Special 301 is an offshoot of the more general "Section 301" program which authorizes the USTR to unilaterally sanction foreign countries for a domestic law which either "violates, or is inconsistent with, the provisions of, or otherwise denies benefits to the United States under, any trade agreement" or which does not itself violate any agreement but nevertheless "is unreasonable or discriminatory and burdens or restricts United States commerce." 19 USC § 2411. One ground for finding an "unreasonable" policy subject to trade sanction includes the denial of "fair and equitable . . . provision of adequate and effective protection of intellectual property rights notwithstanding the fact that the foreign country may be in compliance with the specific obligations of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights." 19 USC 2411(d)(3)(VB)(ii). Possible sanctions can include the suspension of "benefits of trade agreement concessions," "duties or other import restrictions," or the suspension of General System of Preferences (GSP) benefits. 19 USC 2411(c).

Special 301 is integrated into the Section 301 sanctioning process through a public adjudication and notification mechanism. Under Special 301, the USTR is required to annually publish in the Federal Register a list of countries that deny "adequate and effective protection of intellectual property" or "deny fair and equitable market access for U.S. firms that rely on intellectual property," and then designate among those countries the subset of worst actors to be designated "priority foreign countries."  19 U.S.C. § 2242. USTR holds an annual hearing and publishes an annual report containing two levels of "Watch Lists" below the "Priority Foreign Country" designation. As described by USTR in the 2013 report:

Placement of a trading partner on the Priority Watch List or Watch List indicates that particular problems exist in that country with respect to IPR protection, enforcement, or market access for persons relying on IPR. Countries placed on the Priority Watch List are the focus of increased bilateral attention concerning the problem areas.

Designation as a "Priority Foreign Country" is a statutory criteria that triggers a 30-day countdown during which targeted countries must "(enter) into good faith negotiations" or "(make) significant progress in bilateral or multilateral negotiations" or face an investigation under the Section 301 process for determining unilateral sanctions. Priority foreign country determinations are reserved for countries "that have the most onerous or egregious acts, policies, or practices," that "have the greatest adverse impact (actual or potential) on the relevant United States products," and for which "there is a factual basis for the denial of fair and equitable market access as a result."

This framework for unilaterally sanctioning foreign countries for intellectual property matters pre-dates the World Trade Organization's rules. Indeed, it was the lack of binding international trade adjudication, such as that created under the WTO, that was the primary justification for Congress's enactment of the 301 unilateral adjudication in the 1980s. [See 301 Historical Primer]. There has always been a serious question as to how the statutory program could continue after the WTO, and there has been one adjudication of the more general 301 program explained below.

One of the noticeable trends in Special 301 in the Post-WTO 1994 period is the steep drop off in listings of countries as a "Priority Foreign Country," most directly threatening trade sanctions. Only three countries were designated as PFCs after 1994: China in 1996, Paraguay in 1998, and Ukraine in 2001-05. Of these, only Paraguay was a member of the WTO in the year it was listed as a PFC. Ukraine was not a WTO member when it was initially listed, but now it is.

On their face, the 301 complaints against Ukraine do not appear to raise challenges to Ukraine's implementation of the WTO agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS). The 2013 Special 301 Report describes three grounds for Ukraine's PFC listing:

[T]he specific grounds for the U.S. Trade Representative’s designation of Ukraine as a PFC are: (1) the unfair, nontransparent administration of the system for collecting societies, which are responsible for collecting and distributing royalties to U.S. and other rights holders; (2) widespread (and admitted) use of illegal software by Ukrainian government agencies; and (3) failure to implement an effective means to combat the widespread online infringement of copyright and related rights in Ukraine, including the lack of transparent and predictable provisions on intermediary liability and liability for third parties that facilitate piracy, limitations on such liability for Internet Service Providers (ISPs), and enforcement of takedown notices for infringing online content.

None of these grounds explicitly refer to complaints under TRIPS. Unilateral adjudication of TRIPS violations is prohibited by Article 23 of the Dispute Settlement Understanding, explaining under the title "Strengthening of the Multilateral System":

1. When Members seek the redress of a violation of obligations or other nullification or impairment of benefits under the covered agreements or an impediment to the attainment of any objective of the covered agreements, they shall have recourse to, and abide by, the rules and procedures of this Understanding.

2. In such cases, Members shall:

(a) not make a determination to the effect that a violation has occurred, that benefits have been nullified or impaired or that the attainment of any objective of the covered agreements has been impeded, except through recourse to dispute settlement in accordance with the rules and procedures of this Understanding, and shall make any such determination consistent with the findings contained in the panel or Appellate Body report adopted by the DSB or an arbitration award rendered under this Understanding

The import of this language is fairly clear. The Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU) procedures, and only those procedures, can be used for findings that lead to the "suspension of concessions or other obligations" under GATT.

After the WTO accords went into effect, the U.S. did not dismantle the Section 301 or Special 301 programs, which became the subject of a trade dispute in the WTO in United States – Sections 301-310. In that case, a WTO panel held that Section 301 sanctions were only still legal under the DSU because of a "Statement of Administrative Action" pledging to "base any section 301 determination" on "panel or Appellate Body findings adopted by the DSB" and only sanction countries with "authority from the DSB to retaliate."

