harold explores whether such technologies are a viable solution to the problem and asks if the unintended consequences of their use might outweigh the benefits.

Future of Music Policy Summit

Webmaster — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 13:26:14 -0400

October 4, 2009 (All day) - October 6, 2009 (All day)

The Future of Music Coalition announces the eighth Future of Music Policy Summit. FMC is planning a multi-day event with a range of visionary speakers talking about — what else? — the future of music, a full day of artist-oriented presentations and CLE programming.

Georgetown University
Washington, DC

For more information please visit FMC’s website at:
http://www.futureofmusic.org/

TPRC: The 37th Research Conference on Communication, Information and Internet Policy

Webmaster — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 13:07:17 -0400

September 25, 2009 - 1:00pm - September 27, 2009 - 12:50pm

TPRC is a non-profit organization that hosts an annual forum for scholars and decision-makers in the fields of telecommunications and information policy. The purpose of the conference is to acquaint policy-makers with the best of recent research, and to familiarize researchers with the knowledge needs of policy makers.

George Mason University Law School
Arlington, VA

For program and registration information please visit:
http://www.tprcweb.com/

2009 Public Knowledge IP3 Awards Ceremony

Webmaster — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 12:53:46 -0400

October 15, 2009 - 6:00pm - 8:30pm

Public Knowledge will celebrate its 8th Anniversary and 6th Annual IP3 Awards at a ceremony on Thursday, October 15th, 2009. Awards are given to individuals who over the past year (or over the course of their careers) who have advanced the public interest in one of the three areas of “IP” – Internet Protocol, Intellectual Property and Information Policy.

Sewall-Belmont House
144 Constitution Ave, NE
Washington, DC

(on the corner of Constitution Ave and 2nd Street.)

Broadband Competition Policy: After the Stimulus and in the Shadow of the DOJ

Webmaster — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 12:36:08 -0400

July 13, 2009 - 12:00pm - 2:00pm

PK Legal Director Harold Feld will particpate in a panel at this congressional seminar sponsored by the Technology Policy Institute. The seminar will address key questions of how the U.S. broadband market is developing, how competition in the U.S. compares to elsewhere, and how various policy prescriptions, such as open access and functional separation, would be likely to affect investment.

Rayburn House Office Building
Room B340
Washington, DC

For additional information and instructions on registering please visit:
http://www.techpolicyinstitute.org/news/show/23153.html

Fun Event On Capital Hill Next Monday: I Take On The Neocons On BB Policy

Harold Feld — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 11:15:24 -0400

One of the fun things here in D.C. is getting to go to events that are (a) informative on issues, and (b) offer a free lunch. Such is the Broadband Competition Panel sponsored by The Technology Policy Institutenext Monday, July 13, at Noon (for details, follow this link).

TPI has a fairly antiregulatory/UofC/”Free Market” bend to it. Happily, the event organizer, friend and occasional sparring partner Scott Wallsten, likes panels where folks get to mix it up a bit rather than panels where everyone agrees. so he’s asked me to come as the more “regulatory” (or, as I prefer to say “practical and empirically grounded”) panelist to defend how things like net neutrality and more rigorous antitrust enforcement are good things not bad things because they create jobs, spur investment, and protect fundamental freedoms and stuff.

Should be fun. They will provide lunch, but register first. You know what a mob scene these policy debates can be — especially given the hordes of hungry Congressional interns.

I'll have a... what is it called again?

Julian Russo — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 11:10:32 -0400

An article in the New York Times caught my eye last week. Apparently, the name “Dark ‘n’ Stormy” to describe a beverage made from rum and ginger beer is a trademark registered with the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Now, the Times article took a rather light-hearted approach to the issue here, likely because the proposition is somewhat laughable, but if you stop to think about it, this is actually a little scary. Just a few weeks ago my roommate offered me a Dark ‘n’ Stormy, and I’m as sure that he failed to use the two ounces of Gosling’s Black Seal rum required for the legal use of the trademarked name as I am that he had no idea the name of the drink he’d just made was trademark-protected in the first place.

Granted, this is a different scenario than a bar or restaurant turning a profit by serving the product, but trademarks exist for the benefit of the consumer to identify goods and confidently match them to the quality associated with a given producer. We might say “Kleenex” when we’re talking about tissues, but everyone knows that’s just shorthand – in other words, there’s still some value in allowing Kleenex to protect its trademark because I might actually want specifically Kleenex-brand over some rival (or not).

But in this case, the procurer of a specific type of rum has secured the rights to a name that virtually no layman consumer knows is not a generic title! Apparently the drink was invented in Bermuda just after WWI, so there may be some historical tie between the Bermuda based owner of the mark and the drink itself – but that really isn’t so important to me given that the drink name signifies absolutely nothing to potential consumers. Frankly, the whole idea reminds me of a Curb Your Enthusiasm episode involving an argument over the true inventor of the “Cobb salad.”

Extend these kinds of trademarks to cover more drinks and dishes and you can pretty quickly end up with an absurd little scenario where you know what you want to order, the server knows how to make it, but it’s verboten to call it by the usual name (or at least advertise it as such on the menu):

“Hi, I’d like a cosmopolitan.”
“I’m sorry, we don’t serve those…Smirnoff bought the rights. But may I suggest a one of our famous World-Travelers? It’s basically the same thing.”

What's truly vexing is the thought that this kind of trademark-protection could prevent innovation in “mixology” or a wider range of cuisine. Imagine telling a chef she has to come up with a new name for a dish, because she added her own personal flair to it. The Times article pointed out the possible fix of using an ampersand (&) instead of the registered “n” for the “Dark ‘n’ Stormy.” I guess if that’s okay with you, then you won’t mind ordering that “Cawb salad” you like so much…the one you found that gets the ingredients just right.