CLIPS: 20 January, 2022
Welcome to the Progressive Tech Policy Project! We share free weekly summaries of news on the left, along with occasional deep dives to reflect on timely issues. We always welcome your feedback and suggestions, and you can reach us anytime at techpolicy@geer.com. - Szelena Gray, Editor
Did someone forward you this email? Subscribe to receive our newsletter in your inbox every week!
Senate Judiciary Committee Passes Self-Preferencing Ban (16-6)
After five antitrust proposals advanced in the House last year, the American Innovation & Choice Online Act is the only antitrust bill to move forward in the Senate — fueling commentary that this was a make it or break it moment for regulating big tech. The meeting featured lengthy comments from Senators lamenting that there wasn’t a separate hearing before markup, echoing calls from trade groups over the last week. Compared to the marathon markup session in the House, there were many more voices of concern than support.
Free Press issued a statement just before the hearing began noting that concerns raised about how the bill would impact content moderation policy had not been resolved — concerns that were not debated during markup. Senator Klobuchar pushed through other objections, and past ominous threats from Republicans that this was the first step towards addressing censorship on platforms, to pass the bill. In a 16-6 vote, all 11 Democrats on the committee supported the bill, while Republicans were split (5 yes votes and 6 no votes).
COVERAGE
New York Times, Efforts to Rein in Big Tech May Be Running Out of Time
Protocol, Tech groups lash out at 'rushed' Senate antitrust plans
Politico, Senate Judiciary prepares for its antitrust showdown
The Hill, Big Tech critics launch new project (Tech Policy Project)
Washington Post, Tech Oversight Project launches to push for antitrust legislation in Silicon Valley
Competition Policy International, Tech Oversight Project Push For New Antitrust Legislation
The Hill, Hill Letter on S. 2992, the "American Innovation and Choice Online Act"
RESPONSES:
NetChoice released a statement ahead of the AICOA’s markup, saying: “NetChoice agrees with Sens. Klobuchar and Grassley that S. 2992 needs substantial work. But their proposed changes don’t fix the bill and introduce new risks for American consumers. Rather than rush the process, the Senate Judiciary Committee should insist on a deliberate, methodical approach that gives security experts, economists, and interested Americans an opportunity to discuss the bill’s language and unintended consequences.”
The day before the bill went to markup, Arthur Sidney (Vice President of the CCIA) said in a statement: “This bill isn’t antitrust, but is government-mandated regulation that will upend the affected services. Some of the provisions of the bill like the mandated interoperability requirements might be impracticable for these companies to comply with, and among other things, tie companies’ hands with respect to content moderation. The amendment continues to put U.S. tech competitiveness and innovation at risk.”
A week before the hearing, Analyst Malena Dailey wrote in a blog post for the Progressive Policy Institute: “Technology companies have their faults, but the increasingly dystopian narrative around internet and technology services perpetuated by Senator Klobuchar’s American Innovation and Choice Online Act doesn’t square with how indispensable they’ve become consumers here and around the world.”
A coalition of 40 technology companies endorsed the AICOA the Monday before it moved to markup, underscoring the importance of the bill for restoring competition and removing barriers for consumers to choose the online services they want.
Public Knowledge tweeted, “Great to see 40 businesses sent this open letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee calling on them to pass the American Innovation and Choice Online Act at Thursday's markup!“
Accountable Tech tweeted, “While the Senate Judiciary Committee marks up the American Innovation and Choice Online Act today, let's not forget the 40+ companies that have voiced support for this bipartisan legislation to #ReinInBigTech.”
Consumer Reports similarly released a supportive statement before the AICOA’s launch, saying: “We believe S. 2992 is a sound and practical proposal, with a solid foundation in antitrust and economic principles, that will enable our laws to better achieve their mission of preserving and promoting competition and the benefits it brings to us all.”
Before the hearing, Accountable Tech tweeted, urging multiple Senators (including Ossoff, Feinstein, and Padilla) to vote in support of the AICOA.
Adam Kovacevich released a Twitter thread before the markup, saying, “Klobuchar and Grassley made some procedural window-dressing tweaks to shore up a few SJC votes around the margins. But the bill continues to do what it’s intended to: Stop big tech companies from offering convenient products that are integrated, secure, and private.”
