The U.S. House Foreign Affairs Committee voted on Wednesday along party lines to give President Joe Biden the power to ban Chinese-owned social media app TikTok, in the latest setback for the popular video sharing site. From a report: Lawmakers voted 24 to 16 to approve the measure to grant the administration new powers to ban the ByteDance-owned app -- which is used by over 100 million Americans -- as well as other apps considered security risks. Democrats on the committee opposed the bill, which was sponsored by Republican committee chair Michael McCaul. TikTok has come under increasing fire in recent weeks over fears that user data could end up in the hands of the Chinese government, undermining Western security interests.

Tech privacy advocates frustrated by failures on Capitol Hill are looking to mine state capitals for legislative victories. From a report: A broad bipartisan federal privacy bill that died in Congress last year has quickly become the template for a statehouse-by-statehouse campaign to enact tough new restrictions on how Americans' personal data can be mined and shared. Lawmakers in Massachusetts and Illinois are already proposing privacy measures modeled on the federal bill, and Democrats in Indiana are using it as inspiration to strengthen legislation that's already been proposed. Four other states have already passed their own data-privacy laws in the past two years -- raising anxiety levels among tech companies about a national "patchwork" of hard-to-navigate data rules -- but encouraging advocates who see an appetite for broader consumer protections.

"We were wondering if there would be something passed federally. It would definitely guide what we would be doing for the state," Democratic Indiana state Sen. Shelli Yoder said in an interview. "Because that failed, it put us in a position of needing to do something." The new statehouse focus by privacy advocates isn't necessarily designed to sweep across all 50 states but rather tighten regulations just enough in just enough places to force the industry into a de facto national standard. They're hoping to enact state-level privacy proposals that align closely with what Congress attempted to pass with the American Data and Privacy Protection Act: regulations that would limit what data companies can collect and share, create a data broker registry and establish new rights for Americans to delete data about themselves. But they're playing catch-up to an industry-led campaign that's made significant headway in several states, including Virginia and Utah, where weaker laws were enacted over the past two years.

President Biden's long-stalled nominee to the Federal Communications Commission fired back at her critics today, saying that the telecom industry shouldn't be allowed to choose its own regulators. From a report: "I believe deeply that regulated entities should not choose their regulator," Sohn said in prepared testimony for a Senate Commerce Committee nomination hearing today. "Unfortunately, that is the exact intent of the past 15 months of false and misleading attacks on my record and my character. My industry opponents have hidden behind dark money groups and surrogates because they fear a pragmatic, pro-competition, pro-consumer policymaker who will support policies that will bring more, faster, and lower-priced broadband and new voices to your constituents."

Biden first nominated Sohn, a longtime consumer advocate and former FCC official, on October 26, 2021. The full Senate never voted on whether to confirm Sohn as an FCC commissioner, and Biden renominated her last month. With the FCC deadlocked at two Democrats and two Republicans, Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel hasn't been able to pursue any major regulation of an industry that was deregulated during the Trump era. "The FCC has been without a majority for the entirety of the Biden administration -- over two years -- at a time when closing the digital divide is front and center," Sohn's testimony said. "There are too many important issues in front of the commission to lack a full complement of members, including improving the broadband maps, fixing the Universal Service Fund, closing the homework gap, ensuring fair access to broadband, and protecting consumers' privacy. Americans deserve a full FCC where I could play a critical role in addressing every one of these, but time is of the essence."

Coal in the US is now being economically outmatched by renewables to such an extent that it's more expensive for 99% of the country's coal-fired power plants to keep running than it is to build an entirely new solar or wind energy operation nearby, a new analysis has found. From a report: The plummeting cost of renewable energy, which has been supercharged by last year's Inflation Reduction Act, means that it is cheaper to build an array of solar panels or a cluster of new wind turbines and connect them to the grid than it is to keep operating all of the 210 coal plants in the contiguous US, bar one, according to the study.

"Coal is unequivocally more expensive than wind and solar resources, it's just no longer cost competitive with renewables," said Michelle Solomon, a policy analyst at Energy Innovation, which undertook the analysis. "This report certainly challenges the narrative that coal is here to stay." The new analysis, conducted in the wake of the $370bn in tax credits and other support for clean energy passed by Democrats in last summer's Inflation Reduction Act, compared the fuel, running and maintenance cost of America's coal fleet with the building of new solar or wind from scratch in the same utility region. On average, the marginal cost for the coal plants is $36 each megawatt hour, while new solar is about $24 each megawatt hour, or about a third cheaper. Only one coal plant -- Dry Fork in Wyoming -- is cost competitive with the new renewables. "It was a bit surprising to find this," said Solomon. "It shows that not only have renewables dropped in cost, the Inflation Reduction Act is accelerating this trend."

