The Senate Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing on Chairman Orrin Hatch’sINDUCE Act — a dangerous piece of legislation that ostensibly protects copyright by making liable anyone who “intentionally aids, abets, induces or procures” a copyright violation. As Intel VP Les Vadasz writes in today’s WSJ:
Sen. Hatch and others argue that the bill will protect kids from porn and punish those who “intentionally induce” piracy. In reality it will do neither. But it will do serious harm to innovation.
(Thanks to Ed Felten for the pointer).
Here’s the witness list for tomorrow’s hearing.
NSF and NASA would both suffer significant cuts under legislation approved in a House Appropriations Subcommittee. Here are the first NSF numbers from the subcommittee committee markup of the House VA-HUD-Independent Agencies Appropriations bill. Apparently the full committee will move the bill on Friday:
NSF Funding Levels From the VA-HUD-Independent Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee Markup (in millions of dollars)
FY 2004
President’s FY 2005 request
FY 2005 House VA-HUD Approps
Change vs. Request
Change vs. FY 2004
Research and Related Activities
4,250
4,450
4,200
-5.6%
-1.2%
Education and Human Resources
939
771
843
9.3%
-10.2%
Major Research Facilities C&E
155
213
208
-2.3%
34.2%
Total NSF
5,580
5,750
5,470
-4.9%
-2.0
I don’t yet have similar numbers for NASA, but the committee “highlights” indicates a $229 million cut to the agency vs. the FY 2004 funding level, $1.1 billion below the President’s requested level. Here’s the rest of the NASA highlights:
NASA is funded at $15.1 billion, $229 million below last year and $1.1 billion below the request. The bulk of these savings come from the elimination of funding for new initiatives. The reductions include $30 million for technology maturation efforts; $230 million from Project Prometheus related to Jupiter Icy Moon Orbital; $438 million resulting from delaying the Crew Exploration Vehicle; and $100 million from Space Launch Initiatives by accelerating the termination of activities. The bill fully funds shuttle operations at the requested level of $4.3 billion. The committee fully funds Mars programs at the requested level of $691 million.
As soon as the committee report is available (which will include detail and rationale for the cuts) I’ll excerpt the information here.
Needless to say, NSF’s funding level is a long way from the 15 percent per year increases authorized by Congress and approved by the President in December 2002. In thinking about why R&D has been de-emphasized, it’s hard not to juxtapose the decrease with the news that scientists and engineers are increasingly organizing and involving themselves in the political campaigns. Maybe the recent attacks of some notable scientists and engineers on the Bush Administration science policy are affecting the will of the majority to spend political capital on pushing for R&D increases? I don’t know, but I’m not sure the new “Scientists and Engineers for Johnson/Humphrey Kerry/Edwards” (sub. req’d) will help make the case any easier….
Anyway, as always, as more detail emerges check here for details. Update:Here’s more from USA Today.
The House Science Committee will review efforts by industry, academia and the government to develop the Nation’s cybersecurity workforce at a hearing tomorrow. Here’s the committee’s press release with details on the witnesses invited. The hearing charter (pdf) is also available.
Computerworld has an article today with quotes from ITAA’s Harris Miller complaining that IT security researchers are opposing e-voting systems because they’re pushing a political agenda on behalf of the open-source software community.
Some choice quotes:
“It’s not about voting machines. It’s a religious war about open-source software vs. proprietary software,” Miller said in an interview with Computerworld. “If you’re a computer scientist and you think that open-source software is the solution to everything because you’re a computer scientist and you can spot all flaws, then you hate electronic voting machines. But if you’re a person who believes that proprietary software and open-source software can both be reliable, then you don’t hate electronic voting machines.”
Kim Alexander, president of the California Voter Foundation, called Miller’s characterization “nonsense.”
“Every technologist that I have worked with believes that even if we had open-source software, we would still need a paper [audit] trail,” said Alexander. “There would be no guarantee that the software that was inspected by the public would be the same software that is running on every machine in every jurisdiction in the country.”
Eric Raymond, president of the Open Source Initiative (OSI), a nonprofit organization that promotes standards and criteria for open-source software, said Miller has the issue wrong. “Most [e-voting] critics, including me, aren’t focusing on open-source vs. closed-source at all, but rather on the lack of any decent audit trail of votes — one that can’t be corrupted by software. Open-source would be nice for all the real reasons but is less important than the audit trail.”
It’s an interesting article. Update:Spaf e-mails:
[O]ne thing left out of all the press accounts is that ITAA and Harris Miller are being paid by the voting machine vendors to help them establish a better image. Thus, Harris’s comments should be viewed with a very strong filter in place.
