AT&T’s $85.4 billion deal to buy Time Warner turned media consolidation into a campaign issue for both Democrats and Republicans this past weekend. 

The biggest deal of the year–announced just over two weeks before the November 8 U.S. election–received backlash from critics who believe the combination of AT&T’s millions of wireless and pay-television subscribers with Time Warner’s stable of TV networks and programming would reduce competition and hurt consumers.

Any merger would have to be reviewed and approved by federal antitrust regulators. The announcement caused a stir in Washington and led the candidates to criticize the status quo on antitrust and regulatory enforcement.

Donald Trump’s campaign has remained vocal about its distaste for the media and proposed merger did not sit well with the billionaire mogul.

“As an example of the power structure I’m fighting, AT&T is buying Time Warner and thus CNN, a deal we will not approve in my administration because it’s too much concentration of power in the hands of too few,” Trump said during a speech on Saturday.

The Republican candidate has been vocal about the “disgusting and corrupt” media. The campaign’s economic advisor Peter Navarro criticized the new media oligopolies for unduly influencing America’s political process.

“AT&T, the original and abusive ‘Ma Bell’ telephone monopoly, is now trying to buy Time Warner and thus the wildly anti-Trump CNN. Donald Trump would never approve such a deal because it concentrates too much power in the hands of the too and powerful few,” Navarro said in a statement on Sunday.

Trump said that if he is elected, he would look at breaking up the 2011 merger of Comcast and NBCUniversal. The Obama administration approved the merger with some restrictions in 2011.

Trump said of Comcast-NBCUniversal, “We’ll look at breaking that deal up, and other deals like that. This should never, ever have been approved in the first place.”

Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton hasn’t yet weighed in on the merger plan, but her running mate, Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia, said on NBC’s “Meet the Press” that he shared “concerns and questions” raised by fellow Senator Al Franken, a Democrat representing Minnesota. Franken, a member of the antitrust subcommittee, said in a statement that huge media mergers “can lead to higher costs, fewer choices, and even worse service for consumers.”

Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders joined the political opposition and urged the Obama administration to kill the deal. He tweeted:

The administration should kill the Time Warner-AT&T merger. This deal would mean higher prices and fewer choices for the American people.

— Bernie Sanders (@BernieSanders) October 23, 2016

Bryan White

Bryan is an editorial intern at Law Street Media from Stratford, NJ. He is a sophomore at American University, pursuing a Bachelor’s degree in Broadcast Journalism. When he is not reading up on the news, you can find him curled up with an iced chai and a good book. Contact Bryan at BWhite@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The AT&T-Time Warner Deal Quickly Becomes a Campaign Issue appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Bernie Sanders Wants to Break Up the AT&T-Time Warner Merger

When we heard that AT&T was in talks to buy media company Time Warner for a whopping $85 million, we immediately thought of the game “Monopoly.” I mean seriously, Time Warner is a HUGE asset. The media company owns HBO, CNN, Cartoon Network, TBS, AND Warner Bros. Some people are salivating, waiting for the deal to go through, while others, like Bernie Sanders, are calling for legislators to BREAK IT UP!

The administration should kill the Time Warner/AT&T merger. This deal would mean higher prices and fewer choices for the American people. https://t.co/S8c4ldDqhi

— Bernie Sanders (@SenSanders) October 23, 2016

A deal this big certainly raises concerns, but what some people are really worried about is how it will affect the “independence” of CNN. Media buffs, particularly those on the far right who are critical of the “mainstream media,” are calling foul:

Sure. https://t.co/vYLNENisd6

— Breitbart News (@BreitbartNews) October 24, 2016

Rant Crush

RantCrush collects the top trending topics in the law and policy world each day just for you.

The post RantCrush Top 5: October 24, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

The D.C. Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday in favor of the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) net neutrality regulations to ensure an open internet in the U.S. In the wake of this latest victory for web activists and advocates of net neutrality, here are four things to consider as we move forward:

1. Your internet access won’t change, but it could get worse.

The FCC has been operating under stronger regulations from Internet Service Providers (ISPs) since February 2015–ISPs are now considered public utilities. However, if these regulations were not in place, ISPs would be allowed to manipulate the flow of the internet.

