Dianne Feinstein on Internet Freedom and Security
Summary
Since the issues surrounding the internet, intellectual property, and cybersecurity have arisen, Senator Feinstein has been a supporter of legislation to address the issues. This support extends from the PERFORM Act in 2006 to address pay in the music recording and broadcasting industry to support for PIPA and other cybersecurity legislation in the US.
The PERFORM Act
In 2006, Senator Feinstein supported the Platform Equality and Remedies for Rights Holders in Music Act of 2006, or the PERFORM Act. According to the Senator, the legislation would require satellite, cable and Internet broadcasters to pay fair market value for the performance of digital music as well as require the use of readily available and cost-effective technological means to prevent music theft. Specifically, the legislation would have attempted to create rate parity for all service providers under the compulsory license so that Internet, cable, and satellite will all be subject to the same rate standards. This was done to halt efforts by some to avoid paying a royalty fee through another form of license. The legislation would also require that Internet, cable and satellite providers employ technology that will prevent downloading, manipulation and sorting of the music that they play to prevent individuals from creating their own personalized play-lists.
PIPA
Senator Feinstein supported and co-sponsored the Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property Act of 2011, also known as PIPA. When a constituent wrote Senator Feinstein to question her support for PIPA, the Senator responded by stating that PIPA did not violate first amendment rights as it only targetted websites dedicated to infringing on copyright laws.
After Senator Feinstein voted for the PIPA legislation to pass through the committe, she was asked about the conflicting entities within her state represented by Hollywood and Silicon Valley. The Senator asserted that those issues were addressed in the committee version and resolved.
CyberSecurity Act of 2012
In July of 2012, Senator Feinstein spoke on the House floor in support of the CyberSecurity Act. In that speech, Senator Feinstein noted a number of attacks on government and economic resources. Senator Feinstein pointed to China and stated that they were the world’s most active and persistent perpetrators of economic espionage. She then asserted that Russia’s intelligence services are conducting a range of activities to collect economic information and technology from U.S. targets, and cited a recent report for these statements.
In discussing the legislation, the Senator noted that it is not sufficient for the government to be able to defend itself against an attack, but it is also necessary for companies like Google or an institution like the NASDAQ to be able to protect themselves, and to use all possible defenses that government can help provide.
The legislation sets up a voluntary sharing program with companies to allow them to share information, but it does not require them to do so. The Senator noted that companies could not be prosecuted for failing to share data and addressed civil rights concerns by noting there were five main categories of security that companies were allowed to share information and have immunity from prosecution from civil complaints. She also noted that if information is shared outside of these areas, then the company would receive immunity only if it was able to show good faith in its actions.
The PERFORM Act
In April of 2006, Senator Feinstein issued a statement noting Senate Judiciary Committee remarks in which he supported the PERFORM Act.
US and China Must Lead
In July of 2010, Senator Feinstein wrote an op-ed for the San Francisco Chronicle with other Senators. That article called for the US and China to lead on cybersecurity.
Cyber-Security Act of 2012
In July of 2012, Senator Feinstein spoke on the Senate floor noting a number of cyber attacks on military and government targets. She notes her co-sponsorship of the Cyber-Security Act of 2012.
Letter on PIPA
In late 2012, Senator Feinstein wrote a letter in response to a constituent that challenged her support for PIPA. That constituent placed the letter online. The letter shows that Senator Feinstein does not beleive that the PIPA legislation does not violate any free speech laws.
Reconciling Hollywood and Silicon Valley
In December of 2012, Senator Feinstein was asked about the controversy within her state between silicon valley's opposition to the PIPA legislation and Hollywood's support for it. She replied that she believed those issues had been resolved.
CyberSecurity Act of 2012
In July of 2012, Senator Feinstein spoke on the Senate floor in support of the Cyber Security Act of 2012. In that speech, she lays out a number of examples of cyber attacks on government and private business in the US. She notes the need for government intervention.
Sponsored and Cosponsored Legislation
Session-111; Bill Number-S 3804; Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act - Cosponsor
Amends the federal criminal code to authorize the Attorney General (AG) to commence an in rem action against a domain name used by an Internet site that is "dedicated to infringing activities," even where such a domain name is not located in the United States.
Authorizes the Attorney General (AG) to commence: (1) an in personam action against a registrant of a nondomestic domain name (NDN) used by an Internet site dedicated to infringing activities (ISDIA) or an owner or operator of an ISDIA accessed through an NDN; or (2) if such individuals are unable to be found by the AG or have no address within a U.S. judicial district, an in rem action (against a domain name itself, in lieu of such individuals) against the NDN used by an ISDIA. Defines ISDIA as a site that: (1) has no significant use other than engaging in or facilitating copyright infringement, circumventing technology controlling access to copyrighted works, or selling or promoting counterfeit goods or services; or (2) is designed, operated, or marketed and used to engage in such activities. Defines NDN as a domain name for which the registry that issued the domain name and operates the relevant top level domain, and the registrar for the domain name, are located outside the United States. Allows the court, upon application by the AG after an NDN-related in personam or in rem action is commenced under this section, to issue a temporary restraining order or an injunction against the NDN, registrant, owner, or operator to cease and desist further ISDIA activity if the NDN is used within the United States to access an ISDIA directing business to U.S. residents and harming U.S. intellectual property right holders. Directs the AG to identify and provide advance notice to operators of nonauthoritative domain name system servers (NDNSSs), financial transaction providers (FTPs), Internet advertising services (IASs), and providers of information location tools (ILTs), including search engines, online directories, and other indexes with hypertext links or referrals to online locations, whose action may be required to prevent such NDN-related ISDIA activity. Sets forth the preventative measures required to be taken by NDNSSs, FTPs, IASs, and ILTs upon being served with a court order in a such an NDN-related action commenced by the AG.
Calls for the enactment of bipartisan legislation to secure the United States against cyber attack, enhance American competitiveness and create jobs in the information technology industry, and protect the identities and sensitive information of American citizens and businesses by: (1) enhancing the security and resiliency of U.S. government communications and information networks against cyber attack; (2) incentivizing the private sector to quantify, assess, and mitigate cyber risks to networks; (3) promoting investments in the American information technology sector; (4) improving the capability of the government and the private sector to assess cyber risks and prevent, detect, and respond to cyber attacks; (5) preventing and mitigating identity theft; (6) enhancing U.S. diplomatic capacity and international cooperation to respond to emerging cyber threats; (7) protecting and increasing the resiliency of U.S critical infrastructure and assets against cyber attacks; (8) expanding resources for investigating and prosecuting cyber crimes in a manner that respects privacy rights and civil liberties and promotes American innovation; and (9) maintaining robust protections of the privacy of American citizens and their on-line activities and communications.
References
[1] Website: Huffington Post Article: SOPA: Washington Vs. The Web Author: Zach Carter Accessed on: 09/18/2012