Mike Masnick tweeted, “I'm getting tons of press releases/statements about tomorrow's antitrust bill markup but (by far) the strangest is the one saying the bill needs to change to include Microsoft, because Microsoft Word makes suggested edits that are too woke.”
Ahead of the hearing, the Omidyar Network tweeted, “Proud to support the Tech Oversight Project: ‘Our aim is to be a direct counterweight to those organizations that have been lobbying for the status quo for years.’ Big Tech foes launch ‘campaign-style’ initiative to push for antitrust legislation.”
On the day of the markup, Public Knowledge released a statement in support of the AICOA, saying: “This bill would finally bring an end to anticompetitive discrimination and self-preferencing by Big Tech platforms, much to the benefit of American small businesses and consumers. For too long, Big Tech has been able to use their gatekeeper power to pick themselves as winners and potential competitors as losers in digital markets. S. 2992 will level the competitive playing field.”
During the markup, PK also tweeted: “The American Innovation & Choice Online Act is the outcome of years of work by the Senate Antitrust Subcommittee, including feedback and revisions from advocates, experts, regulators, small businesses, and the platforms themselves.”
In a Twitter thread, Competition Policy Director Charlotte Slaiman wrote, ”I think the most American philosophy of how we can be competitive abroad is to compete at home. Competition builds strong companies. It feels very wrong to say that we should shield American co's from competition at home so they can compete abroad. Monopolists move slow.”
Independent Women’s Voice tweeted, “As the Senate marks up Senator Klobuchar's antitrust bill today, we must keep in mind that Congress’s antitrust crusade will end up frustrating consumers, and cutting small businesses off at the knees.”
In a Twitter thread, the Tech Oversight Project defended the AICOA against a number of critiques leveled by the bill’s opponents. Responding to claims that the bill would dissolve key services (i.e. Amazon Prime) and make it harder for small businesses to compete, the Project categorically denied these claims, saying: “Big Tech monopolies and their swamp allies are hellbent on sowing doubt about the commonsense American Innovation and Choice Online Act (AICO)... [L]et’s set the record straight.”
Will Oremus tweeted throughout the hearing, referencing Senators’ perceived acquiescence to Big Tech: “California Dems just coming right out and saying that they're against antitrust because they view tech giants as part of their core constituency.”
He went on to tweet, “The extent to which the US Senate is getting its antitrust views and talking points from the very tech giants it's tasked with regulating raises the question: What if Big Tech is already so powerful that reining in its power is no longer possible?”
Demand Progress re-tweeted Oremus, adding, “Since when do people want to be limited in their options & told by Big Tech companies to buy and use their products?”
Evan Greer tweeted during the markup, in reference to a poll that found antitrust action against tech companies wasn’t a “pressing concern” for voters: “these polls are always kinda silly, like ... big shocker that your average person is more concerned about putting food on the table than they are about the complexities of antitrust enforcement. that doesn't mean antitrust isn't important or that it shouldn't be prioritized.”
During the hearing, Daphne Keller tweeted a thread trying to highlight major flaws in the bill, noting: “The other thing about the wild new content moderation claims hidden in this nominally competition-focused bill is the practical impact of State AGs litigating for their preferred news, app, or other speech ranking.”
Free Press jumped in to flag the same content moderation concerns Keller raised, Senior Counsel Nora Benavidez tweeting: “Section 3(a)(3) of S. 2992 would make it difficult or impossible for covered companies to remove from their sites any biz that traffics in hateful or otherwise harmful content. Ripe for abuse down the line and I worry about how state AGs or future FTC officials will respond.”
FTC Chair Lina Khan and DOJ Antitrust Chief Jonathan Kanter Launch Joint Effort to Review Merger Guidelines
This week FTC Chair Lina Khan made headlines when she and DOJ Antitrust Chief Jonathan Kanter announced a joint review of merger guidelines — just in time for the Microsoft/Activision deal announcement, and the day before Khan sat down with Kara Swisher for an exclusive interview on her podcast, “Sway.” Over the next 60 days, the agencies will seek public comment on existing merger guidelines; they are particularly interested in evaluating whether current guidelines insufficiently address non-price elements of competition.
