Learn from the mistakes of others

A NEW code regulating the marketing of junk food will not stop children becoming obese, the Australian Consumers' Association says. It has repeated its call for the Federal Government to step in and legislate.

"We don't believe that a voluntary code is going to provide adequate protection for children from advertising of unhealthy foods that may influence their food preferences and the food they eat, which in turn will impact on diet and nutrition and have the potential to contribute to overweight [sic] and obesity," the association's food policy officer, Clare Hughes, said.

A NEW code regulating the marketing of junk food will not stop children becoming obese, the Australian Consumers' Association says. It has repeated its call for the Federal Government to step in and legislate.

"We don't believe that a voluntary code is going to provide adequate protection for children from advertising of unhealthy foods that may influence their food preferences and the food they eat, which in turn will impact on diet and nutrition and have the potential to contribute to overweight [sic] and obesity," the association's food policy officer, Clare Hughes, said.

Monday, May 29, 2006
Gonzales pressing data retention in fight against child porn
Tom Henry at 7:55 AM ET

[JURIST] US Attorney General Alberto Gonzales [official profile] and FBI Director Robert Mueller [official profile] held a private meeting with representatives from major internet service providers late last week urging them to retain customer internet activities to combat child pornography. The meeting, reported by CNET, follows a speech [text; JURIST report] by Gonzales last month at the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, during which he called on ISPs to retain records for a "reasonable amount of time". At Friday's meeting he advocated a more concrete period of two years.

Although the US Department of Justice is currently framing the data retention issue in terms of its fight against child porn, data retention is also potentially important to counter-terrorism efforts. Earlier this year European Union justice and interior ministers meeting in Brussels approved [European Council proceedings, PDF; JURIST report] a controversial data retention directive [DOC] passed by the European Parliament [JURIST report] in December 2005 designed to track down terrorists, paedophiles, and criminal gangs and calling for EU member states to store citizens' phone call and internet service data for 6 to 24 months without stipulating a maximum time period.

CNET has more.

Monday, May 29, 2006
Gonzales pressing data retention in fight against child porn
Tom Henry at 7:55 AM ET

[JURIST] US Attorney General Alberto Gonzales [official profile] and FBI Director Robert Mueller [official profile] held a private meeting with representatives from major internet service providers late last week urging them to retain customer internet activities to combat child pornography. The meeting, reported by CNET, follows a speech [text; JURIST report] by Gonzales last month at the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, during which he called on ISPs to retain records for a "reasonable amount of time". At Friday's meeting he advocated a more concrete period of two years.

Although the US Department of Justice is currently framing the data retention issue in terms of its fight against child porn, data retention is also potentially important to counter-terrorism efforts. Earlier this year European Union justice and interior ministers meeting in Brussels approved [European Council proceedings, PDF; JURIST report] a controversial data retention directive [DOC] passed by the European Parliament [JURIST report] in December 2005 designed to track down terrorists, paedophiles, and criminal gangs and calling for EU member states to store citizens' phone call and internet service data for 6 to 24 months without stipulating a maximum time period.

CNET has more.

XXX takes on US Government
Louisa Hearn
May 23, 2006
http://www.smh.com.au/news/breaking/xxx-takes-on-the-us-government/2006/05/23/1148150236099.html

( Read more... )

XXX takes on US Government
Louisa Hearn
May 23, 2006
http://www.smh.com.au/news/breaking/xxx-takes-on-the-us-government/2006/05/23/1148150236099.html

( Read more... )

Wednesday, May 24, 2006
FCC official says agency can regulate net neutrality under current law
Joshua Pantesco at 9:12 AM ET

[JURIST] Federal Communications Commission (FCC) [official website] Commissioner Michael Copps [official profile] has said the FCC is authorized under Title 1 of the Communications Act of 1934 [text] to create agency rules to combat breaches of net neutrality. Speaking to reporters on Tuesday, Copps suggested that the FCC would be protecting the public interest by writing and enforcing clear agency rules designed to prevent broadband service providers from accepting money from content providers in exchange for preferential bandwidth treatment, or from interfering with the content of competitors. In contrast to the approach advocated by Copps, FCC Chairman Kevin Martin in August 2005 succeeded in passing a set of broad net neutrality principles for service providers to abide by, favoring a more deregulatory approach than Copps.

Legal precedent suggests that the FCC may have the authority to draft strict net neutrality regulations. Justice Clarence Thomas, writing in 2004 for the majority in National Cable & Telecommunications Association vs. Brand X Internet Services [opinion text; Duke law case backgrounder], said that Internet service providers can be subjected to FCC-imposed "special regulatory duties" under Title 1.

