NetChoice Media Hits

MLive - Michigan bill aims to restrict what internet companies could ban from their sites

MLive – Michigan bill aims to restrict what internet companies could ban from their sites

Carl Szabo, vice president and general counsel for the trade association Net Choice, told lawmakers the legislation is rife with “constitutional infirmities” and could lead to a number of unintended consequences, including incentivizing companies to content moderation in order to avoid liability.

The Washington, D.C.-based organization, which says it represents businesses “promoting free speech and free enterprise on the net” on its website, opposes the bill.

“Because the term neutrality is so amorphous and so subject to the eye of the beholder, it’s not going to pass constitutional muster,” Szabo said of the bill. “In order to survive a First Amendment challenge, you have to be a compelling government interest, narrowly tailored and least restrictive. This bill fails all three prongs.”

Read More

Group defends face recognition use in Massachusetts

Planet Biometrics

NetChoice, a trade association committed to the use of technology that fosters free enterprise and free expression, today launched a campaign to protect the use of new technologies, such as facial recognition, for law enforcement in Massachusetts.

On Policing Content, Social Media Companies Face a Trust Gap With Users

Morning Consult

Carl Szabo, vice president and general counsel of internet trade association NetChoice, which advocates for Section 230, said that part of the issue is the sheer amount of content that filters through the platforms. For example, Facebook’s moderators review more than 2 million pieces of content daily, according to a spokesperson, who also said by email that the company has tripled the number of people working on safety and security issues since 2016. 

California bans facial recognition on police body cameras as Massachusetts urged not to follow

Biometric Update

A similar restriction on law enforcement’s use of facial recognition could be enacted in Massachusetts, but trade association NetChoice has launched a campaign urging state lawmakers to reject a proposed moratorium.

poll conducted by Savanta for NetChoice in August shows that 64 percent of Massachusetts residents believe facial recognition can make society safer, and 66 percent are against denying law enforcement the use of new technologies to fight crime. When asked if facial recognition should be limited even at the expense of public safety, 46 percent disagreed, while 34 percent agreed. In each case responses are split between “somewhat” and “strong” agreement and disagreement. Asked if they would support a politician that votes to prevent the use of facial recognition and other technologies by law enforcement, 22 percent said they would be more likely to, while 41 percent said they would be less likely to do so.

A recent survey from the Pew Research Center shows a majority of U.S. adults trust law enforcement to use facial recognition.

NetChoice has launched a petition calling on the proposal to be rejected as part of its campaign.

“Every day facial recognition technologies help law enforcement to generate leads in cases, such as homicide, rape, armed robbery and other violent crime, as well as for non-enforcement reasons, including identifying elderly persons stricken with dementia, finding lost and missing children, identifying homeless persons with mental illness and identifying deceased persons,” said NetChoice Vice President and General Counsel Carl Szabo in a statement by the organization.

“A moratorium on facial recognition technology not only goes against what Bay Staters want, it denies law enforcement tools needed to help keep our communities safe.”

Szabo has previously expressed at least tentative support for regulation aimed at increasing transparency around business use of facial biometrics in New York City.

Europe’s Margrethe Vestager in the hot seat

Politico

THE FIGHT FOR FACIAL RECOGNITION — Tech trade group NetChoice launched an offensive in Massachusetts challenging a proposal to block state law enforcement from using facial recognition software. The technology has come under fire by privacy and civil liberties advocates who’ve raised alarm about potential flaws in facial recognition software and algorithmic biases that put minorities at a disadvantage. NetChoice and other industry groups have argued that the technology is central to law enforcement efforts to keep the public safe. (San Francisco in May became the first major American city to ban police and municipal agencies from using facial recognition.)

Industry Group Launches Defense of Facial Recognition Technology

Meritalk

NetChoice, a business trade group focused on promoting free speech and free enterprise on the internet, launched a public campaign on Oct. 7 to defend law enforcement’s use of facial recognition technology, and is taking aim at anti-facial recognition effort in Massachusetts.

“Every day facial recognition technologies help law enforcement to generate leads in cases, such as homicide, rape, armed robbery, and other violent crime, as well as for non-enforcement reasons, including identifying elderly persons stricken with dementia, finding lost and missing children, identifying homeless persons with mental illness and identifying deceased persons,” said Carl Szabo, the group’s vice president and general counsel.

NetChoice’s stance on the issue stands in opposition to an ongoing push from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) in Massachusetts.