The partisan divisions we've become used to on Capitol Hill are if anything even more stark in the new 118th Congress. But so far, there is one thing Democrats and Republicans in the House and Senate seem to agree on: Ticketmaster is a problem. From a report: "In terms of their monopoly power, I'm concerned about it," Senator Josh Hawley told The New Republic in December. "I think we should look into it." Finally, the Senate is going to. Senators Amy Klobuchar and Mike Lee, the chairman and ranking member, respectively, of the Judiciary Committee's subcommittee that oversees antitrust issues, jointly announced a hearing for Tuesday that will be assisted by committee Chair Dick Durbin and ranking member Lindsey Graham. "I look forward to hearing more about how we got here, and identifying solutions," said Graham in a statement.

Ticketmaster has a dark history of confronting political rivals within the music industry. Pearl Jam was the last major live act to challenge the company in Congress in 1994. Pearl Jam filed a complaint with the Justice Department accusing Ticketmaster of being a monopoly. In an obscure House subcommittee, the complaint became an open airing of grievances on MTV by the band and its music industry allies against Ticketmaster CEO Fred Rosen, who, in turn, wrecked the Seattle grunge band's subsequent tours with last-minute ticketing shenanigans. The government all this time has done nothing to rein in the company. In fact, quite the opposite: In 2010, the Justice Department approved Ticketmaster's merger with Live Nation Entertainment, the company that owns the venues (and therein the concessions) where live music acts Taylor Swift and Bad Bunny perform for millions of adoring fans. For the world's biggest acts, Live Nation offers an all-in-one vendor that can pack stadiums for the artist who, in turn, doesn't have to deal with a galaxy of local players in the live events space, like venue owners, concert promoters, food and beverage vendors, public officials, and other hometown luminaries looking to dictate terms for the show.

Why hasn't America restored net neutrality protections? "President Biden's nomination to serve on the Federal Communications Commission has been stalled in the Senate for more than a year," complain the editorial boards of two Silicon Valley newspapers: Confirming Gigi Sohn would end the 2-2 deadlock on the FCC that is keeping Biden from fulfilling his campaign promise to restore net neutrality, ensuring that all internet traffic is treated equally. Polls show that 75% of Americans support net neutrality rules. They know that an open internet is essential for innovation and economic growth, for fostering the next generation of entrepreneurs....

[T]elecommunication giants such as AT&T, Verizon and Comcast don't want that to happen. They favor the status quo that allows the internet companies to pick winners and losers by charging content providers higher rates for speedier access to customers. They seek to expand the cable system model and allow kingmakers to rake in billions at the expense of smaller, new startups that struggle to gain a wider audience on their slow-speed offerings. So Republicans and a handful of Democrats are holding up Sohn's confirmation, claiming that her "radical" views disqualify her....

They also object to Sohn's current service as an Electronic Frontier Foundation board member, saying it proves she wouldn't be an unbiased and impartial FCC Commissioner. The San Francisco-based EFF is a leading nonprofit with a mission of defending digital privacy, free speech and innovation....

Enough is enough. Confirm Sohn and allow the FCC to fulfill its mission of promoting connectivity and ensuring a robust and competitive internet market.

The Federal Election Commission has dismissed a complaint from Republicans that Google's Gmail app aided Democratic candidates by sending GOP fundraising emails to spam at a far higher rate than Democratic solicitations. From a report: The Republican National Committee and others contended that the alleged benefit amounted to unreported campaign contributions to Democrats. But in a letter to Google last week, the FEC said it "found no reason to believe" that Google made prohibited in-kind corporate contributions, and that any skewed results from its spam filter algorithms were inadvertent. "Google has credibly supported its claim that its spam filter is in place for commercial reasons and thus did not constitute a contribution" within the meaning of federal campaign laws, according to an FEC analysis reviewed by The Wall Street Journal.