The panel decision went further, discussing in a key package that the U.S. also could not threaten to sanction countries in ways that, if actually implemented, would likewise threaten the WTO:

Members faced with a threat of unilateral action, especially when it emanates from an economically powerful Member, may in effect be forced to give in to the demands imposed by the Member exerting the threat... To put it differently, merely carrying a big stick is, in many cases, as effective a means to having one's way as actually using the stick. The threat alone of conduct prohibited by the WTO would enable the Member concerned to exert undue leverage on other Members.  It would disrupt the very stability and equilibrium which multilateral dispute resolution was meant to foster and consequently establish, namely equal protection of both large and small, powerful and less powerful Members through the consistent application of a set of rules and procedures.

After this ruling, the USTR has been relatively carefully not to use Special 301 to explicitly threaten other countries with trade sanctions for alleged violations of TRIPS. It more commonly describes Special 301 as being a component of the evaluation of whether it will grant other countries GSP benefits, which it asserts unilateral authority to determine the criteria for. And the criteria listed in the 301 reports most commonly refers to the lack of domestic policies that are "TRIPS-plus" -- i.e. go be beyond those required by the TRIPS agreement. But, as explained below, the developed countries do NOT have unilateral authority to determine GSP benefit criteria. Under the reasoning of the Sections 301-310 panel, any country on the various Special 301 Watch Lists would likely have standing to challenge the Special 301 program as threatening denial of GSP benefits for criteria that violate the WTO accords.

The U.S. legal authority for denying GSP benefits based on intellectual property policies is contained in 19 USC 2462(c), requiring consideration of the "the extent to which such country is providing adequate and effective protection of intellectual property rights." The 2013 Special 301 report signals that it intends to evoke this criteria with respect to Ukraine, stating:

When Ukraine was designated a PFC in the past, it failed to address the grounds for its designation during the following investigation. As a result, Ukraine lost its eligibility for benefits under the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP). Once Ukraine addressed the issues that led to its designation as a PFC, its eligibility for GSP benefits was reinstated.

Thus, the central question under the WTO accords may be: may the U.S. suspend GSP benefits from a country as a sanction for not adopting TRIPS-plus policies? Current law under the WTO Appellate Body provides a strong argument that the U.S. cannot maintain such policies.

The starting point for the trade law analysis is the WTO's requirement of Most Favored Nation (MFN) treatment for all members, contained in Article I:1 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (GATT). The MFN principle requires

any advantage, favour, privilege or immunity granted by any contracting party to any product originating in or destined for any other country be accorded immediately and unconditionally to the like product originating in or destined for territories of all other contracting parties

By withdrawing trade benefits from one country (e.g. Ukraine), but not from other WTO-members, the U.S. GSP program facially authorizes conduct that violates MFN treatment. The conduct must, therefore, be authorized by an exemption to MFN.

GSP programs are authorized by the exception to MFN known as the GSP "Enabling Clause." The two key provisions in this clause for our purposes are located in Paragraphs 2 and 3. Paragraph 2 (footnote 3) of the Clause states that GSP programs are authorized only in so far as their criteria are "generalized, non-reciprocal and non discriminatory." Paragraph 3 of the Clause adds the additional requirement that GSP criteria "be designed and, if necessary, modified, to respond positively to the development, financial and trade needs of developing countries." The use of TRIPS-plus criteria to deny GSP benefits does not appear to meet either standard.

The WTO Appellate Body (the highest court in the WTO and the authority on matters of WTO interpretation) was tasked with interpreting the GSP enabling clause requirements in the case of EC -- Preferential Tariffs. The matter involved a challenge by India of the EC's program to award additional GSP benefits to countries that participated in a special drug eradication program. The Appellate Body held that GSP programs could have criteria that result in different benefits being afforded to different developing countries, but that such differential treatment must itself be based on criteria that meet the Paragraph 3 requirement of responding "positively to the development, financial and trade needs of developing countries." The Appellate Body explained:

In granting such differential tariff treatment, [ ] preference-granting countries are required, by virtue of the term “nondiscriminatory”, to ensure that identical treatment is available to all similarly-situated GSP beneficiaries, that is, to all GSP beneficiaries that have the “development, financial and trade needs” to which the treatment in question is intended to respond.

The Appellate Body continued:

[T]he expectation that developed countries will “respond positively” to the “needs of developing countries” suggests that a sufficient nexus should exist between, on the one hand, the preferential treatment provided under the respective measure authorized by paragraph 2, and, on the other hand, the likelihood of alleviating the relevant “development, financial [or] trade need”. In the context of a GSP scheme, the particular need at issue must, by its nature, be such that it can be effectively addressed through tariff preferences. Therefore, only if a preference-granting country acts in the “positive” manner suggested, in “respon[se]” to a widely-recognized “development, financial [or] trade need”, can such action satisfy the requirements of paragraph 3(c).

