Civic Engagement

AnonOps, a group affiliated with the online activist group known as Anonymous, posted what it says are the private cell phone numbers and email addresses for 22 Republican members of Congress in a bid to push for President Trump's impeachment, reigniting the use of hacked information in US political battles.

Rob Pfeiffer, chief editor of online publication The Anon Journal, said that the move was spurred by Trump's contentious reaction to violent clashes in Charlottesville. He did not know how the information was obtained, whether it was a leak or an online hack. He said some of the cell phone numbers, for example, had been verified as real. Among the politicians on the list were Sens. Ben Sasse of Nebraska, Bob Corker of Tennessee and Charles Grassley of Iowa. The goal, said Pfeiffer, is for people to contact these members of Congress to more forcefully condemn the president and call for Trump's impeachment. Pfeiffer said more GOP lawmakers could see their personal contact information released soon.

Sen Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) and Rep Frank Pallone (D-NJ) called for an independent investigation into the Federal Communications Commission's claim that it suffered DDoS attacks on May 8, when the net neutrality public comments system went offline. "While the FCC and the FBI have responded to Congressional inquiries into these DDoS attacks, they have not released any records or documentation that would allow for confirmation that an attack occurred, that it was effectively dealt with, and that the FCC has begun to institute measures to thwart future attacks and ensure the security of its systems," the lawmakers wrote in a letter to the US Government Accountability Office. "As a result, questions remain about the attack itself and more generally about the state of cybersecurity at the FCC—questions that warrant an independent review."

Sen Schatz and Rep Pallone, the ranking members of the Senate and House Commerce Committees, also said the FCC has not acted to prevent or mitigate the problem of fake comments flooding the net neutrality docket. "[T]aken together, these situations raise serious questions about how the public makes its thoughts known to the FCC and how the FCC develops the record it uses to justify decisions reached by the agency," they wrote to the GAO.

They posted swastikas and praised Hitler in chat rooms with names like “National Socialist Army” and “Führer’s Gas Chamber.” They organized last weekend’s “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville (VA), connecting several major white supremacy groups for an intimidating display of force. And when that rally turned deadly, with the killing of a 32-year-old counterdemonstrator, they cheered and discussed holding a gathering at the woman’s funeral.

For two months before the Charlottesville rally, I embedded with a large group of white nationalists on Discord, a group chat app that was popular among far-right activists. I lurked silently and saw these activists organize themselves into a cohesive coalition, and interviewed a number of moderators and members about how they used the service to craft and propagate their messages. I also asked Discord executives what, if anything, they planned to do about the white nationalists and neo-Nazis who had set up shop on their platform and were using it to spread their ideology. Several said they were aware of the issue, but had no concrete plans to crack down on any extremist groups. On Aug 14, Discord finally took action, banning several of the largest alt-right Discord communities and taking away one of the white nationalist movement’s key communication tools.

[Commentary] It is those who turn to violence and view themselves as a law unto themselves that are “the other side.” To be clear, I do not speak of those who merely defend themselves. If an armed mob assaults protesters, then those assaulted have the right to defend themselves. No, the “other side” are those who think that they have been provoked so that the rule of law no longer applies. Those who think they are a law unto themselves, empowered to deal death and violence for their ‘sacred cause.’ These who consider themselves their own law, and those who encourage them, are the “other side.” They are the enemy that needs to be condemned.

So I say again, there is no “all sides.” There is no “both sides.” There is no right versus left in the defense of the principles of free speech and democracy. Are you with the Rule of Law, or do you believe yourself a law of your own? Those are the two sides — and only one is at fault for the deaths in Charlottesville.

[Harold Feld is Senior Vice President at Public Knowledge]

Over and over again, America’s far-right has learned that the 1st Amendment doesn’t protect them from Silicon Valley tech companies. Over the last two years, a crop of start-ups has begun offering social media platforms and financial services catering to right-wing Internet users. “We’re getting banned from using payment-processing services, so we have no other choice,” said Tim Gionet, who goes by the name “Baked Alaska” and who is scheduled to speak at the Charlottesville (VA) rally. “If that’s the gamble they want to take, I guess they can, and we’ll make our own infrastructure.” The new companies are small, paling in audience size to their gargantuan, mainstream counterparts. But piece by piece, supporters of the far-right are assembling their own corporate tech world — a shadow Silicon Valley, one with fewer rules.

