Tech Law Journal Daily E-Mail Alert
September 12, 2003, 9:00 AM ET, Alert No. 738.
Home Page | Calendar | Subscribe | Back Issues | Reference
Bush Proposes Expanded Administrative Subpoena Power

9/10. President Bush gave a speech at the FBI Academy at Quantico, Virginia, on September 10, in which he stated that the Congress should pass legislation giving law enforcement new tools, including administrative subpoena power, to fight terrorism. On September 9, Rep. Tom Feeney (R-FL) introduced HR 3037, the "Antiterrorism Tools Enhancement Act of 2003", for this purpose.

President Bush stated in his address to Marines, FBI agents and others, that "The Patriot Act imposed tough new penalties on terrorists and those who support them. But as the fight against terrorists progressed, we have found areas where more help is required. Under current federal law, there are unreasonable obstacles to investigating and prosecuting terrorism, obstacles that don't exist when law enforcement officials are going after embezzlers or drug traffickers. For the sake of the American people, Congress should change the law, and give law enforcement officials the same tools they have to fight terror that they have to fight other crime."

Bush continued: "Here's some examples. Administrative subpoenas, which enable law enforcement officials to obtain certain records quickly, are critical to many investigations. They're used in a wide range of criminal and civil matters, including health care fraud and child abuse cases. Yet, incredibly enough, in terrorism cases, where speed is often of the essence, officials lack the authority to use administrative subpoenas. If we can use these subpoenas to catch crooked doctors, the Congress should allow law enforcement officials to use them in catching terrorists."

Tom FeeneyRep. Feeney (at right), who is a member of the House Judiciary Committee, the committee with jurisdiction over the bill, stated in a release that "Congress needs to take every precaution possible to ensure that the American public is protected from the horrific acts of terrorism ... This legislation will provide continuity in the nationwide effort to defend the freedoms that we hold sacred while awarding greater enforcement ability to those who defend them."

HR 3037 would add a new section to Title 18 (the criminal code) titled "Administrative subpoenas in terrorism investigations".

This new section provides that "In any investigation concerning a Federal crime of terrorism (as defined in section 2332b(g)(5)), the Attorney General may subpoena witnesses, compel the attendance and testimony of witnesses, and require the production of any records (including books, papers, documents, electronic data, and other tangible things that constitute or contain evidence) that he finds relevant or material to the investigation." (Parentheses in original.)

It further provides that a witness may be directed by the subpoena to appear at any hearing within "500 miles distant from the place where he was served with a subpoena".

The bill further provides that the Attorney General may also mandate secrecy. The bills states that "If the Attorney General certifies that otherwise there may result a danger to the national security, no person shall disclose to any other person that a subpoena was received or records were provided pursuant to this section, other than to (A) those persons to whom such disclosure is necessary in order to comply with the subpoena, (B) an attorney to obtain legal advice with respect to testimony or the production of records in response to the subpoena, or (C) other persons as permitted by the Attorney General." Knowing violations would constitute crimes.

The bill also contains several significant limitations on judicial review of these administrative subpoenas, and the secrecy determinations. The bill states, in part, that "At any time before the return date specified in the summons, the person or entity summoned may, in the United States district court for the district in which that person or entity does business or resides, petition for an order modifying or setting aside the summons."

First, judicial review would only be available "before the return date specified in the summons". In many situations, this time would run before the subpoenaed party could obtain counsel and prepare and file a legal challenge.

Second, the bill would limit standing to challenge a subpoena, or a secrecy determination, to the party served with the subpoena. The import of this is that in some cases the subpoena may be directed to an internet service provider (ISP) or communications carrier, but seek data on customers of the ISP or carrier. The customers whose data is sought would not have standing, under this language of this bill, to challenge the subpoena. Nor would industry groups or privacy advocates have standing to challenge a subpoena.

Third, the bill provides that in any challenge to a subpoena, the court may consider the government's information "ex parte and in camera". That is, the party challenging the subpoena may not learn, and therefore, may not be able to rebut, confront, or cross examine the evidence presented by the government.

Ex parte is legal Latin for something that is brought to the attention of the court by one party without notice to the other party; most ex parte communications are prohibited. In camera is legal Latin for something that happens in the judge's office, as opposed to in open court.