Interestingly, the word “interesting” was used 36 times in Khan’s sit down with Sway. While Khan gave measured answers to pointed questions about her agenda, Swisher and co-interviewer Andrew Ross Sorkin were eager for Khan to be more aggressive. Khan frustrated Swisher several times by responding that Sorkin and Swisher's questions were "interesting," but refusing to get into specifics. At one point Swisher interrupted Khan by saying, “OK, but— an interesting question, but what’s the interesting answer? They’re too powerful?” A fair question.
COVERAGE
Sway, Exclusive: Lina Khan Is (Still) Bursting Big Tech’s Bubble
The Verge, US competition enforcers launch overhaul of merger approval process
The Hill, FTC, DOJ launch joint inquiry aimed at blocking illegal mergers
CNBC, FTC, DOJ seek to rewrite merger guidelines, signaling a tougher look at large deals
CNN, Federal antitrust enforcers are considering updating corporate merger guidelines
Reuters, U.S. antitrust enforcers plan to toughen merger guidelines
Protocol, US antitrust enforcers want to stop a lot more deals
Politico, Merger guidelines revamp, Biden edition
Protocol, 'Enforcers are not gonna back down': Lina Khan talks rewriting the rules of antitrust
RESPONSES
Open Tech Institute tweeted, “Today's @FTC/@JusticeATR announcement is a welcome step forward for #antitrust reform. Vertical merger guidelines haven't changed much since 1984. It's time to bring them into the 21st Century.”
Deputy Director Joshua Stager later said in a statement, “Last year’s vertical merger guidelines missed the mark. They glossed over critical issues, ignored key harms in digital markets, and denied public participation. Perhaps most importantly, they were approved by the slimmest majority possible. To work effectively, the guidelines should reflect consensus. We look forward to working with the FTC to find that consensus and to make our antitrust laws work better under stronger guidelines.”
In a statement, the Open Markets Institute wrote, “The American people repeatedly and resoundingly have expressed our fear of private monopoly and our intention to break or neutralize all concentrated private power. We hope today’s meeting marks a first step towards the restoration and strengthening of the true will of the American people as expressed through Congress in the clear language of the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914.”
OMI later tweeted, “In 2022, we can help create a more equitable, fair, democratic economy and country if we #StopMonopolies! To do that, we need to strengthen our antitrust laws to enact bright-line rules and per se standards.”
The American Economic Liberties Project tweeted, “We’re witnessing real change at the @FTC and @TheJusticeDept The agencies are finally acting to protect the workers, consumers, farmers, investors, and independent businesses that they’re meant to serve — not corporate giants with large lobbying budgets.”
They later tweeted, “Mergers and layoffs go hand-in-hand. Under previous antitrust regimes, layoffs were just another ‘efficiency.’ Yesterday, the @FTC and @TheJusticeDept made the connection between M&A and layoffs a part of the conversation.”
Director of Strategy & Programs Nidhi Hegde tweeted, “@linakhanFTC says these guidelines are timely coming at [a] moment when global deal making in 2021 has soared to $5.8 trillion and that the FTC, DOJ received more than double the filings over the past five years.”
Main Street Alliance tweeted, “Today @linakhanFTC + AAG of Antitrust Jonathan Kanter laid out a merger policy vision that promotes fair competition and protects workers, consumers, and businesses from monopolies.”
Director of Policy and Political Impact Didier Trinh said in a statement: “The trend in unabated mergers over the last few decades is how many large corporations have gone from simply large to monopolistic. Monopolies and corporate concentration have real impacts across the small business economy. As we hear from members, this has been an ongoing issue that is directly impacting small business bottom lines and competitiveness. Main Street Alliance applauds the FTC and DOJ for making a real investment to stem the flood of anti-competitive mergers. Antitrust regulation and enforcement is one place where we can look to build a more resilient and fair economy coming out of the pandemic.”
Demand Progress tweeted, “This is very good. The @FTC & DOJ are opening comments on whether to tighten merger guidelines. The clear answer: A BIG YES.”
Farm Action tweeted, “This is the best opportunity since 1981 when the Reagan administration changed the merger review lens to be focused on the "efficiency rule," leading to a merger mania that's been in place ever since. This new public inquiry opens the door to stronger antitrust enforcement.”