Debate on net neutrality focused on whether it was fair for ISPs to prioritize certain content providers who could pay more, and slow traffic to other content providers. What this meant for the average internet user was potentially higher buffering times on streaming services like Netflix and slower traffic to websites with lower priority. Yikes.

2. AT&T, lover of monopolies and telecommunications, is back at it again

AT&T has been one of the most vocal opponents of the reclassification of ISPs as telecommunication services and the government regulation that accompanies that reclassification. AT&T, among other opponents, claims that this intervention will lead to less innovation and investment.

In reaction to the ruling, AT&T Senior Executive VP David McAtee released a statement claiming, “We have always expected this issue to be decided by the Supreme Court, and we look forward to participating in that appeal.”

But we’ve already seen U.S. v. AT&T in the 1970’s when AT&T was found to be breaking anti-trust laws in its monopolization of local telephone service in the U.S. And then there was the time the company tried to buy T-Mobile but abandoned the effort after a lawsuit was brought by the DOJ’s antitrust division.

Maybe AT&T just doesn’t understand that the U.S. government and its citizens have decided that we oppose the predatory business practices that are made possible with monopolies. But in case nobody has told them; no AT&T, you can’t keep trying to re-monopolize one of the most important services in the world.

3. We still have a long way to go to ensure an open, public internet service

Internet being considered a public utility is a big step. However, while we rejoice in our ability to binge-watch “Game of Thrones” at equal speeds, individuals living in rural and poor communities still face limited internet access.

Internet use in rural areas is at 78 percent, compared to 84 percent in urban and suburban areas. However, not all internet is equal. Oftentimes in rural areas, especially in parts of the south and western U.S., internet is offered at higher prices and lower speeds.

The dialogue around internet use also often disregards the inevitable fact that for poor families, buying computers that can cost hundreds to thousands of dollars and is not a priority, and often is not possible. The internet cannot truly be considered an open, free, and public service until we address the high prices and differences in speed and quality of internet faced by rural and poor communities throughout the U.S.

4. Don’t be surprised if you see net neutrality in the Supreme Court

In case the comment from AT&T’s David McAtee didn’t tip you off, it is widely suspected that net neutrality will find itself in the Supreme Court soon as AT&T and other providers have expressed intention of appealing the case.

The D.C. Court of Appeals found no merit to the arguments of ISPs in the case decided on Tuesday. Further, the issue has already been looked at in part by SCOTUS. In 2005, SCOTUS decided National Cable & Telecommunications Assn. v. Brand X Internet Services by essentially saying that since the legislation in the Telecommunications Act of 1996 was ambiguous, the FCC got to decide how to classify internet service (as a telecommunications service or an information service). The FCC clearly has since decided to classify internet as a telecommunications service. Nevertheless, expect to see net neutrality top headlines in a Supreme Court appeal soon.

But until then, we celebrate this win as one step close in a battle for universal access to the internet, the largest, most empowering, and most accessible information database in the world.

Ashlee Smith

Ashlee Smith is a Law Street Intern from San Antonio, TX. She is a sophomore at American University, pursuing a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science and Journalism. Her passions include social policy, coffee, and watching West Wing. Contact Ashlee at ASmith@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Federal Court Upholds Net Neutrality: 4 Things You Need to Know appeared first on Law Street.

Citigroup, the banking company with over $1.7 trillion dollars in assets, really likes to say “Thank you.” Citigroup’s rewards system is called “Citi Thank You,” and Citigroup is the owner of www.thankyou.com. Because of its frequent use of the words “thank you,” the company has registered the “THANKYOU” trademark.

The trouble is, AT&T launched a promotion for a rewards program connecting its cell service with a Citigroup-backed credit card, called “AT&T Thanks.” Citigroup is suing AT&T, claiming that it has domain over that use of “Thanking.” Because “thank you” is such a common phrase, Citi only has exclusive rights to its usage in very particular contexts. (Unless the reason they’re so wealthy is because they do get a nickel every time someone says thank you!?) Now, AT&T is attempting to trademark “AT&T THANKS.” In this lawsuit, Citigroup is claiming that AT&T’s marketing campaign is “confusingly similar to Citigroup’s ‘THANKYOU Marks,'” and Citigroup is attempting to block AT&T’s trademark.