The bill also provides that "Any person, including officers, agents, and employees, who in good faith produce the records or items requested in a subpoena shall not be liable in any court of any State or the United States to any customer or other person for such production or for nondisclosure of that production to the customer or other person." This removes a disincentive of ISPs, carriers and other records holders to promptly disclose the information that they possess about third parties.

HR 3037 also would also amend Rule 41(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure to read as follows: "(3) a magistrate judge -- in an investigation of (A) a Federal crime of terrorism (as defined in 18 U.S.C. 2332b(g)(g)); or (B) an offense under 18 U.S.C. 1001 or 1505 relating to information or purported information concerning a Federal crime of terrorism (as defined in 18 U.S.C. 2332b(g)(5)) -- having authority in any district in which activities related to the Federal crime of terrorism or offense may have occurred, may issue a warrant for a person or property within or outside that district." (Parentheses in original.)

The current Rule 41(b)(3) was added by the PATRIOT Act. It created nationwide search warrants in terrorism cases. HR 3037 would expand the class of crime and offense investigations for which these warrants would be available.

Also on September 9, Attorney General John Ashcroft gave a speech in New York City in which he discussed the PATRIOT Act. He stated that it "updates our anti-terrorism laws to meet the challenges of new technology, and new threats."

Ashcroft continued that "In an age when terrorists have cellular, even satellite, phones, we must anticipate, out-think, and adapt to the new tactics and technology of our terrorist foes. Under the Patriot Act, prosecutors may now use a ``roving wiretap´´ to track a terror suspect's communication even when the suspected terrorist switches, changes, or abandons phones to avoid detection."

"Since 1986, we have effectively used roving wiretaps to track suspected drug dealers. Thanks to the Patriot Act, we can now use them to track the terrorist threat", said Ashcroft.

CTIA Announces Voluntary Consumer Code for Wireless Carriers

9/9. The Cellular Telecommunications & Internet Association (CTIA) released a voluntary code for wireless service providers titled "Consumer Code". See, CTIA release. This announcement follows a July 24, 2003 proposal by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) to enact a "Telecommunications Consumer Bill of Rights" that the CTIA considers onerous. See, CPUC summary [MS Word].

For example, the CTIA code provides that service providers should voluntarily "Provide every new consumer a minimum 14-day trial period for new service." In contrast, the CPUC proposal would mandate that "Subscribers may cancel any contracted service without fees, charges or penalties (except for usage fees), within 45 days if the carrier did not provide the contract at the time of sale. If the carrier provided the contract at the time of sale, the customer has 30 days within which they can cancel without fees, charges or penalties." (Parentheses in original.)

Similarly, the CTIA code provides that carriers should "Abide by policies for the protection of customer privacy". The CPUC proposal would require that "Carriers may not deny service for failure to provide a social security number" and that "Carriers must tell customers and obtain their written consent before using confidential customer information for any purpose other than the provision and/or billing of the service, or if they give such information to a third party."

Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Michael Powell released a statement [PDF] commending the CTIA. He stated that "The proper functioning of a highly competitive market -- which the wireless market has proven to be -- depends on consumers having accurate and meaningful information at all stages of the customer relationship with the provider." He added that "Ultimately, voluntary efforts, like the code, are not only good for consumers; they are good for business too by improving the customer experience and encouraging subscription. I look forward to continuing to work with the wireless industry and consumers to ensure spectrum-based services deliver value for the American people."

FCC Commissioner Kathleen Abernathy also issued a statement [PDF] supporting the CTIA. She wrote that "I would like to applaud CTIA and the wireless industry for creating a Consumer Code for Wireless Service. The competitive nature of the wireless industry has prompted this action as a means of responding to consumer demands for increased information regarding rates and terms of service."

Abernathy also stated that "the industry's willingness to adopt a voluntary code of conduct avoids the need for costly regulatory oversight while delivering greater value to wireless customers."

Michael Gallagher, acting Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information, also issued a statement: "Customer service is good for competition and great for the 148 million wireless customers in the United States. We will be very interested in monitoring the wireless industry's efforts to meet this new standard of performance. I commend CTIA and the companies who have adopted the Consumer Code for the step forward they take today."