The House passed it’s version of the Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations bill on Thursday which includes funding for National Institute of Standards and Technology. The good news is that the bill includes an increase of funding for core programs at NIST — though it’s still below the President’s requested level — and includes language urging the increase to be used on programs related to national security, including cyber security and biometric work, as well as urging NIST to continue to work on Help America Vote Act work. Here are some quick snippets from the committee report:
The Committee recommendation includes $375,838,000 for the Scientific and Technical Research and Services (core programs) of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, which is $35,095,000 above the current year, and $47,030,000 below the request.
The Committee recommendation includes $338,657,000 and 1,831 positions to support the full base operating costs of the core NIST programs, as requested. In addition, the Committee recommendation includes programmatic increases totaling $37,181,000 for this account. The Committee expects NIST to prioritize funding for programs associated with standards and guidelines relating to the national security of the United States, including efforts relating to biometric and cyber security and programs relating to improvements to the nation’s manufacturing and services sectors. The Committee strongly urges NIST to give priority consideration to Help America Vote Act outreach to the election community; expediting work on a new voting standards accreditation program; and its work with the Technical Guidelines Development Committee working with the Election Assistance Commission. NIST is directed to provide in advance of the fiscal year 2006 hearings a report detailing what steps must be taken to bring its activities in line with the timetable established by the Act. Further, the Committee directs NIST to provide all necessary equipment for the Advanced Measurement Laboratory in Gaithersburg, Maryland. Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) Program.–Recent economic downturns have had a devastating effect on the manufacturing sector. In an effort to ameliorate some of these effects, the Committee recommendation includes $106,000,000 for this program in fiscal year 2005, which is $66,810,000 above the request and the current year. Federal support for the MEP program, combined with State and private sector funding, have translated into more jobs, more tax revenue, more exports, and a more secure supply source of consumer and defense goods.
So I’m well ensconced in the Cliff Lodge at the Snowbird Resort in Snowbird, Utah, preparing for CRA’s biannual Snowbird Conference, but finally have a chance to catch up on the blog.
As reported, former CRA Gov’t Affairs Committee Chairman and current Co-chair of PITAC Ed Lazowska testified before the House Government Reform Subcommittee on Technology, Information Policy, Intergovernmental Relations and the Census on the subject of IT research and development. The first witness panel was a fairly typical government panel: Dave Nelson, head of the National Coordinating Office for IT; Peter Freeman, AD for CISE at NSF; Hratch Semerjian, Interim Director for NIST; and Edward Oliver, Associate Director of the Office of Advanced Scientific Computing at DOE. They made the standard case for the importance of IT R&D at their agencies and defended the interagency coordination process.
The Committee Chair Adam Putnam opened the hearing with a strong statement in support of the federal role in IT R&D — worth reading. (Also available there are links to all the other testimony from the hearing.)
Lazowska was joined on the second panel by Donna Fossum, Manager of the RaDiUS Database project at RAND, William Scherlis, Computer Scientist from CMU, and Stephen Squires, from HP. Lazowska, Scherlis and Squires did a fantastic job making the case for the crucial role federal investment in IT R&D plays in fostering innovation, enabling the sciences and enabling the missions of the various federal agencies. Lazowska’s testimony, endorsed by CRA and USACM, makes a great “general” case for IT R&D, something that will probably make a good “advocacy” piece for use by anyone in the community who gets a chance to talk to their local representatives or other policymakers.
The discussion that followed the opening statements of the second panel was remarkable for its wide-range and by the obvious engagement of the subcommittee chair Putnam. Putnam, kept the panel for nearly an hour asking probing questions and really demonstrating a clear desire to understand the case. I think it’s fair to count him among the members of Congress who “get it.” I was very impressed by the discussion. The second panel: (from left) Fossum, Lazowska, Scherlis and Squires.
Please use the Category and Archive Filters below, to find older posts. Or you may also use the search bar.
New PITAC Health and IT Report Available
/In: Policy /by Peter HarshaJust posted. (pdf, 868kb)
INDUCE Act Hearing Tomorrow
/In: Funding /by Peter HarshaThe Senate Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing on Chairman Orrin Hatch’s INDUCE Act — a dangerous piece of legislation that ostensibly protects copyright by making liable anyone who “intentionally aids, abets, induces or procures” a copyright violation. As Intel VP Les Vadasz writes in today’s WSJ:
(Thanks to Ed Felten for the pointer).
Here’s the witness list for tomorrow’s hearing.
NSF and NASA Lose in House VA-HUD Approps Markup
/In: Funding /by Peter HarshaNSF and NASA would both suffer significant cuts under legislation approved in a House Appropriations Subcommittee. Here are the first NSF numbers from the subcommittee committee markup of the House VA-HUD-Independent Agencies Appropriations bill. Apparently the full committee will move the bill on Friday:
(in millions of dollars)
House VA-HUD Approps
I don’t yet have similar numbers for NASA, but the committee “highlights” indicates a $229 million cut to the agency vs. the FY 2004 funding level, $1.1 billion below the President’s requested level. Here’s the rest of the NASA highlights:
As soon as the committee report is available (which will include detail and rationale for the cuts) I’ll excerpt the information here.