Rohit Chopra, director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, tweeted, “For years, antitrust officials relied on flawed and outdated assumptions about the economy to justify their pro-merger policy posture. Today, @FTC and @JusticeATR launched an effort to reboot its policies to detect and deter illegal corporate mergers.”
Professor Zephyr Teachout tweeted, “Antimonopoly policy is democracy policy. Antimonopoly policy is a key tool in fighting gross inequality. Antimonopoly policy is labor policy. And we have two extraordinary warriors for all of these heading up US policy--this is a moment.”
Kara Swisher solicited questions on Twitter for her interview with Lina Khan:
Casey Newton tweeted, “Microsoft / Activision!!” — along with several others.
Bill Gurley, an investor in the tech industry, tweeted, “[In] her writing she touches on large platform players with network effects blatantly copying rivals products and adding them for free said platform. Instagram Stories and Microsoft Teams are recent examples. How would she go about blocking these moves in the future?”
Zack Whittaker, editor at TechCrunch, tweeted, “the FTC has taken unprecedented action against stalkerware (spyware) actors in the last year alone, such as Spyfone. But what more -- if anything -- can the FTC do to protect American victims from the growing number of both domestic and overseas stalkerware operators?”
Microsoft’s Plan to Acquire Activision Becomes a Focal Point In Debate About Merger Guidelines
Microsoft announced on Tuesday that it seeks to acquire Activision Blizzard for $68.7 billion, putting a spotlight on competition in the gaming industry. There has been some speculation that scandals at Activision Blizzard weakened the company. Soon after the merger was announced, the heads of the FTC and the Justice Department’s antitrust division announced they would be looking to overhaul merger guidelines, and the Microsoft announcement quickly dominated online discussion around it.
COVERAGE
New York Times: Microsoft will buy Activision Blizzard, betting $70 billion on the future of games.
Wall Street Journal, Activision Blizzard’s Workplace Problems Spurred $75 Billion Microsoft Deal
Bloomberg, U.S. Antitrust Cops Eye Tougher Merger Rules as M&A Surges
Protocol, Microsoft is buying Activision Blizzard for $68.7 billion
Vox, Microsoft is buying one of the biggest names in games — if Washington lets it
Reuters, Microsoft to gobble up Activision in $69 billion metaverse bet
Forbes, Microsoft’s Biggest Acquisition Ever Is A $69 Billion Bet On The Future Of Video Games
Vulture, Microsoft Buys Activision Blizzard for $68.7 Billion Amid Sexual-Harassment Lawsuit
The Verge, Is Microsoft building a gaming monopoly? - The Verge
RESPONSES
Public Citizen tweeted, “Companies now owned by Microsoft: Activision Blizzard, LinkedIn, Skype, Xbox, GitHub, Mojang, Nuance Communications, CyberX, Orions Systems, Obsidian Entertainment, Metaswitch, Affirmed, BlueTalon, Express Logic, Softomotive, ADRM Software. Break. Them. Up.”
The American Economic Liberties Project tweeted, “Today, there were two big announcements regarding mergers. 1. Microsoft is trying to buy one of the largest gaming companies in the world. 2. The antitrust agencies are opening comments on whether to tighten merger guidelines. These are related. And we need your help.”
Director of Research Matt Stoller tweeted, “And just in time for the Microsoft-Activision merger announcement, FTC Chair Lina Khan and Antitrust Division chief Jonathan Kanter are proposing reviewing and updating merger guidelines.”
Senior Policy Analyst Krista Brown tweeted, “Although Microsoft has remained out of the antitrust hot seat, they are no less deserving of oversight. This transaction should trigger renewed scrutiny.”
Zephyr Teachout tweeted, “Gamers, welcome to the antimonopoly fight.”
Reporter Josh Sisco tweeted, “Fun coincidence that Microsoft's giant $68b deal for Activision Blizzard is announced the same day the FTC and DOJ kick off a major reboot in how mergers are analyzed for antitrust concerns.”
Writer and host of the “Tech Won’t Save Us” podcast Paris Marx tweeted, “It’s important to remember this is part of a broader consolidation trend — Microsoft bought Bethesda, Sony bought several smaller studios last year — but such a big acquisition almost requires Sony to consider its response, especially given its plans for a Game Pass competitor.”