The Consumers Union (CU) and other groups support the proposal before the CPUC. Janee Briesemeister, Senior Policy Analyst for CU, stated in a release that “The cell phone companies have locked in profits with iron clad contracts for services that don't work and complicated and inaccurate billing that no one understands ... Customers who try to complain are subjected to endless automated messages that never lead to anything but irritation. This proposal offers essential consumer safeguards that are long overdue.”

The CTIA's proposed Consumer Code is as follows:
"1. Provide every new consumer a minimum 14-day trial period for new service.
2. Provide coverage maps, illustrating where service is generally available.
3. In every advertisement that mentions pricing, specifically disclose the rates and terms of service.
4. For every rate plan or contract, provide consumers specific disclosures regarding rates and terms of service.
5. On billing statements, carriers will not label cost recovery fees or charges as taxes, and will separately identify carrier charges from taxes.
6. When initiating or changing service, carriers will clearly state contract terms to customers and confirm changes in service.
7. Provide customers the right to terminate service for significant changes to contract terms.
8. Provide ready access to customer service.
9. Promptly respond to consumer inquiries and complaints received from government agencies.
10. Abide by policies for the protection of customer privacy."

Also, on September 9, the CPUC fined Cingular Wireless $12.14 Million. The CPUC stated in a release the Cingular's "corporate policy and practice in California did not allow any ``grace period´´ or trial of its wireless service. Furthermore, Cingular's corporate policy prohibited early termination of wireless service contracts unless the customer paid an early termination fee of $150. Some Cingular agents imposed an additional early termination fee of as much as $400, for a total of as much as $550. Given Cingular's own testimony to the PUC that testing wireless service by using the phone is the best way for a customer to ascertain whether the service meets his or her needs, binding that customer in advance to a one or two year contract constituted an unjust and unreasonable rule and resulted in inadequate, unjust, and unreasonable service in violation Public Utilities Code and a previous Commission decision (D.95-04-028)."

Senate Foreign Relations Committee Holds Hearing on PR China

9/11. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee held a hearing titled "U.S. China Relations". The State Department's James Kelly testified regarding trade issues. Amnesty International's T. Kumar testified regarding internet censorship in the People's Republic of China.

Trade Issues. James Kelly, Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs, wrote in his prepared testimony [14 pages in PDF] that "China has implemented market-oriented reforms over the past two decades and unleashed individual initiative and entrepreneurship. While substantial development challenges remain, the result has been the largest reduction of poverty and one of the fastest increases in income levels ever seen."

He stated that the U.S. has a trade deficit with China, and is working to eliminate "unfair trade practices" and to get China to "open its markets further". He further commented that "Maintaining domestic support for open markets to China will become increasingly difficult without demonstrated support in China for open markets to U.S. goods and services."

James KellyKelly (at right) also discussed China membership in the World Trade Organization (WTO). He stated that "China's full and timely implementation of its WTO commitments is key to expanding market opportunities for U.S. firms in China and ultimately creating more jobs for American workers and farmers. We are working with our Chinese counterparts to hasten that process, and believe China's WTO implementation will accelerate China's economic reform through the creation of a more rules-based and market-driven economy. While China has made great strides in reforming its economy and moving toward a market-based economy, lowering tariffs in the process, we still believe more needs to be done."

He added that "We have serious concerns with China's WTO compliance in certain areas -- particularly in agriculture, intellectual property rights, the services sector, and the cross-cutting issue of transparency -- and are insisting that the Chinese address these concerns."

Internet Censorship. T. Kumar, Advocacy Director for Asia & Pacific at Amnesty International USA, testified regarding the "vast scope of human rights violations", including internet related restrictions. He stated in his prepared testimony [18 pages in PDF] that the "groups targeted for repression include ... people using the Internet to disseminate information deemed to be ``politically sensitive.´´"

Kumar elaborated that "In China, individuals can be sentenced to death for publishing information on the internet that the government considers a ``state secret´´. Scores of people have been imprisoned in China for using the internet; of those arrested at-least three have died as a result of torture by police."

"With the introduction of the Internet, news reaches China from a multiplicity of sources enabling people to form opinions, analyze and share information and to communicate in ways previously unknown in China. Lively on-line debate flourished in China. However, the potential of the Internet to spread new ideas has led the authorities to take measures to control its use", said Kumar.

