Politico

Hillary Clinton doesn’t need an official presidential campaign for the tech set to take to the playing field on her behalf.

Democratic data and political operatives have begun building Clinton the fundraising tools, voter lists and social media programs that are essential for a modern-day White House run -- part of a shadow-campaign-in-waiting that seeks to avoid her 2008 technological mishaps while incorporating many of the Barack Obama-inspired advances. Just as important: Technology gurus who spurned Clinton six years ago say that absent the arrival of a lightning-strike, Obama-like candidate, they are ready to help elect the former secretary of state.

It’s a strong sign that bygones are bygones and that Clinton herself will heed calls to run a looser race than she did in 2008, when she was bested in part because of the Obama campaign’s innovation superiority.

“The out-of-touch aura that I think she was suffering from in 2008 isn’t there,” said Laura Olin, Obama’s 2012 social media director.

So far, Clinton’s talking the talk that the tech set wants to hear, from her recent admission to People magazine that she and her husband had “totally binge-watched” Netflix’s “House of Cards” to diving into the weeds of net neutrality, Internet speeds and immigration reform during an April conference with technology executives in San Francisco.

Facebook is also scheduled to broadcast a live interview with Clinton from the 2014 Aspen Ideas Festival. “Even if she’s not technologically adept herself, she’s very comfortable in that world,” said Anne-Marie Slaughter, president of the New America Foundation and Clinton’s former State Department policy planning director. “She’s certainly not a digital native, but I’d say she’s surrounded by lots of them.”

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers (R-MI) tore into major US tech firms for their opposition to a House surveillance reform bill that many Internet industry leaders have denounced as too weak.

"We should be very mad at Google, Facebook and Microsoft, because they're doing a very dangerous thing," Rep Rogers said.

The House intelligence chairman charged that by opposing the House version of the USA Freedom Act and calling for more limits on surveillance the American firms are putting their profits ahead of their loyalty to the United States.

"They say, 'Well, we have to do this because we're trying to make sure we don’t lose our European business.' I don't know about the rest of you but that offends me form the words 'European business,'" Rep Rogers said. "Everyone on those boards should be embarrassed and their CEOs should be embarrassed and their stockholders should be embarrassed.....That one quarter [of European market profits] cannot be worth the national security of the United States for the next ten generations."

Moms and dads from across the political spectrum have mobilized into an unexpected political force in recent months to fight the data mining of their children.

In a frenzy of activity, they’ve catapulted student privacy -- issue that was barely on anyone’s radar up until now -- to prominence in statehouses from New York to Florida to Wyoming.

Now, parents are rallying against another perceived threat: huge state databases being built to track children for more than two decades, from as early as infancy through the start of their careers. Promoted by the Obama Administration, the databases are being built in nearly every state at a total cost of well over $1 billion. They are intended to store intimate details on tens of millions of children and young adults -- identified by name, birth date, address and even, in some cases, Social Security number -- to help officials pinpoint the education system’s strengths and weaknesses and craft public policy accordingly.

“Every parent I’ve talked to has been horrified,” said Leonie Haimson, a New York mother who is organizing a national Parent Coalition for Student Privacy. “We just don’t want our kids tracked from cradle to grave.” Eager to support technological innovation and wary of new regulations, Congress has taken little notice of parent concerns. But state legislators have raced to respond. Since January, 14 states have enacted stricter student privacy protections, often with overwhelming bipartisan support, and more are likely on the way.

A blistering battle over network neutrality has the Federal Communications Commission hearing an earful -- and from more than just the usual torrent of lobbyists and lawyers who swarm the chairman’s eighth-floor office.

“Eliminating net neutrality is wrong for America,” warned Carolyn from Kennewick, Washington, one of roughly 69,000 people to write the agency so far about its proposed open Internet rules. “Do not change the Internet,” pleaded David from San Antonio. “In fairness to all users,” added Debie from Gaston, Oregon, “do not allow these gluttonous Internet providers any more corrupting power.”

Even beyond the Beltway, critics have pilloried the country’s top telecommunications regulator as it weighs new rules to ensure that all Web traffic is treated equally. The debate over net neutrality has always been controversial and complicated -- for consumers, companies and courts alike.

But Chairman Tom Wheeler’s new blueprint has triggered a reaction far more intense than what might typically greet the early stages of an FCC proceeding. Many commenters -- and members of Congress -- bemoan publicly that they have more questions than answers. They fear Chairman Wheeler’s approach might create a Web in which companies or consumers have to pay for faster access to the movies and other content they desire, though the chairman has assured otherwise. Adding to the trouble, intense lobbying from all sides of the fight only has imbued the issue with a new alarmism.

The “Internet of Things” is about to go mainstream, with some help from Apple. The company has unveiled plans to let people use their iPhones and iPads to control an array of Internet-connected devices in their homes, from door locks to lightbulbs.

In doing so, the company brought the emerging sector of “smart” appliances to a much wider base of consumers.

Apple’s move could also have implications for Washington regulators, who are just beginning to grapple with the Internet of Things. Such technologies -- from wired cars to toothbrushes -- raise new privacy and security implications as everyday objects get connected to the Internet, and amass data on users, in unprecedented ways.

“We thought we could bring some rationality to this space,” Apple Senior Vice President Craig Federighi said. “You could say something like ‘Get ready for bed’ and be assured your garage door is closed, your door is locked, the thermostat is lowered and your lights are dimmed,” he said.

Apple said people would be able to control the home appliances through a single app. It released a software kit to give developers a common set of standards for building and connecting Internet-enabled devices.

Facebook wants to patent a system for letting children create accounts with parental supervision, a sign that the social network may be moving closer to extending membership to kids under 13.