He continued, tweeting, “Hilarious to see this acquisition justified by the metaverse when anyone who has any sense can see it’s about expanding the Game Pass library and enticing new subscribers. Microsoft’s strategy is basically just to buy up major studios and deny their games to its competitors.”
Hal Singer, Managing Director at Econ One, tweeted, “Chicago School, pro-monopoly types push for weak merger enforcement, allowing for consolidated industries that are susceptible to coordination, and then when the coordinated price increases invariably arrive, claim we can’t distinguish between tacit and explicit coordination.”
A few hours later, he tweeted, “Reminds one of the wonderful phrase "concentration creep" coined by @ddayen. Mergers beget mergers. Because we allowed Facebook to acquire 90-odd innovative targets with reckless abandon, Microsoft must do the same to be an effective competitor.”
Cecilia Kang, tech reporter at the New York Times, tweeted, “What timing... FTC, DOJ say they will rewrite merger rules to take on big acquisitions. Same day, Microsoft hands first big test with $70B bid for Activision Blizzard''
Cory Doctorow tweeted, ‘Here's a tip for anyone reporting on the proposed Microsoft-Blizzard merger. Don't write "Microsoft is buying Blizzard." Write "Microsoft is seeking the FTC's permission to buy Blizzard."’
He continued, tweeting, “Microsoft will not be allowed to buy Blizzard without this permission and the permission is by no means guaranteed - indeed, it less likely to be granted today than at any time in the past 40 years.”
Founder of Women In and Beyond the Global, Dan Moshenberg, tweeted, “Microsoft is bigger than Google, Amazon and Facebook. But now lawmakers treat it like an ally in antitrust battles.”
The Center for Digital Democracy tweeted, “#surveillanceadvertising in #gaming should be investigated.”
Democrats Introduce New Legislation to Ban Surveillance Advertising
Last year, a coalition of advocacy groups led by Accountable Tech began campaigning to “Ban Surveillance Advertising,” or advertising that profiles individuals and allows for microtargeting based on behavioral, identity, and contextual information. On Tuesday, several groups behind that campaign lent their support to new legislation from Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-CA), Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) and Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ), The Banning Surveillance Advertising Act of 2022, which would prohibit advertisers from targetings ads to individuals based on their personal information.
COVERAGE
The Verge, Democrats unveil bill to ban online 'surveillance advertising'
VICE, Lawmakers Plan Legislation to ‘Ban Surveillance Advertising
InsiderNJ, Booker Announces Introduction of Bill to Ban Surveillance Advertising
RESPONSES
Several supportive statements from advocates and experts were included in the bill’s announcement. Other responses included:
Ranking Digital Rights tweeted, “#BanSurveillanceAdvertising will protect individual privacy, reduce corporate incentives to maximize invasive data collection, and spur innovation by unleashing the potential of the digital contextual ads sector that has been held back by #BigTech.”
Accountable Tech released a statement and tweeted: “WATCH: Here’s why Congress must #BanSurveillanceAdvertising. Tell your representatives to support the Banning Surveillance Advertising Act.”
In a statement, EPIC Deputy Director Caitriona Fitzgerald said: “Targeted advertising isn’t just creepy, it can have significant impacts on marginalized communities. Individuals in these communities can be targeted with scams and disinformation, or prevented from seeing information about housing and job openings, depriving them of important life opportunities. The Banning Surveillance Advertising Act will stop these discriminatory practices and will block advertisers and data brokers from commodifying every tiny bit of our personal data. EPIC is proud to support this bill.”
Coalition of State Attorneys General Claim Facebook/Google Ad Collusion Plot
On Friday, a group of state attorneys general unsealed previously redacted court filings alleging anti-competitive conduct between Facebook and Google. As part of collaborations that included the “Jedi Blue” deal, they allege that the agreement deflated prices for platforms in online advertising auctions, while increasing prices for buyers. Amid recent momentum for new antitrust action, responses on the left were optimistic that the case would proceed.