Kumar added that "The Chinese government has introduced numerous regulations, closed Internet cafes, and blocked e-mails, search engines, foreign news and politically sensitive websites. Recently, it has introduced filtering systems for web searches and has even created a special ``internet police´´ to enforce these restrictions. The Ministry of State Security has reportedly installed tracking devises on Internet service providers to monitor individual email accounts and all internet cafes are required to register and inform the police about their customers."

Finally, he stated that "The Chinese government has also forced Internet companies to take on the responsibility of policing the web. A ``Public Pledge on Self-Discipline´´ was introduced in August 2002 requiring internet companies to agree not to allow the posting of ``pernicious´´ information that may ``jeopardize state security, disrupt social stability, contravene laws and spread superstition and obscenity´´. Yahoo also signed to this pledge to police internet users. After a fire in an internet cafe in Beijing last year, authorities closed thousands of internet cafes and demanded that those allowed to re-open do so only after installing filtering software to block web sites considered ``politically sensitive´´ or ``reactionary´´. The software prevents access to 500,000 various websites."

See, related stories titled "AEI Panel Advocates Freeing the Chinese Internet" and "Technologies of Internet Censorship" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 416, April 23, 2002.

See also, the "Global Internet Freedom Act". It is sponsored by Rep. Chris Cox (R-CA), Rep. Tom Lantos (D-CA), and others. It was introduced in the 107th Congress as HR 5524. It was re-introduced in the current Congress as HR 48. The Senate version in the 107th Congress was S 3093, sponsored by Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) and Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ).

9th Circuit Rules on Customer Antitrust Injury

9/9. The U.S. Court of Appeals (9thCir) issued its opinion [28 pages in PDF] Glen Holly Entertainment v. Tektronix, a case regarding customer antitrust injury.

Glen Holly, also known as Digital Images, was in the business of leasing to film companies for their own use non-linear editing equipment which it purchased from the manufacturer, Tektronix, and using these systems to perform professional editing services for customers in the film industry. Non-linear editing is a digital technology based method of  accessing and rearranging film images and audio tracks.

Glen Holly filed a private antitrust action in U.S. District Court (CDCal) against Tektronix and Avid Technologies, alleging that until 1998 they were there were only two competing manufacturers of non linear editing equipment, that Glen Holly purchased its equipment from Tektronix, and that in 1998 Avid and Tektronix entered into an agreement whereby Tektronix ceased production and marketed Avid's product, in violation of antitrust laws.

The District Court dismissed for lack of antitrust standing. The Appeals Court reversed the dismissal for lack of antitrust standing (but affirmed the dismissal of several state law claims). Judge Stephen Trott wrote the opinion for a unanimous three judge panel.

He wrote that "Given that customers are the intended beneficiaries of competition, and that customers are presumptively those injured by its unlawful elimination, for pleading purposes we conclude that Digital Images has satisfied the requirement that it adequately allege antitrust injury to its business."

He added that "If the antitrust laws are designed to protect customers from the harm of unlawfully elevated prices, and from ``agreements between competitors at the same level of the market structure to allocate territories in order to minimize competition,´´ ... it is no stretch to conclude that these same laws protect customers from harm directly related to the unlawful removal of a competitive product from the market. If ... ``competitors may be able to prove antitrust injury before they actually are driven from the market and competition is thereby lessened,´´ ... one would think that a customer in business directly driven from the market by an agreement in restraint of trade would be able to do the same. It is one thing for a business to have cast its fate with a product that disappears because of the normal forces of the market; it is another to have the rug pulled out from under a business by a conspiratorial agreement to eliminate a competing product from the process upon which our economic model depends in order to promote social welfare." (Citations omitted.)

Glen Holly also argued that the case should be reassigned to another judge on remand. It argued that Judge Stephen Wilson should be replaced because he stated that he would not hire any more law clerks from Yale. Judge Trott, who went to Harvard, rejected this argument.

This case is Glen Holly Entertainment v. Tektronix, Inc. and Avid Technologies, Inc., No. 01-56447, an appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Judge Stephen Wilson presiding, D.C. No. CV-99-02476-SVW.

SCO CEO Criticizes Open Source Development Model

9/9. Darl McBride, CEO of SCO Group (SCO), which is also known as Caldera, wrote an open letter to the Open Source community regarding UNIX System V, SCO Group's lawsuit against IBM, intellectual property rights, the open source software movement, and denial of service attacks directed at the SCO Group website.