Under this standard, TRIPS-plus criteria may be challenged for being insufficiently related to the needs of developing countries and rather tailored to meet U.S. intellectual property industry export needs. The U.S. is not free to define any "needs" it chooses as GSP criteria for developing countries. The Appellate Body admonished that "a 'need' cannot be characterized as one of the specified "needs of developing countries" in the sense of paragraph 3(c) based merely on an assertion to that effect by, for instance, a preference-granting country or a beneficiary country." Such need, the Appellate Body held, must be assessed according to an "objective," "[b]road-based recognition of a particular need," such as those "set out in the WTO Agreement or in multilateral instruments adopted by international organizations."

Here, the U.S. is on the horns of a dilemma. For the criteria to be sufficiently "broad based," the WTO Appellate Body suggests that they need to be incorporated into a broad multilateral agreement like TRIPS. But the U.S. cannot unilaterally adjudicate TRIPS disputes.

The specific issues that the U.S. raises -- the administration of collecting societies, rules on the government use of copyrighted software, and intermediary liability and "enforcement of takedown notices for infringing online content" -- are not subject to broad-based international standards. None are explicitly recognized duties under TRIPS. There are very general standards in the WIPO Internet Treaties on copyright in the digital environment, but only a small number of controversial international agreements -- in the form of bilateral trade agreements with the U.S. -- contain standards on intermediary and third party liability and the enforcement of takedown notices for online infringement. The U.S. would like these to be areas of broad-based agreement, but thus far they are not.

Ukraine may also argue that using removals of GSP benefits as a sanction for disfavored policies and practices is not a "positive" use of GSP benefits. The Appellate body explained that the GSP Enabling Clause "mandates that the response provided to the needs of developing countries be 'positive,'" which it defined as "consisting in or characterized by constructive action or attitudes." It continued:

This suggests that the response of a preference-granting country must be taken with a view to improving the development, financial or trade situation of a beneficiary country, based on the particular need at issue.

It is difficult to explain the use of PFC listings under Special 301 as "positive" in this respect. The PFC listing is rather clearly designed as a threat to withdraw benefits as a punitive sanction for acting against U.S. interests, not as an enticement or reward for responding to its own development needs. As one commenter noted: "The EC rewards "good" behavior with extra preferences; the U.S. penalizes "bad" behavior by taking away preferences." Whether the WTO allows the latter use of GSP criteria as a sanction is yet to be decided by the Appellate Body.

The implications of the two lines of cases discussed above suggest that Ukraine has strong arguments for challenging its PFC listing, and any subsequent denial of GSP benefits, in the WTO. In addition, using the discussion of the prohibition of "threats alone" from the Section 301-310 case, other countries on the various watch lists could challenge Special 301 as implicitly threatening GSP benefit withdrawal for criteria that do not meet the WTO’s standards. Doing so and succeeding would relieve the world of a much hated vestige of the Pre-WTO "aggressive unilateralism" in U.S. trade policy.

Sean Flynn is a professor and associate director of the Program on Information Justice and Intellectual Property (PIJIP) at American University Washington College of Law.

Cross posted from infojustice.

"Some of the speculation that has come out is that, yes, it was a foreign national and, speculating here, that it was potentially a person on a student visa," King said to the National Review's Robert Costa. "If that's the case, then we need to take a look at the big picture."

An interesting question is whether the Pirate Party is a one-off, or part of a larger movement away from traditional party lines towards a different kind of politics -- specifically one that recognizes the central importance of the Internet in modern life. That's just been answered by the appearance of a new party in Brazil, as reported by Global Voices:

A former Brazilian presidential candidate and famous environmentalist is leading the charge for the creation of a new political party in the country, one that seeks to use the Internet as a tool for action on sustainability issues.

Former Brazilian Environment Minister Marina Silva officially launched her Sustainability Network in the capital Brasilia on 16 February, 2013, to a crowd of around 1,700 people, including supporters, founders and ideologues. The network aims to collect the required 500,000 signatures by September 2013 to become legally recognised as a political party.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

Since most politicians' campaigns are largely funded by wealthy companies and individuals, it would give voters a better sense of who the candidate they are voting for is actually representing if the company's logo, or individual's name, was prominently displayed upon the candidate's clothing at all public appearances and campaign events. Once elected, the candidate would be required to continue to wear those "sponsor's" names during all official duties and visits to constituents. The size of a logo or name would vary with the size of a donation. For example, a $1 million dollar contribution would warrant a patch of about 4" by 8" on the chest, while a free meal from a lobbyist would be represented by a quarter-sized button. Individual donations under $1000 are exempt.

From the printing press, to motion pictures, to recorded sound, to the Internet, for its entire history, copyright law has evolved and developed in response to new developments in technology and the marketplace.

The result is that today the U.S. copyright system is a cornerstone of a vibrant creative economy that is unparalleled in the world – adding $631 billion and over 7.5 million direct and indirect jobs in 2010 [Department of Commerce, IP and the U.S. Economy study], and making the United States a world leader in creativity, technological innovation and economic growth.

MPAA member companies welcome a continuation of the ongoing discussion of the importance of copyright. We welcome a discussion based on facts, experience, and rational analysis.

And we are confident that such a discussion will result in a renewed affirmation of the benefits to all of a copyright law that encourages and rewards creativity and breakthrough innovation, promotes distribution and enjoyment of America’s most beloved stories and characters, and takes a firm stand against the criminals who would rob us of those.