The Republican National Committee, the National Republican Senatorial Committee and the National Republican Congressional Committee complained to the FEC last year, citing an academic study that showed that nearly 70% of emails from Republican candidates were sent to spam compared with fewer than 1 in 10 from Democrat candidates from 2019 to 2020. The RNC and other campaign committees argued that Google's "overwhelmingly disproportionate suppression of Republican emails" constituted an illegal corporate contribution to Democratic candidates. But the FEC disagreed, finding that Google established that it maintains its spam filter settings to aid its business in keeping out malware, phishing attacks and scams, and not for the purpose of benefiting any political candidates.

Congress can find common ground on the protection of privacy, competition and American children, says U.S. President Joe Biden. In an op-ed at Wall Street Journal, he shares why he has pushed for legislation to hold Big Tech accountable. From the start of his administration, says Biden, he has embraced three broad principles for reform: First, we need serious federal protections for Americans' privacy. That means clear limits on how companies can collect, use and share highly personal data -- your internet history, your personal communications, your location, and your health, genetic and biometric data. It's not enough for companies to disclose what data they're collecting. Much of that data shouldn't be collected in the first place. These protections should be even stronger for young people, who are especially vulnerable online. We should limit targeted advertising and ban it altogether for children.

Second, we need Big Tech companies to take responsibility for the content they spread and the algorithms they use. That's why I've long said we must fundamentally reform Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which protects tech companies from legal responsibility for content posted on their sites. We also need far more transparency about the algorithms Big Tech is using to stop them from discriminating, keeping opportunities away from equally qualified women and minorities, or pushing content to children that threatens their mental health and safety.

Third, we need to bring more competition back to the tech sector. My administration has made strong progress in promoting competition throughout the economy, consistent with my July 2021 executive order. But there is more we can do. When tech platforms get big enough, many find ways to promote their own products while excluding or disadvantaging competitors -- or charge competitors a fortune to sell on their platform. My vision for our economy is one in which everyone -- small and midsized businesses, mom-and-pop shops, entrepreneurs -- can compete on a level playing field with the biggest companies. To realize that vision, and to make sure American tech keeps leading the world in cutting-edge innovation, we need fairer rules of the road. The next generation of great American companies shouldn't be smothered by the dominant incumbents before they have a chance to get off the ground.

There's been "an enormous ramp-up in U.S. chip-making plans" over the last 18 months, reports the New York Times. For example:

- In September Intel pledged $20 billion for two chip factories in Ohio
- Micron expects to spend at least that amount on a new manufacturing site in Syracuse, New York.
- Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company plans to invest $40 billion in Phoenix.

"The boom has implications for global technological leadership and geopolitics, with the United States aiming to prevent China from becoming an advanced power in chips..." Across the U.S., more than 35 companies have pledged nearly $200 billion for manufacturing projects related to chips since the spring of 2020, according to the Semiconductor Industry Association, a trade group. The money is set to be spent in 16 states, including Texas, Arizona and New York on 23 new chip factories, the expansion of nine plants, and investments from companies supplying equipment and materials to the industry. The push is one facet of an industrial policy initiative by the Biden administration, which is dangling at least $76 billion in grants, tax credits and other subsidies to encourage domestic chip production....

The new U.S. production efforts may correct some of these imbalances, industry executives said — but only up to a point. The new chip factories would take years to build and might not be able to offer the industry's most advanced manufacturing technology when they begin operations. Companies could also delay or cancel the projects if they aren't awarded sufficient subsidies by the White House. And a severe shortage in skills may undercut the boom, as the complex factories need many more engineers than the number of students who are graduating from U.S. colleges and universities....

A $50 billion government investment is likely to prompt corporate spending that would take the U.S. share of global production to as much as 14 percent by 2030, according to a Boston Consulting Group study in 2020 that was commissioned by the Semiconductor Industry Association. "It really does put us in the game for the first time in decades," said John Neuffer, the association's president, who added that the estimate may be conservative because Congress approved $76 billion in subsidies in a piece of legislation known as the CHIPS Act.
The article also cites predictions of 40,000 new jobs (made by the Semiconductor Industry Association) in exploring the possibility of a U.S. "talent shortage."

"Intel, responding to the issue, plans to invest $100 million to spur training and research at universities, community colleges and other technical educators."