On March 6, 2003, Caldera (SCO) filed a complaint in state court in Utah against IBM alleging misappropriation of trade secrets, tortious interference, unfair competition and breach of contract in connection with IBM's alleged use of Caldera's proprietary UNIX code.

IBM filed its answer [17 page PDF scan] on April 30, 2003. It asserted that "contrary to Caldera's allegations, by its lawsuit, Caldera seeks to hold up the open source community (and development of Linux in particular) by improperly seeking to assert proprietary rights over important, widely used technology and impeding the use of that technology by the open source community." (Parentheses in original.)

In his September 9 letter, McBride referenced "an admission by Open Source leader Bruce Perens that UNIX System V code (owned by SCO) is, in fact, in Linux, and it shouldn't be there." (Parentheses in original.) McBride then asserted that "This improper contribution of UNIX code by SGI into Linux is one small example that reveals fundamental structural flaws in the Linux development process."

He continued that "this issue goes to the very heart of whether Open Source can be trusted as a development model for enterprise computing software. The intellectual property roots of Linux are obviously flawed at a systemic level under the current model. To date, we claim that more than one million lines of UNIX System V protected code have been contributed to Linux through this model."

He also commented that "Some enterprise customers have accepted Open Source because IBM has put its name behind it. However, IBM and other Linux vendors are reportedly unwilling to provide intellectual property warranties to their customers. This means that Linux end users must take a hard look at the intellectual property underpinnings of Open Source products and at the GPL (GNU General Public License) licensing model itself."

See also, stories titled "SCO Group Delivers Notice to IBM of Termination of UNIX License Agreement", "CAI Settles Suit Brought By The Canopy Group", and "Commentary: Canopy Group, SCO and Caldera" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 718, August 14, 2003; "SCO And Novell Continue Argument Over Rights in UNIX Operating System" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 676, June 9, 2003; "Novell Asserts Intellectual Property Rights in UNIX Technology" and "German Software Group Threatens to Sue SCO Over Linux Claims", in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 670, May 30, 2003; "Microsoft Licenses Technology at Issue in Caldera v. IBM", in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 669, May 29, 2003.

Friday, September 12

The House will not meet. See, Republican Whip Notice.

Deadline for claimants to royalty fees collected for calendar year 2001 under the cable statutory license to submit comments and notices of intention to participate to the Copyright Office regarding whether a Phase I or Phase II controversy exists as to the distribution of those fees. See, notice in the Federal Register, August 13, 2003, Vol. 68, No. 156, at Pages 48415 - 48417.

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's (USPTO) final rule amending its rules to separate the provisions for patent matters and trademark matters with respect to filing correspondence, requesting copies of documents, payment of fees, and general information takes effect. The USPTO is "amending its Rules of Practice in Patent Cases to delete all references to trademark matters, and amending its Rules of Practice in Trademark Cases to add new rules setting forth provisions for corresponding with and paying fees to the Office in trademark cases, and for requesting copies of trademark documents." See, notice in the Federal Register, August 13, 2003, Vol. 68, No. 156, at Pages 48286 - 48293.

Deadline for Members of Congress to sign a letter to Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Michael Powell regarding network neutrality. The letter is being circulated by Rep. Rick Boucher (D-VA) and Rep. Ron Kind (D-WI).

Monday, September 15

9:30 AM. The U.S. Court of Appeals (DCCir) will hear oral argument in Ranger Cell v. FCC, No. 02-1155. Judges Edwards, Randolph and Garland will preside. Location: 333 Constitution Ave. NW.

10:00 AM - 12:00 NOON. The Executive Office of the President's (EOP) Office of Science and Technology Policy's (OSTP) National Science & Technology Council's (NSTC) Committee on Science's Education and Workforce Development Subcommittee will hold a meeting. For more information, contact James Griffin at 202 456-6129 or Location: White House Conference Center, Lincoln Room, 726 Jackson Place NW.