POLITICO - 'Populist mobs' vs. the Kochs: Tech probes split the GOP

POLITICO – ‘Populist mobs’ vs. the Kochs: Tech probes split the GOP

“It comes down to the question of: Do you see government as the solution to a perceived problem? Or do you believe that the market is in the best position?” said Carl Szabo, vice president and general counsel of NetChoice, a right-leaning industry trade group whose members include Google and Facebook.

“It is one thing to say you believe in the free market, it’s another thing to actually do what you say,” he said.

NetChoice Criticizes European Court of Justice Ruling that Harms Free Speech Online

Today, NetChoice criticized a ruling by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) that threatens free speech around the world.

The ruling would aim to force Facebook to remove content on its platform worldwide if it’s found to be illegal in Europe, regardless of whether the content is legal elsewhere.

“This ruling sets a dangerous precedent enabling illiberal countries to enforce anti-free speech laws beyond their borders,” said Carl Szabo, Vice President and General Counsel at NetChoice. 

“As some foreign governments stifle free expression on internet platforms, it becomes even more important for the United States to protect and advance laws like Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.” 

“I’m glad the United States respects the right of citizens to criticize its leaders. Our founders knew such freedoms of speech are necessary to create a stable democracy.” 

“Freedom of expression is core to Western, liberal democracies. Today’s EJC decision embraces the China-model of a closed internet, the model heralded by authoritarian governments.”

Washington Free Beacon - Warren Attacks Facebook as Her Campaign Continues to Use Its Tools

Washington Free Beacon – Warren Attacks Facebook as Her Campaign Continues to Use Its Tools

NetChoice, a coalition of tech companies that includes Facebook, pointed to Warren’s use of the platform’s tools as an example of “political hypocrisy.”

“This is a perfect example of Sen. Warren using Facebook for her own personal gain while railing against it publicly,” said Carl Szabo, the coalition’s vice president and general counsel.

“Candidates continue to lean heavily on the connectivity social platforms provide, yet still use them as a political tool to get a headline or deliver a talking point,” Szabo said. “It’s evident Facebook and other platforms provide a vital service to campaigns and voters, and Warren’s campaign utilizing social platforms to reach voters is a perfect example of this fact.”

Read More

More retailers found charging wrong Sandy Springs sales tax; experts see no easy fix

Reporter Newspaper

The problems have compounded in the era of online sales, which are taxed based on the customer’s delivery address, resulting in a complicated sales tax system whose flaws raise the ire of local governments and retailers alike. “If Home Depot is having trouble with sales tax complexities, imagine the troubles that small businesses are confronting all over the country,” says Steve DelBianco, president of NetChoice, a trade association of online and tech businesses.

The Case for Not Banning Stuff

Hillicon Valley

A coalition of tech groups on Thursday sent a letter to Congress urging lawmakers to reject calls to ban facial recognition technology, arguing the sensitive software can help law enforcement “keep communities safe.” 

The groups — led by tech-backed think tank, the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation — wrote the industry “disagree[s] that a ban is the best option to move forward.”

“We are writing to encourage you to consider many of the viable alternatives to bans so that law enforcement can use facial recognition technology safely, accurately, and effectively,” the letter reads. “These alternatives may include expanding testing and performance standards, the development of best practices and guidance for law enforcement, and additional training for different uses of the technology.”

Other signatories include the Computing Technology Industry Association, Consumer Technology Association and NetChoice as well as the National Police Foundation.

Tech trade groups rally against congressional calls to ban facial recognition technology

The Hill

“We are writing to encourage you to consider many of the viable alternatives to bans so that law enforcement can use facial recognition technology safely, accurately, and effectively,” the letter reads. “These alternatives may include expanding testing and performance standards, the development of best practices and guidance for law enforcement, and additional training for different uses of the technology.”

Other signatories include the Computing Technology Industry Association, Consumer Technology Association and NetChoice as well as the National Police Foundation. 

How Do You Value Data? A Reply To Jaron Lanier’s Op-Ed In The NYT

Tech Liberation Front

Shadow prices can also be calculated through surveys, which is where they get controversial. Depending on how the question is worded, users willingness to pay for privacy can be wildly variable. Trade association NetChoice worked with Zogby Analytics to find that only 16 percent of people are willing to pay for online platform service. Strahilevitz and Kugler found that 65 percent of email users, even though they knew their email service scans emails to serve ads, wouldn’t pay for alternative. 

Murky GOP bill aims to stop ‘censorship’ by tech companies

Michigan Advance

The bill is strongly opposed by NetChoice, a Washington, D.C.-based organization that brands itself as “a trade association of businesses who share the goal of promoting free speech and free enterprise on the net.”

Carl Szabo, the group’s vice president and general counsel, said passage of the bill would likely lead to companies ceasing “content moderation,” essentially opening up users to the potential for increased harassment, and would violate the First Amendment. 