Users of digital wallets and e-commerce platforms must start reporting small transactions, sowing fears among small-business owners. From a report: A tweak to the tax code enacted last year was intended to ensure that those who use services such as Venmo, CashApp, Etsy, StubHub and Airbnb to collect money are reporting all their income to the I.R.S. The change was part of the Biden administration's efforts to narrow the $7 trillion "tax gap" between revenue that is owed but not collected. But for millions of Americans, the new requirement means they will be faced with additional tax forms, potentially higher tax bills and a lot of confusion. That is stirring anxiety among some of the middle-class taxpayers and independent business owners President Biden promised would spared from greater tax scrutiny.

The new tax policy was tucked into the stimulus package known as the American Rescue Plan that Democrats passed in 2021. It has gone largely unnoticed because it applies to income earned this year and affects taxes that most Americans will pay in 2023. It is projected to raise about $8 billion in additional tax revenue over a decade. But as the impact of the rule and the prospect of surprise tax bills becomes clear, it is drawing pushback from business groups, lawmakers and others, prompting a scramble within the Biden administration to come up with a solution to avoid another chaotic tax season next year.

Three top Democratic campaign arms said Friday that they would set aside more than $1 million in contributions from former crypto golden boy FTX founder Sam Bankman-Fried, as first reported by The Washington Post. The groups plan to return the money to FTX customers as part of ongoing legal proceedings. The Verge reports: The Democratic National Committee and two top Democratic campaign groups announced the moves days after Bankman-Fried was arrested and charged with eight counts, including wire fraud and campaign finance violations. "Given the allegations around potential campaign finance violations by Bankman-Fried, we are setting aside funds in order to return the $815,000 in contributions since 2020," a DNC spokesperson confirmed in a statement to The Verge on Friday. "We will return as soon as we receive proper direction in the legal proceedings."

The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee have also pledged to set aside the $103,000 and $250,000 each received from Bankman-Fried, respectively, according to The Post. Over the last two years, Bankman-Fried became one of the most prolific political megadonors in the US, contributing more than $40 million in personal donations to mostly Democratic campaigns and organizations. But shortly after FTX went bankrupt in November, Bankman-Fried told crypto reporter Tiffany Fong that he donated a similar amount of money to Republican groups as well.

While the extent of Bankman-Fried's GOP contributions has yet to be uncovered, Democratic candidates have been pressured to return any money they received from the crypto mogul. CBS News reported Thursday that most Democratic campaigns that received publicly disclosed contributions from Bankman-Fried have pledged to either return or donate the money to charity. Newly elected Rep. Maxwell Frost (D-FL) confirmed Wednesday that he would donate Bankman-Fried's contributions to his campaign to the Zebra Coalition, a Florida-based group servicing homeless LGBTQ+ youth. [...] Sens. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), Tina Smith (D-MN), Alex Padilla (D-CA), and Bill Cassidy (R-LA) all received $5,800 from Bankman-Fried since last year and have either already donated or plan to donate the funds, according to CBS News.

The Federal Trade Commission on Thursday sued to block Microsoft's $69 billion acquisition of the video game publisher Activision Blizzard, charging that the massive deal would allow the Washington tech giant to suppress its competitors in gaming. Washington Post: The lawsuit represents the FTC's most significant effort to rein in consolidation in the tech industry since prominent tech critic Lina Khan (D) became the commission's chair and was expected to usher in a new era of antitrust enforcement characterized by a willingness to bring cases in court rather than pursue settlements with companies.

The FTC lawsuit against Microsoft could foil the company's ambitions to become a heavier hitter in gaming frontiers. Activision is the owner of massively popular titles like "Candy Crush" and "Call of Duty," and its acquisition could bolster Microsoft in its competition with Japanese console makers Nintendo and Sony. The commission voted on Thursday on a party-line vote to issue the lawsuit in administrative court, with the three Democrats in favor of the complaint and one Republican against it.

The Securities and Exchange Commission was seeking information from collapsed cryptocurrency exchange FTX earlier this year, the Prospect reported Wednesday, bringing a new perspective to an effort by a bipartisan group of congressmembers to slow down that investigation. From the report: The March letter [PDF] from eight House members -- four Democrats and four Republicans -- questioned the SEC's authority to make informal inquiries to crypto and blockchain companies, and intimated that the requests violated federal law. Rep. Tom Emmer (R-MN), whom the Republican caucus just elected as majority whip, the number three position in the House GOP leadership, led the letter. In a contemporaneous Twitter thread, Emmer wrote: "My office has received numerous tips from crypto and blockchain firms that SEC Chair Gary Gensler's information reporting 'requests' to the crypto community are overburdensome, don't feel particularly ... voluntary ... and are stifling innovation."