10:30 AM - 3:00 PM. The American Enterprise Institute (AEI) will host a program titled "Jumpstarting a Brighter Broadband Future: Driving Investment and the New Telecom Frontier". At 10:30 AM Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Commissioner Kevin Martin will speak. At 11:15 AM Bruce Mehlman (Technology Administration) and James Glassman (AEI) will speak. At 12:30 PM David Dorman (Ch/CEO of AT&T) will be the luncheon speaker. At 1:45 PM there will be a panel titled "Driving Investment in the Telecom Sector: Capital and Policy". The presenter will be Laurence Kotlikoff (Boston University). The other speakers will be Jeff Halpern (Sanford Bernstein), Blair Levin (Legg Mason), and James Glassman. See, notice. Location: AEI, 1150 17th St., NW, 12th Floor.

12:15 PM. The Federal Communications Bar Association's (FCBA) Mass Media Committee will hold an organizational meeting, and brown bag lunch. Location: 8th Floor Conference, Suite 800, Dow Lohnes & Albertson, 1200 New Hampshire Avenue, NW.

1:00 - 4:00 PM. The Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) Network Reliability and Interoperability Council (NRIC) will hold a meeting. The Council will hear updates from the Network Reliability, Interoperability and Broadband Focus Groups and review recommendations from the Physical Security Focus Group. See, FCC notice [PDF] and notice in the Federal Register, August 27, 2003, Vol. 68, No. 166, at Pages 51578 - 51579. The meeting will be webcast. Location: FCC, Commission Meeting Room, TW-C305, 445 12th Street, SW.

Deadline to submit reply comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to a Petition for Rulemaking on compliance by carriers with relevant statutory provisions on disclosure of customer information in 911 emergencies. The petition was submitted by the National Emergency Number Association (NENA), the Association of Public Safety Communications Officials International (APCO), and the National Association of State Nine One One Administrators (NASNA). See, FCC notice [3 pages in PDF]. For more information, contact Barbara Reideler or Jared Carlson at 202 418-1310.

Deadline to submit comments to the LOCAL Television Loan Guarantee Board regarding the proposed regulation to implement the LOCAL Television Loan Guarantee Program, as authorized by the Launching Our Communities' Access to Local (LOCAL) Television Act of 2000. The purpose of the Act is to facilitate access to signals of local TV stations in nonserved areas and underserved areas. The Act establishes a LOCAL Television Loan Guarantee Board to approve guarantees of up to 80% of loans totaling no more than $1.25 Billion. The regulation proposes to establish eligibility and guarantee requirements, the application and approval process, the administration of guarantees, and the process through which the Board will consider applications under the priority considerations required in the Act. See, notice in the Federal Register, August 15, 2003, Vol. 68, No. 158, at Pages 48814 - 48833. See also, Treasury release.

Tuesday, September 16

8:30 AM - 5:00 PM. The National Institute of Standards and Technology's (NIST) Information Security and Privacy Advisory Board will meet. This is the first day of a three day series of meetings. The agenda includes (1) a session on agencies customer service management work, (2) a session on the National Information Assurance Program extension activities, (3) a session on acceptable behavior of "Touching the Browser", (4) NIST information technology laboratory briefings, (5) an update by OMB on privacy and security issues, and (6) a briefing by the Department of Homeland Security Privacy Officer. See, notice in the Federal Register, August 27, 2003, Vol. 68, No. 166, at Pages 51559 - 51560. Location: Bethesda Hyatt Regency Hotel, 7400 Wisconsin Ave., Bethesda, MD.

9:30 AM. The U.S. Court of Appeals (DCCir) will hear oral argument in Consumer Electronics Association v. FCC, No. 02-1312. This is a petition for review of the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) order regarding conversion to digital television adopted on August 8, 2002, and released on August 9, in MM Docket No. 00-39. At issue is whether the FCC has authority, under the All Channel Receiver Act, 47 U.S.C. § 303(s), to require manufacturers to incorporate expensive digital tuner devices into new TV receivers, even though most TV purchasers not use these devices. The CEA is represented by the law firm of Squire Sanders. Judges Ginsburg, Roberts and Williams will preside. Location: 333 Constitution Ave. NW.

10:00 AM. The Senate Banking Committee will hold a hearing on the pending nominations of Harvey Rosen (to be a Member of the Council of Economic Advisors), Kristin Forbes (Council of Economic Advisors), Julie Myers (Assistant Secretary, Department of Commerce), and Peter Lichtenbaum (Assistant Secretary, Department of Commerce). See, notice. Location: Room 538, Dirksen Building.