Take a look at the two programs yourself: the Citigroup Thank You program has scores of gift-cards, vacations, and gadgets you can buy with points awarded through your citi card. The AT&T “Thanks” promotion includes offers like “buy one get one free” movie ticket ‘twosdays,’ along with pre-sale access for LiveNation and exclusive TV content.

If AT&T can prove that it’s unlikely consumers will be confused between the two programs, then it will be able to keep its own usage of “THANKS.” If Citigroup shows that the trademark is being used unfairly, its claim to the words “THANK YOU” is bolstered in other related services. The hearing date has not yet been set in this case, so if you’re waiting to hear what happens, I can only THANK YOU for your patience. And there’s no word yet on whether Alanis Morissette has been served a cease and desist letter from Citigroup.

Sean Simon

Sean Simon is an Editorial News Senior Fellow at Law Street, and a senior at The George Washington University, studying Communications and Psychology. In his spare time, he loves exploring D.C. restaurants, solving crossword puzzles, and watching sad foreign films. Contact Sean at SSimon@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Citigroup, Owner of “Thank You,” Sues AT&T for Using “Thanks” appeared first on Law Street.

After a long period of back and forth, political debate, and frustration, the proponents of net neutrality have won–for now, at least. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) solidified net neutrality this week.

For those of you who have been ignoring the net neutrality debate for the past year or so–and I don’t blame you, it sounds way more boring than it is–net neutrality is essentially the principle that Internet Service Providers (ISPs) shouldn’t be able to dictate the prioritization of pages on the internet. The FCC, in a 3-2 vote, just confirmed that status quo with its decision, which don’t allow ISPs to dictate who gets to be in a “fast lane”–essentially have their pages load faster than others for a fee paid to the ISP, or block pages. The FCC ruling also allows the government to step in if it’s believed that the principles of net neutrality are being broken. As PC World summed it up, the decision will:

Reclassify fixed broadband lines under Title II of the Telecommunications Act. This turns ISPs and mobile broadband providers into public utilities.

This is truly great news, especially for the vast majority of Americans who rely on the equal treatment of internet sites for work, education, and just plain old fun. That being said, not everyone is happy. This is bad news for ISPs, which now don’t get to capitalize on the ability to charge different sites for the pleasure of fast lanes, as well as the politicians who receive money from those ISPs.

Verizon, for example, responded to the news with sarcasm akin to a particularly angsty teenage girl. The company put out a press release in typewriter font, made to look like a memo straight from a typewriter, and dated it 1934. This was an apparent reference to the fact that Verizon thought the FCC’s ruling seemed a bit outdated. The release opened with this classic line:

Today (Feb. 26) the Federal Communications Commission approved an order urged by President Obama that imposes rules on broadband Internet services that were written in the era of the steam locomotive and the telegraph.

Verizon didn’t just pout via typewriter font though–it also released the memo in Morse Code.

While Verizon was wandering around with its panties (I’m sorry, it’s 1934, so knickers) in a twist, other ISPs were gearing up for a fight as well. David Cohen, Comcast’s Executive Vice President, stated, “After today, the only ‘certainty’… is that we all face inevitable litigation and years of regulatory uncertainty,” clearly hinting at some sort of an impending lawsuit from the tech giant. AT&T had hinted at a similar future a few weeks ago when its lawyer Hank Hultquist wrote letters saying that the FCC’s rulings, if they were to protect net neutrality, wouldn’t hold up in court. The letters appeared to cite heavily from Supreme Court decisions on similar topics.

The rules will become official this summer, so if you’re following this whole mess, anticipate some interesting court battles at that point.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Net Neutrality Wins: What’s Next? appeared first on Law Street.

The FCC is on the verge of allowing internet fast lanes that would allow content providers to pay for faster access for their customers. Read on to learn why this proposal has generated so much controversy.

What is an internet  fast lane?

When commentators say “fast lane,” they are usually referring to paid prioritization. This is when an Internet Service Provider (ISP), such as Comcast or Time Warner, charges a content provider, such as Google or Facebook, an extra fee for faster “lanes” of bandwidth. Effectively, the ISPs would be allowing content providers to pay for easier access to customers.

Netflix recently agreed to pay Comcast for faster access to its customers. This is the first deal of its kind.