We now know that FTX was one of those firms receiving information requests from the SEC, about the very activities that have brought down the firm. This raises the question of whether Emmer and the other congressmembers were acting on behalf of FTX (which has been credibly accused of snatching customer money to make risky bets) to try to chill an ongoing investigation from an independent regulatory and law enforcement agency. Some of the "Blockchain Eight," as the Prospect termed them in March, have benefited from crypto largesse. Five of the eight members received campaign donations from FTX employees, ranging from $2,900 to $11,600. Rep. Ted Budd (R-NC), one of the signatories, received half a million dollars in support from a Super PAC created by FTX co-CEO Ryan Salame.

California's EV-funding proposition 30 "has suffered an unambiguous defeat," reports Bay City News.

The measure would've increased taxes by 1.75% on income above $2 million a year (for roughly 43,000 California multimillionaires) to fund electric car rebates and combat wildfires. "In the statewide vote count as of late Wednesday, 59% rejected the proposal."

So what happened? Before the election the New York Times described the fight: On one side, environmentalists have teamed up with firefighters, Democrats and Lyft, the ride-share company, which has poured more than $45 million into its campaign to pass a climate initiative. On the other, [Democrat] Governor Gavin Newsom has aligned himself with California billionaires, teachers and Republicans in opposition....

Proponents say the measure would raise money from those who can afford it to fund critical state mandates on electric vehicle sales and ride-share miles that have been highly promoted but not fully funded. Opponents argue it would require taxpayers to foot the bill for electric vehicle subsidies that Uber and Lyft would eventually have to pay for on their own. In August, California regulators voted to ban the sale of all gasoline-powered cars in the state by 2035, which was hailed by environmentalists — and by Newsom — as a significant step in combating climate change. Last year, the state implemented an even earlier standard for ride-share companies like Lyft and Uber: 90 percent of ride-share drivers' miles will have to be in electric vehicles by 2030.

Left out of those mandates was an explanation of who would be expected to pay for the switch to greener cars.... The opposition to the measure, which includes some of the wealthy individuals who would have to pay more in taxes and business groups opposed to tax increases, argues that the proposal benefits corporations, because Uber and Lyft would eventually have to comply with the new state electric vehicle mandates and would have to cough up the money to do so on their own, most likely by offering subsidies for their drivers to buy battery-powered cars.

The "no" campaign got a huge boost over the summer from Newsom, who, despite his focus on fighting climate change, has emerged as its highest-profile opponent and appeared in an television advertisement attacking Lyft in September. "Prop. 30 is being advertised as a climate initiative," Newsom says in the ad as he strolls across the screen. "But in reality, it was devised by a single corporation, to funnel state income taxes to benefit their company."
Currently Lyft's gig workers use their own cars — but was the opposition looking ahead to a future where Lyft owns its own fleet of self-driving (and electric) robo-taxis?

In any case, Proposition 30 "was among the country's top five ballot measures this Election Day in terms of total contributions," reports Axios, "with nearly $73 million spent by parties on either side, per Ballotpedia. The results "are an unfortunate setback for the climate movement," Lyft — which spent about $45 million supporting Prop 30 — said in a statement Wednesday.

On the other side of the country, Massachusetts voters approved a new 4% tax on those making more than $1 million for transportation and education funding, broadly speaking. And New Yorkers OK'd $4.2 billion in bond sales to fund climate change mitigation and resiliency programs.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from the New York Times: The user on Gab who identifies as Nora Berka resurfaced in August after a yearlong silence on the social media platform, reposting a handful of messages with sharply conservative political themes before writing a stream of original vitriol. The posts mostly denigrated President Biden and other prominent Democrats, sometimes obscenely. They also lamented the use of taxpayer dollars to supportUkraine in its war against invading Russian forces, depicting Ukraine's president as a caricature straight out of Russian propaganda. The fusion of political concerns was no coincidence. The account was previously linked to the same secretive Russian agency that interfered in the 2016 presidential election and again in 2020, the Internet Research Agency in St. Petersburg, according to the cybersecurity group Recorded Future. It is part of what the group and other researchers have identified as a new, though more narrowly targeted, Russian effort ahead ofTuesday's midterm elections. The goal, as before, is to stoke anger among conservative voters and to undermine trust in the American electoral system. This time, it also appears intended to undermine the Biden administration's extensive military assistance to Ukraine.