COVERAGE
POLITICO, Zuckerberg and Google CEO approved deal to carve up ad market, states allege in court
Axios, Lawsuit: Google, Facebook execs conspired to manipulate ad auctions
AP, Lawsuit: Google, Facebook CEOs colluded in online ad sales
CNet, Google, Facebook CEOs signed off on allegedly illegal ad deal, lawsuit says
The Verge, Mark Zuckerberg and Sundar Pichai were involved in ad collusion plot, claims court filing
The Hill, Executives personally signed off on Facebook-Google ad collusion plot, states claim
CNN, Facebook, Google CEOs were aware of formal advertising market deal, according to court filing
The Guardian, Lawsuit claims Facebook and Google CEOs were aware of deal to control advertising sales
WIRED, Google's Alleged Scheme to Corner the Online Ad Market
Wall Street Journal, Google Misled Publishers and Advertisers, Unredacted Lawsuit Alleges
Reuters, States ask U.S. court to reinstate Facebook antitrust lawsuit
RESPONSES
Accountable Tech tweeted, “Google and Facebook colluded in online ad sales, misleading and cheating publishers and advertisers for years. #ReinInBigTech.”
The American Economic Liberties Project tweeted, “New damning evidence in the state AG case against @Google reveals that Zuckerberg and Pichai personally approved a secret deal that gave @Facebook a leg up in @Google’s online advertising auctions.”
Matt Stoller tweeted, “Google CEO Sundar Pichai and Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg personally signed off on dividing the online ad market. That's a big price-fixing problem at the top. Ruh-roh.”
Reflecting on recent anti-monopoly efforts, Stoller said in his Substack newsletter: “It’s a pretty ugly moment in politics in general, and we’re going to take our lumps on the anti-monopoly front. But there’s enough happening to justify some genuine hope. Despotic monopoly power is, as Brandeis noted, ‘vulnerable, unless it is believed to rest upon a moral sanction.’”
Executive Director Sarah Miller tweeted, “Google makes a big deal out of donating money to publishers. Turns out Google is LITERALLY stealing their money while running a PR campaign around ‘donating’ what’s essentially stolen funds back to them. How generous. And by generous I mean criminal.”
Zephyr Teachout tweeted, “In which Google purposefully profits off the destruction of local news and the stickup of local businesses.”
POLITICO reporter Leah Nylen said in a Twitter thread: “[S]tates allege that… Google's efforts to monopolize the online ads market [was] also a violation of state consumer protection laws that outlaw deceptive conduct… Google's conduct was deceptive, they allege, because it told publishers/advertisers one thing (it was using second-price) when it was doing another (third-price).”
In a Twitter thread, CEO of Digital Content Next, Jason Kint, said: “If proven, this is some pretty alarming evidence of harm to advertisers in these documented price increases after Google and Facebook sealed their deal together. This is before you even get to any brand harm in supporting Facebook's platforms.”
President of the Internet Accountability Project, Mike Davis, tweeted, “Here’s (smoking-gun) evidence of a criminal conspiracy between the CEOs of trillion-dollar monopolists @Google and @Facebook to rig the online ad markets, in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act.”
As Europe’s DSA Moves Towards A Vote, Groups Call For Last Amendments to Privacy Protections
The EU’s Digital Services Act is moving towards a vote in plenary session this week, where members of the European Parliament will decide on amendments before it proceeds to the next phase of policy-making. As the EU looks towards the future of Internet regulation, digital rights groups called for a ban on surveillance advertising and new protections for user data.
COVERAGE
TechCrunch, Give users genuine control over ad targeting, MEPs urged
POLITICO, CEOs make final push to ban targeted ads
The Parliament Magazine, Digital Services Act: Parliament’s chance to give citizens the online protection they deserve
European Broadcasting Union, THE DIGITAL SERVICES ACT MUST SAFEGUARD FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION ONLINE
Corporate Europe Observatory, How corporate lobbying undermined the EU’s push to ban surveillance ads
RESPONSES
In a joint statement, a coalition of business and NGOs urged the EU to implement policy banning surveillance advertising practices into the DSA. From the statement: “In the context of the upcoming plenary vote on the Digital Services Act, we - the undersigned civil society organisations and companies offering digital services across the EU - urge Members of the European Parliament to put an end to invasive and privacy-hostile practices related to surveillance-based advertising.”
Signatories included Access Now, Amnesty International, Article 19, Defend Democracy, Ranking Digital Rights, and SumOfUs.