12:00 NOON. The Federal Communications Bar Association's (FCBA) Executive Committee will meet.

6:00 - 8:15 PM. The Federal Communications Bar Association (FCBA) will host a Continuing Legal Education (CLE) event on the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) and Federal Trade Commission's (FTC) new rules regarding the national Do Not Call registry, telemarketing by phone, and unsolicited faxes. The speakers will be Anita Wallgren (Sidley Austin), Richard Smith (Acting Chief of the Policy Division of the FCC's Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau), Erica McMahon (FCC's Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau), John Kamp (Wiley Rein & Fielding), and Karen Leonard (FTC's Bureau of Consumer Protection's Division of Marketing Practices). For more information, contact Anita Wallgren at 202 736-8468 or Location: Sidley Austin, 1501 K Street, NW.

Wednesday, September 17

8:30 AM - 5:00 PM. The National Institute of Standards and Technology's (NIST) Information Security and Privacy Advisory Board will meet. This is the second day of a three day series of meetings. The agenda includes (1) a session on agencies customer service management work, (2) a session on the National Information Assurance Program extension activities, (3) a session on acceptable behavior of "Touching the Browser", (4) NIST information technology laboratory briefings, (5) an update by OMB on privacy and security issues, and (6) a briefing by the Department of Homeland Security Privacy Officer. See, notice in the Federal Register, August 27, 2003, Vol. 68, No. 166, at Pages 51559 - 51560. Location: Bethesda Hyatt Regency Hotel, 7400 Wisconsin Ave., Bethesda, MD.

10:00 AM. The House Financial Services Committee will hold a hearing titled "Accounting under Sarbanes-Oxley: Are Financial Statements More Reliable?" Location: Room 2128, Rayburn Building.

11:00 AM - 4:00 PM. The Cato Institute will host a symposium titled "The Supreme Court: Past and Prologue: A Look at the October 2002 and October 2003 Terms". The fourth panel, at 3:30 PM, will address the upcoming term. The speakers on that panel will be James Swanson (Cato), Michael Carvin, Walter Dellinger (O'Melveny & Myers), and Thomas Goldstein (Goldstein & Howe). The event will be webcast. See, notice and registration page. Location: Cato, 1000 Massachusetts Ave., NW.

12:00 NOON - 1:30 PM. The Intellectual Property Law Section of the D.C. Bar Association and the ABA will host a luncheon titled "The Clash Between the Right of Publicity and the First Amendment". The price is $10, or free if you bring your own lunch. Location: Finnegan Henderson, 1300 I Street, NW.

1:00 - 2:00 PM. The President's National Security Telecommunications Advisory Committee (NSTAC) will hold a closed meeting via conference call.. The agenda includes issues "regarding security matters due to diversity of ownership, control, and access to U.S. critical telecommunication and information technology infrastructures" and interdependencies of critical infrastructures. See, notice in the Federal Register, September 8, 2003, Vol. 68, No. 173, at Page 52971.

1:30 PM. Speaker Denny Hastert (R-IL), Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) and other Republicans will hold a press conference to announce the guiding principles for the Republican High Tech Working Group for the 108th Congress. Location: Room HC-6, Capitol Building.

Thursday, September 18

8:00 AM - 1:45 PM. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce will host an event titled "Immigration -- Access, Security and the American Economy". See, notice. The price to attend is $95 (members) or $155 (non-members). Location: U.S. Chamber of Commerce, 1615 H Street, NW.

8:30 AM - 1:00 PM. The National Institute of Standards and Technology's (NIST) Information Security and Privacy Advisory Board will meet. This is the third day of a three day series of meetings. The agenda includes (1) a session on agencies customer service management work, (2) a session on the National Information Assurance Program extension activities, (3) a session on acceptable behavior of "Touching the Browser", (4) NIST information technology laboratory briefings, (5) an update by OMB on privacy and security issues, and (6) a briefing by the Department of Homeland Security Privacy Officer. See, notice in the Federal Register, August 27, 2003, Vol. 68, No. 166, at Pages 51559 - 51560. Location: Bethesda Hyatt Regency Hotel, 7400 Wisconsin Ave., Bethesda, MD.