Copyright Empowers Creativity, Innovation and the Dissemination of Knowledge
The promise of the opportunity to make a living doing what they love is what gives a creator incentive to transform his or her new ideas into reality and to take that new creation to the public. Creators deserve to be secure in the knowledge that they have a fair chance to earn a wage from their work and investment -- the works that contribute both to our shared culture and our national economy. The Constitution itself recognizes that the public’s interest in creativity and the dissemination of knowledge is best served by the incentives that result from recognizing authors’ and creators’ rights. If our creative sector is to remain the envy of the world, the law must ensure these public-interest purposes of copyright are not undercut.

Take Digital Rights Management technology, for example. Without the protection of effective DRMs, the business incentive to develop new and innovative distribution models, like UltraViolet, across multiple devices and platforms is lost. The technological and legal protections provided by current law allow content to be portable, enabling consumer flexibility on how to access it. Under current copyright law, the choice and cost curves are both bending in the consumer’s direction.

Copyright Benefits Consumers by Promoting Free Markets and Competition
Copyright as it is reflected in both the Constitution and in current law recognizes that the public benefits from a competitive environment in which clearly-defined property rights enable the market to drive the creation and dissemination of creative woks. These rights foster competition because they incentivize creators to take risks. They encourage economic development and economic diversity. That’s good for the consumer and good for the economy.

Enforcement of existing copyright laws is also essential to ensure that illegitimate websites that profit from the illegal sale of content do not have an economic advantage over the innovative platforms that our companies develop to deliver high-quality content to consumers. Undermining copyright law would serve as a disincentive for future technological development and would harm consumers.

Copyright Supports an Internet that Works For Everyone
There are those who would place the value of the Internet at odds with copyright. We reject that false choice. Freedom of expression is at the bedrock of both the Internet and the creative community. In considering policies surrounding the Internet, we need to recognize what the Supreme Court has stated repeatedly – that copyright is itself an “engine of free expression.” Not only does copyright itself promote creativity, but creative content has plays an important role in helping to promote the growth of the Internet. As we look at policy affecting the Internet, we must advance policies to promote an Internet that reflects the values that have been fundamental to us for hundreds of years, including freedom of expression, property rights, and protection of the rights of individuals. Good policy stays true to these values, resisting efforts that would pit one against another and recognizing instead that these values are mutually reinforcing.

Copyright Provides Creators with Modern Protections
Copyright law evolves over time. The last major overhaul of copyright law was the result of decades of Congressional work, much of it focused on fashioning a law that would be flexible enough to accommodate future technological change. But technology and the marketplace often evolve faster than the law. Fortunately, copyright law also provides the space for the private sector to collaborate to develop more immediate solutions. Content creators and intermediaries can and do engage in meaningful conversations about how to protect a secure, legitimate online environment for both creators and audiences. Any discussion of copyright law must include recognition of the critically important role that voluntary agreements play in ensuring the content and tech industries can both remain nimble in a rapidly-changing world.

Copyright Provides for Incentives and Accountability
The public interest in the creation of and dissemination of creative and innovative products cannot be served in an environment in which some are free to build businesses based on the infringement of the rights of others. As infringement grows more widespread, sound copyright policy must recognize that the solution to such problems is in society’s broad interest. Any review of copyright must focus on whether the system as a whole provides for meaningful accountability on the part of those who infringe the rights of others, and whether there are adequate incentives for cooperation and accountability among other stakeholders.

The debate on cybersecurity has produced a sideshow centered around the belief that added security means a reduction in privacy. Such views are nonsense. Quite simply, digital privacy cannot exist without cybersecurity. Weak security equals weak privacy. Want better privacy? Raise your security game to prevent hackers from stealing private data. Let the experts from the private sector and government communicate with each other so when they see threats, they can alert others and work together to create a solution.

Critics don't like the fact that CISPA enables information sharing between the federal government and the private sector in order to prevent cyberattacks and to pursue cybercriminals, hackers, fraudsters and others intent on harm. As they see it, such cooperation constitutes a potential privacy invasion that is so egregious as to merit no further consideration.

Their concerns are, no doubt, well intended. But they are also out of touch with reality and risk unintended consequences that only serve to allow cybercriminals to operate with impunity.

The breadth and scale of the threat of cyberattacks on our nation's critical infrastructure -- financial institutions, electric and water utilities and air traffic control systems, to name just a few -- to say nothing of consumers' personal data, is no longer in debate

Meanwhile, the avenues and opportunities by which hackers have to penetrate our networks are growing hand in hand with our increasingly mobile communications ecosystem. On the consumer side, for example, a recent study concludes more than 40% of U.S. smartphone users will click on unsafe links this year, potentially spreading malware that can steal data and dollars to their friends, family and colleagues.

Does that sound like a dynamic we would be well served to leave unaddressed? Should we keep our fingers crossed and hope things go OK? Or should we work together to provide the nation with the most effective reality-based cybersecurity we can achieve?

Clearly, the latter is what we need: a cooperative approach, one that allows for lawful sharing of information on where, how, from whom, and in what guise cyberattacks and other forms of cybercrime are emerging so defenses can be prepared.