"It's clear they are trying to get them to cut off aid and money to Ukraine," said Alex Plitsas, a former Army soldier and Pentagon information operations official now with Providence Consulting Group, a business technology company. The campaign -- using accounts that pose as enraged Americans like Nora Berka -- have added fuel to the most divisive political and cultural issues in the country today. It has specifically targeted Democratic candidates in the most contested races, including the Senate seats up for grabs in Ohio, Arizona and Pennsylvania, calculating that a Republican majority in the Senate and the House of Representatives could help the Russian war effort. The campaigns show not only how vulnerable the American political system remains to foreign manipulation but also how purveyors of disinformation have evolved and adapted to efforts by the major social media platforms to remove or play down false or deceptive content. The agencies urged people not to like, discuss or share posts online from unknown or distrustful sources. They did not identify specific efforts, but social media platforms and researchers who track disinformation have recently uncovered a variety of campaigns by Russia, China and Iran.

These are much smaller campaigns than those in the 2016 election, where inauthentic accounts reached millions of voters across the political spectrum on Facebook and other major platforms. The efforts are no less pernicious, though, in reaching impressionable users who can help accomplish Russian objectives, researchers said. "The audiences are much, much smaller than on your other traditional social media networks," said Brian Liston, a senior intelligence analyst with Recorded Future who identified the Nora Berka account. "But you can engage the audiences in much more targeted influence ops because those who are on these platforms are generally U.S. conservatives who are maybe more accepting of conspiratorial claims." Some characteristics of an inauthentic user to look out for include: no profile picture, no identifying biographical details, and posts exclusively on political issues that often include false or misleading posts and little engagement. They may also link to obscure websites like electiontruth.net, which Recorded Future said was almost certainly linked to the Russian campaign.

The Federal Trade Commission plans to take the rare step of bringing individual sanctions against the CEO of alcohol delivery company Drizly for data privacy abuses, following allegations that the company's security failures under his watch exposed the personal information of about 2.5 million customers. From a report: The proposed order will follow Drizly CEO James Cory Rellas to future businesses, requiring him to implement a security program at any companies he runs that collect information from more than 25,000 people. The order will also apply to the company itself, which is now a subsidiary of the ride-hailing service Uber. Under the terms of the FTC action, Rellas and Drizly will have to destroy unnecessary data, implement new data controls and train employees about cybersecurity.

In singling out Rellas, the FTC signaled it could use a wider range of tools to address data privacy abuses under the leadership of chair Lina Khan, who was widely expected to bring tougher oversight of the tech industry. The inclusion of Rellas follows a push from Democrats to more aggressively penalize individual executives involved in major data privacy breaches. Democrats on the commission previously criticized the agency's record-setting settlement with Facebook over the Cambridge Analytica data scandal because it did not name Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg.

The nation's telecommunications regulator has been without a Democratic majority for the entirety of President Biden's 21-month tenure, hamstringing efforts to restore open internet protections and close the digital divide. From a report: Breaking the deadlock at the Federal Communications Commission hinges on confirming Gigi Sohn, a longtime public interest advocate and former Democratic FCC official who was first nominated by the White House nearly a year ago. As the midterm elections approach and Democrats' ability to retain their narrow control of the Senate remains uncertain, Sohn's supporters are warning Congress that the clock is ticking to lock in a majority at the agency. On Friday, about 250 industry and public interest groups wrote a letter to top Senate leaders calling for a vote on Sohn's nomination before Congress adjourns at the end of the year.

"The FCC needs a full commission as it begins to deliberate on upcoming critical decisions that will have profound impacts on the economy and the American people," leaders from groups including the Consumer Technology Association, Rural Wireless Association and Color Of Change wrote in a letter shared exclusively with The Washington Post. The push from Sohn's supporters follows what her allies describe as an unprecedented effort from some telecommunications and media lobbyists to block her nomination. Biden's failure to secure a majority or full complement of commissioners at the FCC marks one of the longest delays in recent memory for a first-term president. "It's insane," said Greg Guice, the director of Public Knowledge's government affairs team who has worked in roles related to tech regulation for more than 20 years. (Sohn previously worked at Public Knowledge, which is among the signatories of the Friday letter). Lobbyists "know that being down one seat means they can better control the agenda," he said.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from TechCrunch: Dubbed the Facial Recognition Act, the bill would compel law enforcement to obtain a judge-authorized warrant before using facial recognition. By adding the warrant requirement, law enforcement would first have to show a court it has probable cause that a person has committed a serious crime, rather than allowing largely unrestricted use of facial recognition under the existing legal regime. The bill also puts other limits on what law enforcement can use facial recognition for, such as immigration enforcement or peaceful protests, or using a facial recognition match as the sole basis for establishing probable cause for someone's arrest.