9:00 AM. The AEI-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Studies will host a conference titled "Is More Regulation of Wireless Services Necessary?" See, notice. Location: American Enterprise Institute, 12th floor, 1150 17th St., NW.

9:00 AM. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) host an event titled "Rural Wireless Internet Service Provider (WISP) Showcase and Workshop". For more information, contact Robert Pepper (Chief, Policy Development) at or 202 418-2030. See, notice [PDF]. Location: FCC, Commission Meeting Room, 445 12th Street, SW.

9:30 AM. The U.S. Court of Appeals (DCCir) will hear oral argument in American Family Association v. FCC, No. 00-1310. This case pertains to issuance of noncommercial educational broadcast licenses. Judges Sentelle, Henderson and Tatel will preside. Location: 333 Constitution Ave. NW.

12:15 PM. The Federal Communications Bar Association's (FCBA) Common Carrier Practice Committee will host a brown bag lunch. The topic will be "Antitrust Law and the Telecommunications Act of 1996: Broader Implications of the Supreme Court Trinko Case". The speakers will include Donald Russell (Robbins Russell) and John Thorne (Verizon). RSVP to Cecelia Burnett 202 637-8312. Location: Hogan & Hartson, 555 13th Street, NW, lower level.

The U.S. Trade Representative's (USTR) interagency Trade Policy Staff Committee (TPSC) will hold a hearing to assist it in preparing its annual report to the Congress on the People's Republic of China's compliance with the commitments that it made in connection with its accession to the World Trade Organization (WTO). See, notice in the Federal Register, July 21, 2003, Vol. 68, No. 139, at Pages 43247 - 43248. Location: Room 1, 1724 F Street, NW.

Friday, September 19

9:00 AM - 4:00 PM. the Executive Office of the President's (EOP) Office of Science and Technology Policy's (OSTP) National Science and Technology Council's (NSTC) Networking and Information Technology Research and Development (NITRD) Interagency Working Group will meet. RSVP is required in advance in order to make arrangements for a visitor's badge. For more information, contact Virginia Moore or 703 292-4873. Location: NSF, Stafford Building, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, VA.

12:00 NOON. The Cato Institute will host an panel discussion titled "Debunking Myths about the Media Ownership Debate". The speakers will be Richard Wiley (former Chairman of the FCC), James Quello (former Chairman of the FCC), and Harold Furchtgott-Roth (former Commissioner of the FCC). A luncheon will follow the program. Registration is required to attend. See, notice and registration page. For more information, contact: Krystal Brand at Location: Room B-369, Rayburn Building.

Day one of a three day conference titled "Telecommunications Policy Research Conference". See, conference agenda and registration form. Location: George Mason University School of Law, Arlington, VA.

More News

9/11. The General Accounting Office (GAO) released its prepared testimony [PDF] titled "Information Technology: Effective Patch Management is Critical to Mitigating Software Vulnerabilities". This testimony was prepared for the September 10 hearing of the House Government Reform Committee's Subcommittee on Technology, Information Policy, Intergovernmental Relations and the Census titled "Worm and Virus Defense: How Can We Protect the Nation's Computers from These Serious Threats?"

9/11. The House Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet held a hearing on HR 2898, the "E-911 Implementation Act of 2003". See, prepared testimony of John Muleta (Bureau Chief of the FCC's Wireless Telecommunications Bureau), prepared testimony of Tim Berry (Indiana State Treasurer), prepared testimony of Anthony Haynes (Tennessee Emergency Communications Board), and prepared testimony of Terry Addington (P/CEO of First Cellular of Southern Illinois).

About Tech Law Journal
Tech Law Journal publishes a free access web site and subscription e-mail alert. The basic rate for a subscription to the TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert is $250 per year. However, there are discounts for subscribers with multiple recipients. Free one month trial subscriptions are available. Also, free subscriptions are available for journalists, federal elected officials, and employees of the Congress, courts, and executive branch. The TLJ web site is free access. However, copies of the TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert are not published in the web site until one month after writing. See, subscription information page.

Contact: 202-364-8882; E-mail.
P.O. Box 4851, Washington DC, 20008.
Privacy Policy
Notices & Disclaimers
Copyright 1998 - 2003 David Carney, dba Tech Law Journal. All rights reserved.