At its heart, good security starts with good communication. When it comes to securing our critical infrastructure, shouldn't all parties be able to communicate with one another about what they are seeing and how attacks can be repelled?

Of course they should. That is why it so critical that Congress passes CISPA and the President signs it into law.

Debate is useful when it advances a discussion and removes obstacles to positive outcomes. However, to be constructive the debate must be based on reality, not abstractions.

Continued stasis serves no one, except hackers and those who would seek to do us harm.

Hawtree tweeted in response: "I have a great dislike of the Argus readers' comments and so prefer to appear in other papers."

So, given that the city of Brighton & Hove is served by only one title, what "other papers" does he prefer? The New York Times, evidently, because he urges his followers to sign up for a subscription.

The site takes two sets of publicly-available documents -- those prepared by companies or their lobbyists, and the amendments proposed for the Data Protection Regulation -- and compares them, showing the results in a highly visual way. It turns out that entire paragraphs have been copied word-for-word from the lobbyists' documents and put forward as suggested amendments. Similarly, some of the deletions that European politicians have proposed are precisely those asked for by various companies.

One amendment concerns what LobbyPlag terms "forum shopping":

This amendment allows companies to "designate" its main establishment. The previous version of the law would make the member state of the factual "main establishment" responsible. This amendment allows massive "forum shopping" -- companies can choose the member state with the weakest data protection authority or the littlest enforcement (e.g. UK or Ireland) while actually being situated in a totally different member state. Even Peter Fleischer (Google’s Privacy Officer) has recently criticized Microsoft for "forum shopping" in Luxemburg

Some have countered these accusations by pointing out that suggestions from civil groups moving things the other way have also been included; that may well be true, although I've not seen any proof that exactly the same wording has been adopted. But even if that were true, that doesn't represent balance of any kind: the money that companies like Amazon or eBay are able to put behind lobbying efforts in the European Union (and around the world) dwarf the very limited resources of cash-strapped citizen rights groups.

Given that lobbying will never disappear, perhaps the best we can hope for is what LobbyPlag provides us for the first time: real transparency. Using the powerful digital tools now available, we can easily compare huge numbers of documents to find similarities. That allows us as citizens to follow the threads that link lobbyists -- of all persuasions -- to the politicians that shape our laws. The hope has to be that by shining a light on those links, and letting politicians know that we are watching what they do and where they get their amendments from, the more blatant dependencies on external groups might be diminished, or at least made more subtle.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

But in the aftermath of the election, a stark divide has emerged between political operatives and the techies who worked side-by-side. At issue is the code created during the Obama for America (OFA) 2012 campaign: the digital architecture behind the campaign’s website, its system for collecting donations, its email operation, and its mobile app. When the campaign ended, these programmers wanted to put their work back into the coding community for other developers to study and improve upon. Politicians in the Democratic party felt otherwise, arguing that sharing the tech would give away a key advantage to the Republicans. Three months after the election, the data and software is still tightly controlled by the president and his campaign staff, with the fate of the code still largely undecided. It’s a choice the OFA developers warn could not only squander the digital advantage the Democrats now hold, but also severely impact their ability to recruit top tech talent in the future.

1. It basically makes the technology useless. As one of the techies who worked on the project notes, the software "will be mothballed," meaning that four years from now it'll be useless. What the politicians see as keeping an advantage is really just squandering a useful framework.
2. It completely misunderstands how technology advances and works. No one expects software from today to be the same four years from now. By mothballing the tech, it will mean that the next campaign will effectively be starting from scratch. Open sourcing it would allow additional work to continue on this.
3. You can learn from others as well. The really shortsighted part is this insistence that open sourcing it "helps the other side." Again, what will be used four years (or even two years) from now will be quite different as the technology advances. And having it open sourced means that lots of folks can jump in and build on the tech in the meantime. And, yes, even Republican techies might work on it, and the Dems can learn from them as well.
4. Keeping it closed pisses off the techies, who will be less likely to contribute or join the team next time around.
5. If the Democrats believe they have stronger technologists, then next election they should still be able to make innovations faster than their opponents.
6. It quite possibly violates some open source licenses, since much of the code was built on open source software, some of which requires any additional work to also be open sourced.
7. Keeping the tech secret also means that other campaigns (beyond just elections) can't make use of the technology as well, which could actually hurt causes that the Democrats support.

The White House's "We the People" website just got its most popular petition to date: a request to officially designate the Westboro Baptist church as a hate group. The petition was started on Dec. 14, the same day a shooting at an elementary school in Newtown, Conn., left 27 people dead, 20 of them children, and the day the fringe church announced it would picket the victims' funerals.

The petition now has more than 260,000 signatures, far and above the 25,000 signature needed for official response.

But the White House has not yet responded to the Westboro petition—or to any of the rather uncommon requests that have flooded the site over the last few months (to secede from the Union, to make American Sign Language an official language or to nationalize Twinkies).

The White House immediately responded, however, to a petition calling to reduce gun violence after the Newtown shooting, an issue President Barack Obama has said he's keen to address. In a sit-down video response, Obama carefully explained the ways in which he'd work to make children's schools more safe.

J.H. Snider, a fellow at Harvard University's Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics, predicted in The Huffington Post in October 2011 that "We The People" would "probably only have a short life ... because the interests of the public and elected officials differ."