Netflix is not happy about the deal at all. In a blog post, CEO Reed Hastings referred to the fee as an “arbitrary tax” and expressed concerns that escalating fees could continue to be charged to Netflix and other content providers. Netflix may have agreed to pay this fee not to gain an advantage but to gain download speeds they once had. This graphic from the Washington Post shows that Netflix’s download speeds on Comcast tanked during the negotiations and then suddenly spiked once Netflix agreed to pay the fee:

Why are ISPs allowed to create fast lanes?

ISPs like Comcast are allowed to charge content providers for faster access because of a recent court decision that struck down the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) rules regarding net neutrality. The FCC is the federal agency in charge of regulating communications over mediums such as radio and television.

Net neutrality is the concept that all data on the Internet should be treated equally. You should be able to load a Netflix page just as fast as you can load a YouTube page. This video from Mashable provides a clear visualization of the concept.

The FCC created regulatory rules in 2010 that would enforce net neutrality. Cable companies and other ISPs immediately cried foul and filed lawsuits.

On January 14, 2014, a U.S. appeals court overruled the new rules. The reason? Broadband Internet is classified by the government as an information service. The FCC does not have the authority to regulate information services. The Internet used to be classified as a telecommunications service until a 2005 Supreme Court ruling. The FCC is allowed to strictly regulate telecommunications services.

What is the FCC doing about fast lanes?

In the wake of the court ruling, the FCC is in the process of writing a new set of Internet rules that allow for fast lanes. For the past few months, the FCC has allowed public comment on its website on one main question: should the new rules allow fast lanes?

There is a possibility that these rules would permit only some heavily regulated fast lanes to exist. The FCC says that the rules would require these lanes be “commercially reasonable,” but that’s a vague requirement that could be exploited.

There’s also a possibility that the FCC could go in the opposite direction and ban prioritization. The FCC would do this by reclassifying broadband Internet as a telecommunications service, giving it the power to strictly regulate ISPs. This reclassification would almost certainly face a legal challenge by ISPs, as well as a challenge from Congress.

How have people reacted to this proposal?

The FCC received more than one million online comments about the proposed rule change in the span of five months. That is the most comments the agency has ever received, and almost topped the number of complaints the Commission received after Janet Jackson’s “wardrobe malfunction” at the Super Bowl.

Activists and content providers alike are not happy that the FCC is even considering legalizing fast lanes.

The Internet Association, an industry group that represents companies like Amazon, Google, and Uber, submitted a lengthy comment to the FCC’s website arguing, in part, that “charging for enhanced or prioritized access […] undermines the Internet’s level playing field.”

The association also expressed concern that ISPs might provide prioritization to their own content. For example, Comcast owns NBC Universal. A fast lane rule would allow Comcast to prioritize access to NBC television streaming over the quality of other network streaming services.

John Oliver, host of HBO’s Last Week Tonight With John Oliver, took a more cynical view in this widely shared segment. Oliver accused the FCC and Chairman Tom Wheeler, who used to be a lobbyist for cable companies, of corruption. He also called on Internet trolls to flood the FCC with comments.

MoveOn, the liberal activism website, released this television ad encouraging viewers to call the FCC in support of network neutrality.

MoveOn’s lead campaign director Victoria Kaplan also released a statement saying that “MoveOn members strongly support Net Neutrality and are calling on the FCC to scrap proposed rules that would undermine an open Internet.”

ISPs, for the most part, are issuing vague statements about how they support an “open Internet.” For example, Comcast released a statement saying that “we support the FCC putting in place legally enforceable rules to ensure that there is a free and open Internet, including transparency, no blocking, and anti-discrimination rules.” This doesn’t really say anything specific. Comcast argued later in the statement against a reclassification of broadband Internet, but never argued why they should be allowed to charge for fast lanes.

In stunning contrast, AT&T provided a robust defense of fast lanes in its FCC comment. The whole document is definitely worth a read, but here’s the most important quote:

“In no other area of the economy does the government ban voluntary market transactions (here, for example, quality-of-service enhancements) specifically in order to prevent those with superior resources from offering better services to their own customers.”

The line AT&T concluded the paragraph with is equally important to understanding the company’s argument:

“In short, the theoretical basis of this rationale for a strict nondiscrimination rule is thoroughly unsound and anathema to a market economy.”

AT&T’s argument is pretty unique. It is essentially saying that not allowing content providers to pay for a fast lane or not allowing ISPs to offer such an “upgrade” goes against the very foundation of a capitalist economy.