“It’s injecting government into private contract and private business,” Szabo said. “It has unintended consequences that we will begin to see. And fortunately, it’s unnecessary.”

This Hawaiian Hotelier Hates Airbnb so Much He’s Willing to Destroy the Internet To Kill It

Reason Magazine

“This bill creates a moral hazard by letting big hotel chains harass short term rental competitors, just so the big hotels can further increase their room rates,” says Steve DelBianco, president of NetChoice, a trade association of e-commerce businesses. “Weakening Section 230 will damage Americans’ ability to communicate online. The bill empowers Marriott to stop us from lawfully earning rental income on our own homes.”

Lawmakers discuss social media sites censoring Michiganders

WLNS

NetChoice Vice President Carl Szabo said, “Email service providers that hold themselves to be neutral would be unable to block spam because they would be, “shadow banning” spammers. So while this is an issue of important discussion, I don’t think HB 4801 is a way to address the concerns we’ve heard.”

Hotel industry mounts attack on Airbnb with House bill

The Hill

Steve DelBianco, president of e-commerce trade group NetChoice, which promotes free speech on the internet, called Section 230 “the greatest internet law that no one’s ever heard of.”

He said issues with short-term rentals should be addressed at the local level.

“Congress should not get involved with how the city of Austin, Texas, enforces its lodging and local zoning laws against property owners,” DelBianco said. “But Congress is being pulled into this competitive conflict because Section 230 is a federal law and bars local governments from imposing liability on a platform for commerce and communication that came from users.”

Carl Szabo, NetChoice’s general counsel, argued that Case’s bill would encourage platforms to be less responsive to take down content of bad actors, which is a component of Section 230 and could lead to platforms not doing any moderation at all, similar to how 8chan operates.

“This bill would create disincentives for short term rental platforms to engage in active, aggressive, monitoring of homeowners,” he said.

Like others in the short-term rental lobby, DelBianco said NetChoice plans to educate lawmakers “on the general hazards of punching holes in Section 230.”

Every State but California and Alabama Is Investigating Google for Antitrust Violations

Western Journal

While bipartisan efforts are moving forward, the vice president of NetChoice, a trade association of businesses, expressed disappointment in the plans, calling it a “tech witch hunt.”

“There is no case for antitrust. The marketplace is robust with competition and it’s incongruous that direct competitors can all simultaneously be monopolies,” Carl Szabo told The Daily Caller News Foundation in August.

Texas AG Leads Nationwide Antitrust Investigation of Google

The National Interest

NetChoice President Carl Szabo, who testified in a July 16 congressional hearing titled “Online Platforms and Market Power” and previously told the DCNF that an investigation into Google or Facebook would be a “tech witch hunt,” said he thinks Paxton “appears to have an open mind about this investigation.”

“Some [attroneys general] already have a conclusion, and then they look for the facts afterward, and that sets a dangerous precedent for any law enforcement body,” he added.

Szabo also said, however, that he thinks the investigation is unnecessary.

“What you’re seeing is kind of a pile-on where there’s no real disincentive for a state AG to put their name on the investigation. A lot of people can go out searching for things like El Dorado and invest their time into looking for something that just doesn’t exist,” he said.

“If you take a mere three minutes to think about the arguments for an antitrust case against Facebook and Google, they just don’t exist. There’s robust competition, and direct competitors can all simultaneously be monopolies. The American public overwhelmingly believes that on the list of things the government should look into, big tech is not a priority,” he continued.

Texas AG Ken Paxton Leads The Way On Google Antitrust Investigation: ‘It’s Creating National Interest’

Daily Caller

NetChoice President Carl Szabo, who testified in a July 16 congressional hearing titled “Online Platforms and Market Power” and previously told the DCNF that an investigation into Google or Facebook would be a “tech witch hunt,” said he thinks Paxton “appears to have an open mind about this investigation.”

“Some [attroneys general] already have a conclusion, and then they look for the facts afterward, and that sets a dangerous precedent for any law enforcement body,” he added.

Szabo also said, however, that he thinks the investigation is unnecessary.

“What you’re seeing is kind of a pile-on where there’s no real disincentive for a state AG to put their name on the investigation. A lot of people can go out searching for things like El Dorado and invest their time into looking for something that just doesn’t exist,” he said.

“If you take a mere three minutes to think about the arguments for an antitrust case against Facebook and Google, they just don’t exist. There’s robust competition, and direct competitors can all simultaneously be monopolies. The American public overwhelmingly believes that on the list of things the government should look into, big tech is not a priority,” he continued.