What the Amendment Does: Requires the DNI to submit a report to Congress and the public on the impact FAA and other surveillance authorities have on the privacy of United States persons.

Sen. Ron Wyden, one of the most ardent defenders of civil liberties in the Senate, has been asking the NSA for months for information on how the FISA Amendments Act has impacted Americans.

The NSA has so far refused, yet, as the New York Times reported in 2009, we know the NSA was still intercepting domestic communications in a "significant and systematic" way. We also know the secret FISA court ruled, on at least one occasion, that the government had violated the Fourth Amendment when conducting surveillance under the FAA. Yet the NSA has rather unbelievably claimed releasing the number of Americans whose privacy has been violated would violate those same Americans' privacy.

Ron Wyden's amendment would force the NSA to come clean and give a general estimate of how many Americans have been affected by this unconstitutional bill, and finally give us information Americans deserve.

In addition, another Wyden amendment would clarify that the acquisition of American communications is prohibited without a warrant. Sen. Wyden has accused the government of conducting "backdoor searches," whereby the government collects communications of foreign individuals talking to Americans, but later goes back into the government's database of intercepted communications and reviews the Americans' communications. Sen. Wyden hopes this clarification to the law will help guard against further intrusive spying on American communications.

• The Administration opposes this amendment. The goal of this amendment is to obtain an estimate of the number of U.S. persons' communications that may have been collected. Two independent inspectors general have determined, and reported to Congress, that it is not feasible to provide actual numbers or estimates. They also found that an effort to provide such numbers by deliberately trying to identify U.S. person information would adversely affect the privacy of any U.S. persons whose incidentally collected communications may exist within the collected data.
• Representatives of the Intelligence Community have briefed the Judiciary and Intelligence Committees in more detail as to why it is not feasible to provide such numbers or estimates and stand ready to answer questions from other Members in a classified setting.
• FAA contains significant privacy protections for U.S. persons, to include extensive reporting to Congress to allow Congress to assess the privacy impact of FAA on U.S. persons.

• We oppose this amendment. The Executive Branch works diligently to ensure Congress is fully informed of the intelligence collection operations under FAA, notwithstanding the need for the Executive Branch to carry out certain sensitive intelligence activities in a classified manner.
• As part of Congress' intensive oversight of FISA activities, the Intelligence and Judiciary Committees receive, in classified form, all FISA Court opinions that include a significant interpretation of FISA provisions.
• We have committed to reviewing FISC opinions for release to the public with necessary redactions to protect national security equities and that effort is ongoing.
• This process must, by necessity, be undertaken with great care. In many cases, classified information is so intertwined with the legal analysis that redacting the classified information leaves a document that lacks any meaningful analysis. Because the Executive Branch is already undertaking a review of the FISC opinions for possible public release, we believe this amendment is unnecessary.

• We support the House passed sunset date of 2017 and oppose any effort to shorten the sunset date to 2015. The extensive congressional and judicial oversight and the strong track record of compliance supports an extension longer than, not shorter than, the original authorization.
• Aligning FAA with expiration of provisions of the Patriot Act risks confusing distinct issues.
• Frequent Congressional and public debate on intelligence authorities poses a greater risk of inadvertent disclosure of classified information.
• No additional reporting requirements are necessary. Section 702 of FISA is a well calibrated statute that provides for ample oversight by all three branches of government. This oversight framework ensures robust protections for the privacy and civil liberties of U.S. persons.

• We strongly oppose this amendment as it will effectively repeal the FISA Amendments Act and other federal laws by requiring a probable cause determination to obtain information on our foreign adversaries located overseas. As such, it would overturn years of federal law.
• This proposed amendment would severely limit the effectiveness of law enforcement, authorities at all levels of government. For example, Governments rely on legal tools such as grand jury subpoenas. The use of such tools would be prohibited under the amendment if that information is drawn from almost any system of records.

Among the Barack Obama loyalists under consideration for ambassadorial appointments are Los Angeles-based White House decorator Michael Smith, 47; Hollywood philanthropist and television producer Colleen Bell, 45; industry money manager John Emerson, 57; and Tennis Channel chief Ken Solomon, 49. And the Westside L.A. dinner-party circuit has started buzzing with conversations about who else might be in the mix this time around.

According to sources, many of the candidates were among 100 guests invited to the White House in early December for an East Room dinner at which Obama and the first lady thanked longtime fundraisers and Democratic activists for their support. Among the Hollywood-connected contingent at the event were Emerson; Solomon; Wintour; Smith and his partner, HBO executive James Costos; Bell and her husband, soap opera producer Bradley Bell; political and philanthropic consultant Noah Mamet; Harvey Weinstein; and Hollywood political consultant Andy Spahn.

According to an administration insider: "There is no single thing that qualifies you to be an ambassador, but they have one thing in common: They have all earned the trust and respect of the president. He isn't going to choose someone just because they've raised $500,000. He has to know them."

If the problem with Zero Dark Thirty is that it's not an accurate presentation of the utility of torture (and we shudder at the thought that torture ought to be evaluated according to its utility), the senators could make a major push to declassify a massive report put together by Feinstein's committee into what the CIA's torture program did and didn't do.