The patent application describes in detail how a child seeking to join Facebook would first have to get a parent’s approval through the parent’s own Facebook account. Parents would then have the option to set privacy controls and to limit and monitor the kinds of content, friends and third-party applications available to the child.

Facebook currently bans children under 13, but CEO Mark Zuckerberg has signaled he’s interested in bringing kids into the fold, a move that could generate millions of new members. Adding children to the social network “will be a fight we take on at some point,” he said in 2011. “My philosophy is that for education you need to start at a really, really young age.”

To expand membership to kids, Facebook would have to comply with the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA), a 1998 law that governs what kind of information companies can collect on kids under 13. The regulations, which were updated in 2013, require companies to get verified parental consent before collecting or sharing children’s personal information.

The Federal Trade Commission, which enforces COPPA, would likely have to approve any new method for proving a parent’s identity. Other websites and services geared toward children require parents to prove their identity by providing credit card information or faxing ID documents. An FTC spokesman declined to comment on whether Facebook had yet filed a proposal to the agency.

[Commentary] President Barack Obama made an important promise when he first ran for president. “The Internet is perhaps the most important network in history, and we have to keep it that way,” he said in 2007.

As a senator, he had similarly called for a “neutral platform” uncontrolled by “some corporate media middleman” like Verizon or Comcast. Sen Obama, in other words, was committed to preserving network neutrality -- the notion that Internet service providers like AT&T, Comcast and Verizon have to provide fair and neutral access to all websites and applications; they can’t make small websites slow to load and give “fast lanes” to monopolies and large companies who pay extra for special treatment.

But the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, Tom Wheeler, proposed a network neutrality rule that would authorize those pay-to-play fast lanes.

The President (and everyone else) seems to be overlooking one power he does have: the authority to remove FCC Chairman Wheeler from the chairmanship, promoting another commissioner to that spot and leaving Chairman Wheeler as one of the other four commissioners. In particular, both commissioners Mignon Clyburn and Jessica Rosenworcel, the two other Democrats on the five-person board, spoke out eloquently in official statements, criticizing Chairman Wheeler’s proposal for authorizing fast lanes and being a “network neutrality” rule in name only.

Either Commissioner Clyburn or Commissioner Rosenworcel could take over the agency, scrap Chairman Wheeler’s plan in favor of an alternative and move quickly to ensure an open Internet, thereby fulfilling the cornerstone of the Obama campaign’s tech agenda after the four-month comment period. While firing Chairman Wheeler as chairman would be an unusual move, there are at least four solid reasons the president should do it.

First, he has every right to do it. The Communications Act of 1934, the legislation that created the FCC, makes clear in Section 4(a) that the president has the power to “designate as chairman” one of the five commissioners.

Second, it’s not just that President Obama can demote Chairman Wheeler -- he also should.

Third, Wheeler’s network neutrality rule is truly bad for business, leaving small or unconnected companies with few options if Internet providers discriminate against them.

Fourth, the other two Democratic commissioners, either of whom could potentially replace Chairman Wheeler, not only seem committed to network neutrality and the rest of the Obama tech agenda, but also have the courage and competence to follow through.

[Teachout is fellow at the New America Foundation and associate law professor at Fordham Law School]

[Commentary] As Dean Baquet takes over as executive editor of the New York Times, a looming question hovers beyond the scandal surrounding Jill Abramson’s bloody ousting: How will Baquet handle the necessary digital transformation facing “All the news that’s fit to print”?

Baquet sent a memo to staff ensuring them that he will "move with urgency" on the recommendations of a recent internal "innovation" report, which was submitted in late March and warned that the Times' "journalism advantage is shrinking" as it is surpassed by new digital competitors.

But Baquet, while widely admired throughout the newsroom, is not known for his digital savvy. He's described as "print-forward," "page-one obsessed." Younger staff members note that he's never even written a tweet.

So the most important indication of Baquet's commitment to digital will be who he selects as his number-two, staffers said. If he taps a digital-forward managing editor, it will signal that he is serious about the need to grow in the online and mobile spaces, which will be essential to the Times' future success.

“If he hires the right deputy maybe it will work. But the signals he is sending are so much business as usual it’s very hard for me to imagine he’s capable of leading that type of change," a former staffer said.

The Washington Post is drawing attention from media critics who question whether the paper's new owner Jeff Bezos is influencing coverage of his company Amazon.

Nearly one week after The New York Times reported on a bitter dispute between Amazon and the book publisher Hachette, the Post has yet to cover the story. Amazon has been discouraging customers from buying Hachette books by delaying deliveries, according to the report.

The absence of any Amazon-Hachette mention in the Post has been flagged by media critics Jack Shafer and Jim Romenesko, and criticized by the publisher Melville House. Post executive editor Martin Baron assured POLITICO that the lack of coverage was simply a matter of resources and editorial judgment.

The National Security Agency has nothing on the education technology startup known as Knewton. The data analytics firm has peered into the brains of more than 4 million students across the country.

By monitoring every mouse click, every keystroke and every split-second hesitation as children work through digital textbooks, Knewton is able to find out not just what individual kids know, but how they think. It can tell who has trouble focusing on science before lunch -- and who will struggle with fractions. Even as Congress moves to rein in the National Security Agency, private-sector data mining has galloped forward -- perhaps nowhere faster than in education. Both Republicans and Democrats have embraced the practice.

And the Obama Administration has encouraged it, even relaxing federal privacy law to allow school districts to share student data more widely. The goal is to identify potential problems early and to help kids surmount them. But the data revolution has also put heaps of intimate information about school children in the hands of private companies -- where it is highly vulnerable to being shared, sold or mined for profit.