What’s important about this argument is the claim by AT&T that the fast lane would only amount to an “enhancement” in service for some companies and not a downgrade in service for companies that do not pay the fee.

Many activists doubt this will be the case. Instead, the “free” lane would be significantly slower. As John Oliver put it in the previously embedded segment, “if we let cable companies offer two speeds of service, it won’t be Usain Bolt and Usain Bolt on a motor bike. They’ll be Usain Bolt and Usain Bolted To An Anchor.”

Conclusion

Soon, the FCC will create a new set of rules governing the Internet. It will either allow fast lanes to exist and face harsh public criticism or it will fight for net neutrality and face a barrage of lawsuits and challenges from ISPs and Congress. This is an issue you will want to keep an eye on if you use the Internet regularly.

Resources

Primary

FCC: FCC Launches Rulemaking On How To Protect The Open Internet

FCC: Comment: AT&T

FCC: Internet Association: Comment

Additional

Netflix CEO: The Case for Net Neutrality

Wall Street Journal: Court Tosses Out Open Internet Rules

CNET: 2005: FCC Changes Internet Classification

Hill: Former FCC Chairman on Net Neutrality

NPR: One Million FCC Comments Filed

Comcast: Comment

Guardian: Welcome to the Age of Digital Discrimination

MoveOn: Keep Internet Open

NextGov: The FCC is Getting Serious

Geeksided: MLB Speaks Out Against Fast Lanes

Eric Essagof

Eric Essagof attended The George Washington University majoring in Political Science. He writes about how decisions made in DC impact the rest of the country. He is a Twitter addict, hip-hop fan, and intramural sports referee in his spare time. Contact Eric at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Internet Fast Lanes Will Change How You Use the Web appeared first on Law Street.

To the average internet user, the exact mechanics of the internet remain a complicated mystery. A certain abracadabra happens every time that I type a website into my browser and hit enter. How does the website suddenly show up on the screen? Where is it coming from? What exactly just happened?

This gap in knowledge facilitates easy exploitation by those with something to gain.

For example, take the Net Neutrality Act: since most people do not understand the concepts of net neutrality, most simply do not have an opinion. Both sides on the issue can say that their stance most serves justice, and the average internet user will not know who to trust.

The intuitive reader can probably guess who stands on either side: large internet providers — like Verizon or Optimum — stand against net neutrality, while hacker-types mostly advocate in favor of it. Maybe one can decide their own stance based on which affiliation they prefer?

But this still doesn’t resolve the ambiguity. Hackers are cool, but also kind of scary and potentially foul-smelling; mega internet-providers are cold and corporate, but it’s so cynical to believe that the oh-so-many people who work at these corporations can all push for a policy they know is wrong.

So, in order to understand whether or not you support net neutrality, we will need to understand the internet a little better. Don’t worry, things won’t get too complicated — even after writing this, I still kind of think the internet works via abracadabra.

What is happening when I type a website into my browser? With net neutrality, when you type a website into your browser, the internet service provider cannot block a website or discriminate with respect to the speed of service — i.e. allow certain websites to have faster service than others. Think of a highway: net neutrality says that internet providers cannot divide the highway into a fast lane and a slow lane. All websites travel at the same speed and an internet provider cannot cherrypick certain websites that receive preferential or detrimental treatment.

What do internet providers want? Internet providers argue that they do have the right to allow some websites to reach users at a faster speed than others. Providers say that if certain websites hog up bandwidth, internet providers should be allowed to charge these websites a greater fee for faster service. Additionally, they argue that the market will correct for any inefficiencies created by these discriminatory practices — if one internet service provider slows access to popular websites, the user will switch to another internet provider that does not.

What do net neutrality proponents want? Those in favor of net neutrality argue that an open internet cultivates innovation. For example, in a world without net neutrality, a company seeking to challenge Google would have to face the additional hurdles. Google can afford to pay for the fast-lane highway service while this new startup will likely have to try to compete using slower speeds. Additionally, those in favor of an open internet point to the potential abuse by internet service providers. For example, many internet service providers also offer On Demand video products which compete with Netflix and Hulu. Without net neutrality, these service providers can slow the access to Netflix or Hulu to try and push users into using their own products.