Last week, Feinstein announced that the Senate intelligence committee she chairs finally approved a 6,000-page study into the CIA’s treatment of terrorism detainees in its custody that took almost four years to investigate. By reviewing more than "6 million pages of CIA and other records," Feinstein said, the report details how the detainees were treated, how they were interrogated, and, crucially, "the intelligence they actually provided and the accuracy — or inaccuracy — of CIA descriptions about the program." Feinstein promised "startling details" and "critical questions" about the program, promising it would "settle the debate once and for all over whether our nation should ever employ coercive interrogation techniques such as those detailed in this report." Small problem: the report is secret, so you can't read it.

So the report that could settle the debate about torture won't settle the debate about torture until the self-interested parties who've stymied accountability for torture decide it's safe to settle the debate about torture.

After an early and acrimonious decision to partially declassify key Justice Department memos authorizing the torture — for which Obama deserves praise — he's done nothing. A special prosecutor empowered by Attorney General Eric Holder ended up not indicting any CIA official who abused detainees, and didn't even consider investigating the top officials who authorized the torture in the first place. There has been even less official public reckoning with what the torture program entailed, something that would fray Obama's relationship with a CIA that implements his lethal drone program, since a former Bush administration aide described that program as amounting to "war crimes." And it's worth noting that under Obama's watch, the U.S. military placed accused Wikileaker Bradley Manning in conditions that were harsher than those for many Guantanamo Bay detainees.

A disturbing number of public figures have lashed out at video games since the atrocity committed at Sandy Hook Elementary on Friday. A bipartisan group of legislators embraced this scapegoating on the Sunday news programs; from Democrats like Sen. Joe Lieberman and Gov. John Hickenlooper to Rep. Jason Chaffetz and former Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Ridge.

They were joined by members of the media – sadly, too many to count.

On MSNBC on Monday, Chris Jansing asked her guests what connection Adam Lanza’s interest in video games had to his murderous shooting spree. She quoted senior White House advisor David Axelrod who tweeted “shouldn’t we also quit marketing murder as a game?” Liberal contributor Goldie Taylor revealed that she refused to let her child play games until he was 14-years-old.

[....]

On Fox & Friends on Monday, legal analyst Peter Johnson Jr. delivered an offensively sermonizing renunciation of entertainment producers and videogame makers who are “clinging to guns economically.”

“They are glamorizing guns in this country. They are the scourge in terms of these guns,” Johnson Jr. said of game and filmmakers

Let me tell you a story. The day after Columbine, I was interviewed for the Tom Brokaw news program. The reporter had been assigned a theory and was seeking sound bites to support it. "Wouldn't you say," she asked, "that killings like this are influenced by violent movies?" No, I said, I wouldn't say that. "But what about 'Basketball Diaries'?" she asked. "Doesn't that have a scene of a boy walking into a school with a machine gun?" The obscure 1995 Leonardo Di Caprio movie did indeed have a brief fantasy scene of that nature, I said, but the movie failed at the box office (it grossed only $2.5 million), and it's unlikely the Columbine killers saw it.

The reporter looked disappointed, so I offered her my theory. "Events like this," I said, "if they are influenced by anything, are influenced by news programs like your own. When an unbalanced kid walks into a school and starts shooting, it becomes a major media event. Cable news drops ordinary programming and goes around the clock with it. The story is assigned a logo and a theme song; these two kids were packaged as the Trench Coat Mafia. The message is clear to other disturbed kids around the country: If I shoot up my school, I can be famous. The TV will talk about nothing else but me. Experts will try to figure out what I was thinking. The kids and teachers at school will see they shouldn't have messed with me. I'll go out in a blaze of glory."

In short, I said, events like Columbine are influenced far less by violent movies than by CNN, the NBC Nightly News and all the other news media, who glorify the killers in the guise of "explaining" them. I commended the policy at the Sun-Times, where our editor said the paper would no longer feature school killings on Page 1. The reporter thanked me and turned off the camera. Of course the interview was never used. They found plenty of talking heads to condemn violent movies, and everybody was happy.

What I heard was heartbreaking. They had dropped out of school because the insanity from the press proved to be too much to deal with. They talked about not being able to answer the phone – which would ring all day and night – because the press always wanted to talk. They talked about being hounded by press wherever they went. All they wanted was to be let alone. So they dropped out of school which they said was fine because it was so close to the end of the year and everything was chaos and no one noticed.

But please, please, please… can we leave the poor people of Newtown alone? Can we not shove microphones into the faces of distraught children? Can we stop hovering like buzzards waiting for the fresh meat of gossipy details? Can we let the parents of the deceased choose when and where they want to engage with the public to tell their story? Can we let the community have some dignity in their grief rather than turning them and their lives into a spectacle of mourning?

Yes, the media are the ones engaging in these practices. But the reason that they’re doing so is because we – the public – are gawking at the public displays of pain. Our collective fascination with tragedy means that we encourage media practices that rub salt into people’s wounds, all for the most salacious story. And worse, our social media practices mean that the media creators are tracking the kinds of stories that are forwarded. And my hunch is that people are forwarding precisely those salacious stories, even if to critique the practices (such as the interviews of children).

