On Thursday, Commerce said it put Waseem Jawad and the Ras Al Khaimah-based company Info Tech, also known as Infotec, on a list of people and institutions determined to “have engaged in activities contrary to U.S. national security and/or foreign policy interests.”

The measure restricts Mr. Jawad and Info Tech from receiving or transferring items that fall under U.S. export controls. Export licenses would be required, which likely would be denied by the U.S. government, according to Commerce Department officials. Neither Mr. Jawad nor the company could be reached to comment.

Read the rest of this post on the original site »

If the online industry wants to avoid government restriction, it must regulate itself. This is a good time to explore other attempts at industry self-regulation and its effects. Some self-regulatory efforts have been bureaucratic at best, while others have been completely ineffective. The medical industry’s most recent self-regulatory effort in the name of consumer protection around the HIPAA privacy law, is an example of good intentions spoiled by bureaucratic enforcement. It was actually reported in the New York Times that birthday parties in nursing homes in some states have been canceled for fear that revealing a resident’s date of birth could be a violation of the HIPAA law.

Other industry self-regulation attempts, like the Tobacco Industry’s “We Card” program, have been pointless. The program did little, if anything, to curb tobacco sales. When looking for a self-regulatory success story, the online industry should follow the example of the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA).

Looking back at the history of Hollywood, there are similarities between the online ad industry today and the censorship of the film industry in the 1930s. In response to the threat of government intervention in 1930, the movie industry created a regulatory system around a “code of conduct” known as the Hays Code. The code was a set of restrictions on the content filmmakers could produce. The Hays Code was written with conservative and religious principles in mind, with restrictive clauses such as, “the clergy cannot be portrayed as comic characters or villains.” When the Hays Code came under scrutiny in the late 1960s for its strict rules and infringement on free speech, the industry ultimately dismantled it and created our current rating system.

A voluntary “code of conduct” is exactly what the Department of Commerce Internet Privacy Task Force is asking the online industry to create, and what industry trade groups are also espousing. What is most applicable to the online industry is the fact that the self-regulatory system the MPAA created and still uses today puts the user in charge of deciding what they are going to see.

The user-in-charge system is a concept that Apple’s Steve Jobs relates to. When asked to weigh in on the privacy issue at the recent D8 conference, he said, “Privacy means people know what they are signing up for in plain English. Some people want to share more data. Ask them. Ask them every time. Let them know precisely what you are going to do with their data.”

With the online world becoming more social than ever, user data is central to advertisers. Online marketers are no longer content with abstract metrics like clicks or impressions. They want to find out about individuals to give them a personalized experience. However, if advertisers want access to consumer data it should be done in a privacy-compliant way. This means the online ad the industry must develop clearer privacy practices and give users the ability to opt in to receive ads.

And as a start, users must be shown a clear way to opt out. For this reason, the issue of online privacy can’t be relegated to the legal team. The issue should be resolved by people who can design a user interface that is elegant, simple and crystal clear. The design and user interface teams must be involved at every step in the process so as to provide users with clear and transparent mechanisms to help them understand what data will be collected, what will be done with the data and how they can opt out of data sharing altogether.

If the industry wants to self-regulate to avoid being federally regulated, it should start by designing a clear, opt-in system that puts the user in charge. Let’s not wait for a giant carrot or a big stick. Self-regulation has worked before–there’s no reason it can’t happen now.

The latest batch of disclosure reports for lobbying expenditures during the third quarter have been released, and the Associated Press has been doing the yeoman’s work of moving a batch of short stories summarizing the facts contained in these disclosures. I noticed several focused on tech companies, and I thought I’d summarize the summaries, with a few highlights.

Verizon spent $3.83 million lobbying on several issues, including taxes and texting while driving, at numerous branches of the federal government, including the White House, Congress, the Internal Revenue Service and the Federal Trade Commission. It spent $2.96 million in the same period a year ago.

AT&T spent $3.47 million, up from $3.18 million a year ago. Its agenda items included legislation on calling cards, broadband buildouts and distracted driving.

Hewlett-Packard spent $1.6 million–nearly double the $970,000 it spent in the third quarter of last year–chatting with members of Congress and officials at the Department of Justice and the Commerce Department about taxes, immigration and how government agencies use technology in the areas of health care and law enforcement.

Microsoft spent $1.63 million, an increase from $1.49 million a year ago. It visited Congress, the Pentagon and the Departments of Commerce and Homeland Security to talk about computer security, how the government buys software and the competitive state of online advertising. It also lobbied the Federal Communications Commission on net neutrality.

Oracle spent $1.6 million, up from $1.3 million, lobbying Congress, the Pentagon and the Department of Homeland Security on patent litigation and the government’s technology spending plans.

Google spent $1.2 million in the third quarter (which TechCrunch noted in October following a press release by Consumer Watchdog), an increase from $1.08 million in the same period a year ago.

IBM spent $1 million, up from $850,000 a year ago, talking about transportation, the power grid, funding for research and the military, on visits to Congress and the Departments of Transportation, Defense, and Health and Human Services.

Intel spent $830,000, which is notable because the amount decreased from $1.1 million a year ago. Intel was the target of both a private antitrust lawsuit from rival Advanced Micro Devices and a government antitrust investigation by the Federal Trade Commission, both of which were intensifying in the fall. Both cases have since been settled. Its efforts were in immigration, government research funding and issues related to trademarks and education.

Yahoo spent $540,000, up from $510,000 a year ago.

Apple, easily the most influential company in consumer technology today, spent relatively little on lobbying efforts: Only $340,000.

Facebook spent $120,000.

For a little more on what companies spend on lobbying efforts in Washington, it’s always enlightening to peruse the database maintained by the Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks not only lobbying expenditures but campaign contributions.

As you can see, the CRP shows that, among computer and Internet companies, Microsoft was the leading lobbying spender for the first nine months of the year. The wireless industry’s trade association, the CTIA, led the pack in the telephone equipment and services category, spending more than $6 million. Meanwhile, Verizon and AT&T each spent more than $12 million.