If passed, the bill would also require law enforcement to annually test and audit their facial recognition systems, and provide detailed reports of how facial recognition systems are used in prosecutions. It would also require police departments and agencies to purge databases of photos of children who were subsequently released without charge, whose charges were dismissed or were acquitted. [...] The bill has so far received glowing support from privacy advocates, rights groups and law enforcement-adjacent groups and organizations alike. Woodrow Hartzog, a law professor at Boston University, praised the bill for strengthening baseline rules and protections across the U.S. "without preempting more stringent limitations elsewhere."

An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Verge: The Federal Trade Commission is facing mounting pressure to block Amazon's proposed $1.65 billion purchase of iRobot, the company behind Roomba autonomous vacuums. In a letter (PDF) to FTC Chair Lina Khan on Thursday, a group of Democratic lawmakers argued that the proposed merger would unfairly bolster Amazon's dominance in the smart home market by acquiring one of the company's leading competitors. They also criticized Amazon's data privacy and security practices following past acquisitions of companies like Ring, including data sharing partnerships with over 600 law enforcement agencies across the country. "iRobot is a powerful market incumbent, and Amazon, given its vast resources, history of producing smart vacuums... and powerful platform, is an extraordinarily significant 'potential entrant' into the market," the lawmakers wrote on Thursday. "Amazon's ability to acquire iRobot would cause substantially less competition." Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) led Thursday's letter along with four other House lawmakers, including Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-WA), who represents thousands of Amazon workers in Seattle.

Earlier this month, The Wall Street Journal reported that antitrust enforcers at the FTC were already reviewing the proposed deal. iRobot confirmed in recent securities filings that the FTC formally requested any documents outlining the proposed purpose and scope of the merger. "Given Amazon's record of infringing on consumers' privacy, and their ongoing history of anticompetitive mergers to increase their monopoly power, the FTC should use its authority to oppose the Amazon -- iRobot transaction," the lawmakers wrote. These investigations would be led by Chair Khan, whose criticisms of Amazon's market power led to her rise in prominence. Khan published a legal paper in 2017 arguing that the federal government may need to pass new antitrust statutes to properly address the market dominance of online tech platforms like Amazon.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Bloomberg: Senior House Democrats are poised to introduce long-promised legislation to restrict stock ownership and trading by members of Congress, senior government officials and Supreme Court justices. The bill would apply to the spouses and dependent children of those officials, according to an outline sent to lawmaker offices last week by House Administration Chair Zoe Lofgren. The restrictions also cover "commodities, futures, cryptocurrency, and other similar investments," according to the outline. The legislation would require public officials to either divest current holdings or put them in a blind trust. Investments in mutual funds or other widely held investment funds and government bonds would be allowed.

The bill may be released as soon as Monday, according to a person familiar with the matter. It hasn't been scheduled for a vote, though House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer has said it's possible it could come to the floor this week in the middle of an already jam-packed schedule before lawmakers go on break ahead of the November midterm election. While conservative Republicans and progressive Democrats alike have been clamoring for restrictions on stock trades by members of Congress to avoid conflicts of interest, legislation has been hung up by questions about how broad to make the ban and whether to include family members. A group of senators is working on their own version of the legislation and there's little chance of Congress taking any final action before the midterms. [...]

Another potential point of contention is applying the requirements to the Supreme Court. The Congressional Research Service in an April report said that Congress imposing a code of conduct on the judiciary would "raise an array of legal questions," including whether it would violate the constitutional separation of powers. Justices and lower court judges already file annual financial disclosures and are barred from participating in cases where there's a direct conflict of interest. Despite that, the CRS report says that the Supreme Court has never directly addressed "whether Congress may subject Supreme Court Justices to financial reporting requirements or limitations upon the receipt of gifts." "The current law doesn't prohibit lawmakers from owning or trading individual securities, but it bans members of Congress from using nonpublic information available to them for personal benefit," notes the report. "It requires any transaction be disclosed within 45 days."

Further reading: TikTokers Are Trading Stocks By Copying What Members of Congress Do