Really quickly in like one hour and explain this issue from a pro and con perspective. The briefing that youve walked into, in case youre in the wrong place, is the new fcc privacy rules for broadband providers. What will they mean for privacy . And this is hosted by the Congressional Internet Caucus Advisory Committee in conjunction with the congressional internet caucus itself, which is chaired on the house side by congressman Bob Goodlatte and congress wam eshoo and on the senate side by senator john thune and senator patrick leahy. We are super supportive, appreciative of their support and the fact they allow us to host these briefings in conjunction with them in a fair and balanced way. And their ability to say we dont care where our particular perspectives are but we just want to actually have a good debate, pros and cons on these issues, and let, you know, Congressional Staff decide where they come out on the issue. So before i get going, just a few little bits of housekeeping.
This is just over an hour. Thanks to everyone. Welcome. Great to see so many people here. Todays panel is entitled tale of two agencies. The overlapping jurisdiction of the fcc and ftc. My name is kelly donahue. Im a partner at a firm based here in washington d. C. And im also a member of the Federalist Society telecommunication and Electronic Media practice group. Before i get started i would like to make some brief introductions. From the federal communications commissioner, we have ajid. He was sworn in in 2012. And during his tenure he has focused on a Regulatory Environment that fosters competition and sought to remove uncertainty by creating clear modernized rules for the road. Previously the commissioner was a partner at the law firm of general and block and held positions in the general councils office. From the federal trade commission we have commissioner maurine olhausen. She has been a strong advocate of Government Transparency and Consumer Protection. Prior to joining the
Important topics. That is coming up in october. We have a giant delegation, both government and civil society, planning to go. If youre interested, youre all invited. Certainly lots of topics important to us will be discussed. So back to open data and the United States. I mentioned that in 2013, president obama issued an open order eo, executive order, for default information. Accompanying that was the open data policy, which we refer to as m1313 for you government nerds in the room. That directs agencies to manage information as an asset. And of course that doesnt happen overnight, right . For the last two years we have been working really hard with our agencies to move towards managing information as an asset. So i mentioned data. Gov. There is a screen shot of the data. Gov home page. 160,000 data sets across all sectors. The data. Gov site has incredible resources and is fantastic if you havent spent much time there. Another effort that we that the administration launched into quic
Because there were not looking for evidence of a legislative intent to create a right to judicial review. Your position is thats already there under the apa. Unless there is evidence of a judicial intent, of a congressional intention to preclude judicial review . Thats exactly right. Thats the presumption created by the apa. The way that your honor articulated it is the way the Supreme Court has articulated it time and again. Thats the governments burden to show by clear and convincing evidence that congress intended to preclude our claims, not our burden to demonstrate that congress intended to create them. If i may, ill move on to the merits of our statutory claim. As i said before, our first claim is that section 215 simply does not apply to call records. In the same statute that congress enacted section 215, in 2001, it added a provision to the stored Communications Act prohibiting the government from acquiring phone records. It created i exceptions to that prohibition. But section
So it depends on the intent of all 3 million voters who voted for this constitutional amendment. Thats an analysis thats literally impossible. You cant gauge into the mind of everybody who voted yes for proposition 1. I think thats distinguishable from rumor. And windsor, because the court in those cases didnt engage in the legislative intent of what the laws on their face and said the law on their face are unusual. And thats not the case here. So if theres no further questions, i respectfully ask the court to reverse the District Court. Mr. Murphy, can we go back to the 19th century history we were talking about . It occurred to me after you sat down that you thought i was talking about these the suffragists crisscrossing the country trying to get an amendment to the United States constitution. Thats not what they did. They knew that was virtually impossible. They were going to the local people trying to get the right to vote on the school board. They were going to each state legislat