Mr Assange said plans to register an Australian WikiLeaks party were ''significantly advanced''. He indicated he would be a Senate candidate, and added that "a number of very worthy people admired by the Australian public" have indicated their availability to stand for election on a party ticket.

He said a WikiLeaks party would advance WikiLeaks' objectives of promoting openness in government and politics, and it would combat growing intrusions on individual privacy.

If Mr Assange were elected but he was unable to return to Australia to take up his position, a nominee would occupy a Senate seat.

I first met Howard Berman when I was with the Motion Picture Association of America. I remember Jack Valenti uttering a phrase that I would hear repeatedly over 20 years: “What does Howard think?” When we have an idea for a compromise, someone runs it by Howard. When we develop a strategy, someone is tasked to get Howard’s reaction. When we speak with his congressional colleagues, the usual response from Democrats and Republicans alike is, “Let me grab Howard on the floor and see what he is thinking.”

Facing the possibility that President Obama might not win a second term, his administration accelerated work in the weeks before the election to develop explicit rules for the targeted killing of terrorists by unmanned drones, so that a new president would inherit clear standards and procedures, according to two administration officials.

“There was concern that the levers might no longer be in our hands,” said one official, speaking on condition of anonymity. With a continuing debate about the proper limits of drone strikes, Mr. Obama did not want to leave an “amorphous” program to his successor, the official said. The effort, which would have been rushed to completion by January had Mr. Romney won, will now be finished at a more leisurely pace, the official said.

Despite public remarks by Mr. Obama and his aides on the legal basis for targeted killing, the program remains officially classified. In court, fighting lawsuits filed by the American Civil Liberties Union and The New York Times seeking secret legal opinions on targeted killings, the government has refused even to acknowledge the existence of the drone program in Pakistan.

But by many accounts, there has been a significant shift in the nature of the targets. In the early years, most strikes were aimed at ranking leaders of Al Qaeda thought to be plotting to attack the United States. That is the purpose Mr. Obama has emphasized, saying in a CNN interview in September that drones were used to prevent “an operational plot against the United States” and counter “terrorist networks that target the United States.”

Then there's the matter of strikes against people whose identities are unknown. In an online video chat in January, Mr. Obama spoke of the strikes in Pakistan as “a targeted, focused effort at people who are on a list of active terrorists.” But for several years, first in Pakistan and later in Yemen, in addition to “personality strikes” against named terrorists, the C.I.A. and the military have carried out “signature strikes” against groups of suspected, unknown militants.

Originally that term was used to suggest the specific “signature” of a known high-level terrorist, such as his vehicle parked at a meeting place. But the word evolved to mean the “signature” of militants in general — for instance, young men toting arms in an area controlled by extremist groups. Such strikes have prompted the greatest conflict inside the Obama administration, with some officials questioning whether killing unidentified fighters is legally justified or worth the local backlash.

• Step one: Congress should require the Executive Branch to implement the recommendations of a group of a high-tech CEO council that identified about $1 trillion in savings achievable by 2020 through better use of technology.
  
• Step two: Congress should overhaul corporate taxation so as to reward job creation, expand research and development, encourage long term and sustainable equity growth, provide regular returns to shareholders, sustain sensible balances of risk and reward, and applaud success in exporting goods and services for sale in other countries.
  
• Step three: Congress should require the Executive Branch to aggregate its purchases of bandwidth so as to drive increased capital into new networks, and to move all government services into digitized forms delivered to all broadband customers.
  
• Step four: Congress should require that all classrooms and libraries have the opportunity to win major monetary awards from government for providing breakthrough e-learning capabilities to their communities.

On 20 October, he (Ravi Srinivasan) posted a tweet to his 16 followers saying that Karti Chidambaram, a politician belonging to India's ruling Congress party and son of Finance Minister P Chidambaram, had "amassed more wealth than Vadra".

He was alluding to Robert Vadra, son-in-law of Congress party chief Sonia Gandhi, who was at the centre of a political row after allegations over his links with a top Indian property firm.

Karti Chidambaram (@KartiPC) did not take the tweet in good humour and filed a police complaint on 29 October.

They arrested Mr Srinivasan early next morning, charged him under Section 66A of India's Information Technology [IT] Act, and demanded 15 days of police custody.

[Section 66A] can send you to jail for three years for sending an email or other electronic message that "causes annoyance or inconvenience".

On the face of it, this protects citizens against online harassment.

In reality, the law is more often used by the state as a weapon against dissent. In each such case, police action has been swift and harsh.

In April, the West Bengal government led by Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee used Section 66A against a teacher who had emailed to friends a cartoon that was mildly critical of her.

And, interestingly, Section 66A has never been used against politicians.

"Free speech is subject to reasonable restrictions. I have a right to seek constitutional/legal remedies over defamatory/scurrilous tweets."

...no matter what the outcome, our government will still be a giant bonfire of partisanship. It is ironic since whenever I have met with our elected officials they are invariably thoughtful, well-meaning people. And yet collectively 90% of their effort seems to be focused on how to stick it to the other party.

So my plea to the victors -- whoever they might be: please withdraw from your respective parties and govern as independents in name and in spirit. It is probably the biggest contribution you can make to the country.