Let’s hope police departments mention this to their officers. Government officials? Fend for yourselves.
Federal judge rules Mass. law prohibiting secret audio recording of police, government officials is unconstitutional
Joe Cadillic sends along this report by Noah R. Bombard:

A federal court judge Monday ruled a Massachusetts General Law prohibiting the secret audio recording of police or government officials is unconstitutional.

Chief United States District Judge Patti B. Saris made the ruling on two similar cases — one involving two Jamaica Plain residents who frequently record police officers and a second case involving Project Veritas, the undercover organization founded by conservative political activist James O’Keefe.

Read more on MassLive while I do a little happy dance.
[From the article:
In the 44-page decision Saris declared that "secret audio recording of government officials, including law enforcement officials, performing their duties in public is protected by the First Amendment, subject only to reasonable time, place and manner restrictions."
… "both have stated that their desire to record secretly stems from a fear that doing so openly will endanger their safety and provoke hostility from officers."






More details on the arguments please.
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/12/12/human_rights_groups_appeal_echr_decision/
Bulk surveillance is always bad, say human rights orgs appealing against top Euro court
A band of human rights organisations have appealed against a top European court's ruling on bulk surveillance, arguing that any form of mass spying breaches rights to privacy and free expression.
… That ruling said oversight of the UK government's historic regime for bulk interception of communication was insufficient and violated privacy rights under the European convention.
However, it did not say that bulk interception was unlawful in and of itself; neither did it rule that sharing information with foreign governments breached the rules.
It is these elements of the ruling that the groups disagree with, arguing that bulk surveillance can never be lawful, and that the sharing intelligence with other governments is just another form of bulk surveillance and also unlawful.






This won’t go anywhere, it doesn’t have a cutesy acronym.
Federal data privacy bill introduced by 15 US senators
Laura Hautala reports:

The US doesn’t have a single data privacy law that applies to all fifty states. On Wednesday, a group of 15 US senators indicated it wanted to change the status quo, introducing the Data Care Act.

The bill (PDF) would require companies that collect personal data from users to take reasonable steps to safeguard the information. The act also has provisions to prevent them from using the data in ways that could harm consumers.

If the bill becomes law, the US Federal Trade Commission would be in charge of implementing it.

“People have a basic expectation that the personal information they provide to websites and apps is well-protected and won’t be used against them,” Sen. Brian Schatz, a Democrat from Hawaii who is sponsoring the bill, said in a press release.

Read more on CNET.






Is it war yet? Is there a line that China (or others) must not cross? I don’t have a clear vision of that line, if it exists.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/defense-national-security/fbi-china-threatens-the-future-of-the-world
FBI: China threatens 'the future of the world’
Chinese spying threatens “not just the future of the United States, but the future of the world,” a senior FBI official told lawmakers Wednesday.
“We are being exploited by China, so we are right to shore up our defenses against this,” E.W. Priestap, assistant director of the FBI’s Counterintelligence Division, told the Senate Judiciary Committee.
… His warning echoed the assessment offered by a senior CIA official in July. “At the end of the day, the Chinese fundamentally seek to replace the United States as the leading power in the world,” Michael Collins, the CIA’s deputy assistant director for the East Asia Mission Center, said during the Aspen Security Forum. “What they're waging against us is fundamentally a cold war.”






“Hey! Here’s something we haven’t taxed yet!” (But if they drop the line for TEXT on the bill, no tax?)
https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/12/tech/california-text-tax/index.html
California proposes a plan to tax text messages
… A new surcharge proposed by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) wouldn't be a per-text tax, but a monthly fee based on a cellular bill that includes any fees for text-message services. Most carriers offer a flat fee option for texting, and already charge a similar fee for other services included in the bill — such as phone calls. The exact structure of the charge would vary from carrier to carrier.



(Related) Wouldn’t Google just buy/create their own ISP?
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/12/fcc-panel-wants-to-tax-internet-using-businesses-and-give-the-money-to-isps/
FCC panel wants to tax Internet-using businesses and give the money to ISPs
… If adopted by states, the recommended tax would apply to subscription-based retail services that require Internet access, such as Netflix, and to advertising-supported services that use the Internet, such as Google and Facebook. The tax would also apply to any small- or medium-sized business that charges subscription fees for online services or uses online advertising. The tax would also apply to any provider of broadband access, such as cable or wireless operators.