The House Judiciary Committee is currently marking up the Network Neutrality Act of 2006 [PDF text], sponsored by committee chairman Rep. James Sensenbrenner R-WI), that would apply federal antitrust law to alleged neutrality violations. A sister bill, the Internet Freedom Preservation Act [PDF text] is currently in the Senate Commerce Committee. That proposal, sponsored by Olympia Snowe R-ME), Byron Dorgan D-ND) and Daniel Inouye D-HI), would amend the Communication Act of 1934 to obligate internet service providers to not "block, interfere with, discriminate against, impair or degrade" access to any internet content, or from bargaining with content providers to provide faster service.

Multichannel News has more.

literalgirl

There are movements on both side of this now. Those who argue for net neutrality and the consumer) and those who are lobbying for the big telcos.

Now, I just might have a PhD topic to play with - Internet regulation. There's certainly a lot here that pisses me off.

Wednesday, May 24, 2006
FCC official says agency can regulate net neutrality under current law
Joshua Pantesco at 9:12 AM ET

[JURIST] Federal Communications Commission (FCC) [official website] Commissioner Michael Copps [official profile] has said the FCC is authorized under Title 1 of the Communications Act of 1934 [text] to create agency rules to combat breaches of net neutrality. Speaking to reporters on Tuesday, Copps suggested that the FCC would be protecting the public interest by writing and enforcing clear agency rules designed to prevent broadband service providers from accepting money from content providers in exchange for preferential bandwidth treatment, or from interfering with the content of competitors. In contrast to the approach advocated by Copps, FCC Chairman Kevin Martin in August 2005 succeeded in passing a set of broad net neutrality principles for service providers to abide by, favoring a more deregulatory approach than Copps.

Legal precedent suggests that the FCC may have the authority to draft strict net neutrality regulations. Justice Clarence Thomas, writing in 2004 for the majority in National Cable & Telecommunications Association vs. Brand X Internet Services [opinion text; Duke law case backgrounder], said that Internet service providers can be subjected to FCC-imposed "special regulatory duties" under Title 1.

The House Judiciary Committee is currently marking up the Network Neutrality Act of 2006 [PDF text], sponsored by committee chairman Rep. James Sensenbrenner R-WI), that would apply federal antitrust law to alleged neutrality violations. A sister bill, the Internet Freedom Preservation Act [PDF text] is currently in the Senate Commerce Committee. That proposal, sponsored by Olympia Snowe R-ME), Byron Dorgan D-ND) and Daniel Inouye D-HI), would amend the Communication Act of 1934 to obligate internet service providers to not "block, interfere with, discriminate against, impair or degrade" access to any internet content, or from bargaining with content providers to provide faster service.

Multichannel News has more.

literalgirl

There are movements on both side of this now. Those who argue for net neutrality and the consumer) and those who are lobbying for the big telcos.

Now, I just might have a PhD topic to play with - Internet regulation. There's certainly a lot here that pisses me off.

[JURIST] The Federal Election Commission (FEC) [official website] Friday proposed new rules [draft text, PDF] that would require federal political candidates to pay for internet advertisements out of funds regulated by federal campaign laws, but would otherwise leave most online political activity free from government regulation. Recently, a federal appeals court ordered [opinion text, PDF] the six-member FEC to create regulations that extend campaign finance and spending limits regulations online, saying that the previous definition of “public communication” impermissibly excluded all internet communications. The new definition includes only advertising on another person’s website. The FEC stated that the rules:

are intended to ensure that political committees properly finance and disclose their Internet communications, without impeding individual citizens from using the Internet to speak freely regarding candidates and elections.

AP has more.

[JURIST] The Federal Election Commission (FEC) [official website] Friday proposed new rules [draft text, PDF] that would require federal political candidates to pay for internet advertisements out of funds regulated by federal campaign laws, but would otherwise leave most online political activity free from government regulation. Recently, a federal appeals court ordered [opinion text, PDF] the six-member FEC to create regulations that extend campaign finance and spending limits regulations online, saying that the previous definition of “public communication” impermissibly excluded all internet communications. The new definition includes only advertising on another person’s website. The FEC stated that the rules:

are intended to ensure that political committees properly finance and disclose their Internet communications, without impeding individual citizens from using the Internet to speak freely regarding candidates and elections.

AP has more.