Ranking Digital Rights tweeted, “@YouGov poll finds small business leaders in France and Germany are deeply wary of Facebook and Google’s system of surveillance advertising and want to see more regulation. MEPs must go further to end surveillance ads in #DSA #PeopleVsBigTech.”
SumOfUs tweeted, “MEPs are voting the crucial #DSA this week. For a #DSA for the people not billionaires -- no to loopholes, yes to protecting our private data and victims of online abuse.”
People vs Big Tech tweeted, “No to disinformation and stealing our data – #DSA for the People, not Big Tech Billionaires.”
The Electronic Frontier Foundation tweeted, “The world is watching, @Europarl_EN. DSA standards will influence the web far beyond the EU. The European Parliament must prioritize human rights in the Digital Services Act to mitigate risks to vulnerable or marginalized communities. #DSAForFreeSpeech.”
The Centre for Democracy and Technology Europe tweeted, “Journalists & experts from across the world agree: a #MediaExemption in the #DSA would reverse years of progress in the fight against hate speech & disinformation online. @Europarl_EN must work to protect media pluralism & our online democratic spaces, not undermine them.”
Access Now tweeted, “The Digital Services Act shouldn’t prioritise the power of dominant media publishers over people’s rights. The @Europarl_EN must support transparency and accountability measures in the DSA. #DSAForFreeSpeech.”
Daphne Keller said in her comments on the revised DSA draft: “As someone who has urged better notice and action processes for years, and also called for greater transparency, I find myself in the odd position of thinking this goes overboard. Particularly with respect to smaller platforms, I am not convinced that the benefits outweigh the cost of some of these rules.”
Pegasus Spyware Deployed On Journalists in El Salvador & Israel, Underscoring the Lack of Global Rules to Prevent Rights Abuses
A joint investigation from Citizen Lab and Access Now revealed Pegasus software had been used to hack several journalists across Israel and El Salvador. As mercenary spy software becomes more sophisticated, the latest revelations highlight the need for worldwide precautionary measures to prevent privacy abuses. Human rights and digital rights activists are calling for global regulation of surveillance tools to protect journalists and defenders of human rights.
COVERAGE
Citizen Lab, Project Torogoz: Extensive Hacking of Media & Civil Society in El Salvador with Pegasus Spyware - The Citizen Lab
The Guardian, Pegasus spyware used in 'jaw-dropping' phone hacks on El Salvador journalists
The New York TImes, Journalists in El Salvador Targeted With Spyware Intended for Criminals
Wired, NSO Group Spyware Targeted Dozens of Reporters in El Salvador
NPR, Israeli police used spyware to hack its own citizens, a report says
Reuters, Israeli police under fire over reported use of Pegasus to hack Israelis
Amnesty International, AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL VERIFIES USE OF PEGASUS SPYWARE FOR SURVEILLANCE OF JOURNALISTS IN EL SALVADOR
International Consortium of Investigative Journalists, El Salvador journalists' cell phones were targeted by Pegasus hundreds of times in two years, analysis shows
RESPONSES
In a statement, Access Now said, “We, the undersigned organizations, condemn the use of NSO Group’s Pegasus technology in El Salvador for the surveillance of journalists and civil society.”
The Electronic Frontier Foundation tweeted, “EFF joins @accessnow and civil society groups in condemning use of Pegasus in El Salvador to spy on journalists and activists.”
Journalist Scott Stedman tweeted, “For years, NSO has stated that they don't sell Pegasus or any of their spy tools to anyone in Israel, the US, Russia, and a few other countries.Today, they have been proven as liars with regard to Israel. There will be more to come.”
Eva Galperin, Director of Cybersecurity at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, tweeted, “I'm just a girl, standing in front of a NSO Group employee, asking them to please go do something, anything else with their life.”
Journalist Alex Wilhelm tweeted, “NSO Group has enabled so much bad shit I am in awe”
Quoting political scientist Ron Deibert, Citizen Lab tweeted, "What is truly daunting to contemplate...is that NSO Group is but one among many companies in a growing marketplace for this type of surveillance technology.”
Senior Researcher John Scott-Railton tweeted, “NSO's new slogan is weapons-grade creepy.”