American Internet users are telling the Federal Communications Commission that mobile broadband is not a full replacement for fast home Internet service. The week of Aug 7, the FCC kicked off its annual analysis of broadband deployment and signaled that it might determine that smartphone access is a proper substitute for cable or fiber Internet. In doing so, the FCC could conclude that broadband is already being deployed to all Americans in a reasonable and timely fashion, and thus the commission could take fewer steps to promote deployment and competition.

There have been over 300 new comments filed since we wrote about this two days ago, almost universally lambasting the FCC's suggestion that Americans might not need fast home Internet service and could make do with mobile broadband only. Mobile is hindered by data caps, limits on tethering, and reliability problems that make it fall short of a wired Internet connection, people told the FCC.

Network neutrality advocates have set Sept 27 for their next coordinated protest of rolling back the Title II classification, as the Republican-majority Federal Communications Commission has proposed. The July 12 network Day of Action was an online and FCC-centric protest, the Sept 27 Day of Advocacy will be about facetime with policymakers, both on the Hill and at the FCC. According to Public Knowledge, one of the backers of the protest, the September event will feature participants going to Capitol Hill to make their case. The next day the protest will move to the FCC for the monthly open meeting to "let the commissioners know how you feel about net neutrality."

As the number of online comments in the Federal Communications Commission's network neutrality proceeding soars to record highs, groups on both sides of the debate are calling on Congress to investigate mounting allegations of fake public input. The latest allegations come from the conservative-leaning National Legal and Policy Center (NLPC), which said a whopping 5.8 million pro-net neutrality comments submitted between July 17 and Aug. 4 using the same one sentence appear to be fake. The docket has been plagued for months by charges that many of the comments are duplicates, filed under fake names or submitted without the permission of the people who supposedly signed them. The growing controversy is raising questions about how the comments will be used when the FCC mulls a final order. "It's almost unimaginable how anybody thinks this could do any good," NLPC President Peter Flaherty said.

Democrat Sens are urging the Federal Communications Commission to extend the public comment period on its proposal to scrap the network neutrality rules. Fifteen Democrats, led by Sen Ed Markey (D-MA), wrote a letter to FCC Chairman Ajit Pai. They asked that he provide more time for comments, citing the unprecedented number of comments on the rules.

To date, Pai's “Restoring Internet Freedom” proposal to roll back Obama-era net neutrality measures aimed at creating a level playing field for internet companies has received more than 16 million comments, more than any other FCC item in history. The previous record happened during the FCC’s last net neutrality proceedings in 2014, in which the public filed about 4 million comments on the matter. The lawmakers also noted that the comment period for approving net neutrality in 2014 was 60 days. Chairman Pai has only allowed a 30-day comment period for his plan to rollback the rules. “This proceeding has the potential to impact all Americans and as the expert agency, you should ensure that the Commission provides ample time to ensure all voices are heard,” the senators wrote.

This report introduces students to the field of civic technology and the possibility that it could help to amplify citizen engagement. Rather than providing an exhaustive academic study of this topic or an in-depth exploration of a single organization, the case begins with a broad overview of the field (and several of the debates affecting it) and then contains a series of vignettes about three organizations in this space: the City of Chicago, Neighborly, and the City of Boston’s Mayor’s Office of New Urban Mechanics. It aims to stimulate discussion around three core questions.

• First, what is civic technology, and what are some of the core forces, tensions, and debates shaping the field?
• Second, what are some of the most important considerations for civic technology organizations that are aiming to engage citizens in the democratic process and governmental decision-making?
• Third, where does civic technology—and, along with it, our conceptions of citizenship and engagement—go from here?