Needless to say, NSF’s funding level is a long way from the 15 percent per year increases authorized by Congress and approved by the President in December 2002. In thinking about why R&D has been de-emphasized, it’s hard not to juxtapose the decrease with the news that scientists and engineers are increasingly organizing and involving themselves in the political campaigns. Maybe the recent attacks of some notable scientists and engineers on the Bush Administration science policy are affecting the will of the majority to spend political capital on pushing for R&D increases? I don’t know, but I’m not sure the new “Scientists and Engineers for
Johnson/HumphreyKerry/Edwards” (sub. req’d) will help make the case any easier….Anyway, as always, as more detail emerges check here for details.
Update: Here’s more from USA Today.
Science Committee to Look at Efforts to Develop Cybersecurity Workforce
/In: Policy /by Peter HarshaThe House Science Committee will review efforts by industry, academia and the government to develop the Nation’s cybersecurity workforce at a hearing tomorrow. Here’s the committee’s press release with details on the witnesses invited. The hearing charter (pdf) is also available.
Some Say U.S. Supercomputing Needs a Jump-start
/In: Policy /by Peter HarshaCRA plugged in this article that ran in Computerworld today.
ITAA Accuses Security Researchers of Waging “Religious War” in Opposing E-voting Systems
/In: Security /by Peter HarshaComputerworld has an article today with quotes from ITAA’s Harris Miller complaining that IT security researchers are opposing e-voting systems because they’re pushing a political agenda on behalf of the open-source software community.
Some choice quotes:
It’s an interesting article.
Update: Spaf e-mails:
CAPPS II Cancelled
/In: Security /by Peter HarshaFrom Declan McCullagh’s Politech list: Plan to collect flier data canceled; Color-coded system seen as privacy threat from USA Today
Update from Andy Bernat: “Don’t believe everything you read in USA Today. From the Washington Post Friday morning:
Somehow this seems more likely to be accurate.”
Catching Up: NIST Appropriations
/In: Funding /by Peter HarshaThe House passed it’s version of the Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations bill on Thursday which includes funding for National Institute of Standards and Technology. The good news is that the bill includes an increase of funding for core programs at NIST — though it’s still below the President’s requested level — and includes language urging the increase to be used on programs related to national security, including cyber security and biometric work, as well as urging NIST to continue to work on Help America Vote Act work. Here are some quick snippets from the committee report:
Rubbing It In.
/In: CRA, Misc. /by Peter HarshaThe view from Snowbird.
Update:
Snowbird Keynote Speaker Vint Cerf discusses his interplanetary network (“InterPlanet”) at Sunday dinner.
Post from Snowbird: Catching Up with Hearing News
/In: CRA, Funding, Policy /by Peter HarshaSo I’m well ensconced in the Cliff Lodge at the Snowbird Resort in Snowbird, Utah, preparing for CRA’s biannual Snowbird Conference, but finally have a chance to catch up on the blog.
As reported, former CRA Gov’t Affairs Committee Chairman and current Co-chair of PITAC Ed Lazowska testified before the House Government Reform Subcommittee on Technology, Information Policy, Intergovernmental Relations and the Census on the subject of IT research and development. The first witness panel was a fairly typical government panel: Dave Nelson, head of the National Coordinating Office for IT; Peter Freeman, AD for CISE at NSF; Hratch Semerjian, Interim Director for NIST; and Edward Oliver, Associate Director of the Office of Advanced Scientific Computing at DOE. They made the standard case for the importance of IT R&D at their agencies and defended the interagency coordination process.
The Committee Chair Adam Putnam opened the hearing with a strong statement in support of the federal role in IT R&D — worth reading. (Also available there are links to all the other testimony from the hearing.)
Lazowska was joined on the second panel by Donna Fossum, Manager of the RaDiUS Database project at RAND, William Scherlis, Computer Scientist from CMU, and Stephen Squires, from HP. Lazowska, Scherlis and Squires did a fantastic job making the case for the crucial role federal investment in IT R&D plays in fostering innovation, enabling the sciences and enabling the missions of the various federal agencies. Lazowska’s testimony, endorsed by CRA and USACM, makes a great “general” case for IT R&D, something that will probably make a good “advocacy” piece for use by anyone in the community who gets a chance to talk to their local representatives or other policymakers.
The discussion that followed the opening statements of the second panel was remarkable for its wide-range and by the obvious engagement of the subcommittee chair Putnam. Putnam, kept the panel for nearly an hour asking probing questions and really demonstrating a clear desire to understand the case. I think it’s fair to count him among the members of Congress who “get it.” I was very impressed by the discussion.
The second panel: (from left) Fossum, Lazowska, Scherlis and Squires.