This paper explains the capabilities and limitations of tools for analyzing the text of social media posts and other online content. It is intended to help policymakers understand and evaluate available tools and the potential consequences of using them, and focuses specifically on the use of natural language processing (NLP) tools for analyzing the text of social media posts.
Terms like Bitcoin, blockchain, and mining are entering the mainstream — but to the unacquainted, it can be hard to know where to start. How does it all work? On October 18, 2017, CDT fellow and political economist Benjamin Dean discussed the basics of crypto-ledgers, cryptocurrencies, and the associated policy issues. His presentation is available here.
The House Judiciary Committee will hold a markup on HR 1865, the Allow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act (FOSTA). The Committee will consider an amendment to the original FOSTA in the form of a substitute bill offered by Chairman Goodlatte. This bill includes a number of improvements over both the original House bill and the SESTA bill in the Senate, and we appreciate the Committee’s diligent efforts to craft a more tailored legislative approach. But CDT remains concerned that increasing the risk of criminal charges and civil claims against website operators and other online intermediaries will result in overbroad censorship of constitutionally protected speech.
Today, Chairman Ajit Pai released the final order to repeal the net neutrality protections of the 2015 Open Internet Order. The Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) remains committed to preserving a strong open internet and strongly opposes the Chairman’s proposal.
Last week, a bipartisan group of House Judiciary Committee members introduced the first bill to reform Section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act, H.R. 3989, also known as the USA Liberty Act. It contains many important provisions, including an end to the collection of communications to which the surveillance target is not even party. However, it fails to limit the scope of 702 surveillance and therefore permits the surveillance of people far removed from anti-terrorism goals its proponents cite. In fact, it authorizes surveillance of people engaged in harmless activity.