So, what do you think? Should the internet be a highway where all websites travel at the same speed or should there be a fast lane and a slow lane, with internet service providers charging a higher fee for fast-lane service? The choice will have tangible consequences on your internet speed, the ability of startup companies to compete, and how much you pay for access to many populate sites.

—

Imran Ahmed is a writer living in New York City whose blog explores the legal implications of social media and the internet. Contact him via email here.

Featured image courtesy of [OpenMedia via Flickr]

Imran Ahmed

Imran Ahmed is a writer living in New York. Contact Imran at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What is Net Neutrality & Why Should You Care? appeared first on Law Street.

I was watching television recently when I saw an awesome AT&T commercial that summed up the greatness that is technology. Take a look.

The dad literally turned off all the appliances and locked the door with a press of a button on his smartphone. Mind… Blown… I’m not easily impressed, but after seeing this I had to know more. How could all of these different things be turned off remotely with one app? Are they connected to the internet? What did I just see?

After some research, I found out that everything in that mind-blowing commercial will probably be common in about seven years. Household appliances like toasters, refrigerators, ovens, and coffee pots are being enabled to communicate with each other and with your applications — technology referred to as IoT, or the Internet of Things. We know about smart TVs, but say hello to smart thermostats. These devices have the ability to connect wirelessly via router signals, and some can even connect to the internet on their own. Not only that, but these appliances are able to connect, control, and share resources over different operating systems. This is so cool that even Google wants a piece of the action — which explains their $3.2 billion purchase of Nest, creator of smart thermostats and smoke alarms.

Last year 10 billion of these devices were connected to the internet, and there are estimates that up to 212 billion devices will be connected by 2020. The Internet of Things is slated to be an $8.9 trillion market by 2020, and will include many more things than just household devices. State, local, and federal governments are preparing to expand on these kinds of technologies and use them to create entire smart cities, as well as tech-supported infrastructure and energy sources such as wind turbines. These will all fall under the category of IoT and therefore could have some of the same vulnerabilities.

Proofpoint, a new tech security firm, has found evidence that smart appliances have the ability to be cyberattacked. In a study conducted from December 23, 2013 to January 6, 2014, Proofpoint found that more than 100,000 common appliances like multimedia centers, TVs, routers, and refrigerators were able to send 750,000 malicious emails in bursts of 100,000, three times a day. While some people may not be frightened by the prospect of their toaster sending out spam, we should note that this implies a bigger problem.

Proofpoint was not the first entity to point out these security issues, as there have been reports dating back to 2009 of concerns with the ability to hack routers. However, Proofpoint is the first to show supporting evidence that these security breaches can, will, and have happened to appliances. So what is happening? First, these devices are mass produced without much antivirus software to protect against security breaches. Because the devices have internet connectivity, hackers are able to exploit some of the known software vulnerabilities of the devices and apps that are used to control them. By exploiting these vulnerabilities, these devices become spam-sending machines capable of conducting denial of service attacks used to steal usernames and passwords. Another problem is that hackers may gain the ability to control the functions of the devices. What’s even more frightening is that many consumers won’t even know their networks and devices have been compromised.

The reason these vulnerabilities have not been dealt with is the lack of security standards for these gadgets. Not only have companies not produced universal security standards, there has been no government intervention to set security standards. With technology changing so rapidly, government officials have not been able to keep up with the changes and pass laws accordingly. Until such time as these standards are created, either by companies or by the government, we’re on our own folks.

On the bright side, I’m sure companies don’t want their products to be responsible for spreading viruses and spamming people. For that reason, I believe companies will develop more robust antivirus software as smart appliances become more common. However, if you already have one of these devices, you may want to take some precautions to protect them. Some suggestions are to screen your internet connections and bar devices that aren’t email servers from being able to send email. Another suggestion is to encrypt your devices. While my mind is still completely blown by the commercial I saw, I think that’s where I’ll let my interest pique…for now.

—

Teerah Goodrum (@AisleNotes), is a graduate student at Howard University with a concentration in Public Administration and Public Policy.  Her time on Capitol Hill as a Science and Technology Legislative Assistant has given her insight into the tech community.  In her spare time she enjoys visiting her favorite city, Seattle, and playing fantasy football!

Featured image courtesy of [James Nash via Flickr]

Teerah Goodrum

Teerah Goodrum is a Graduate of Howard University with a Masters degree in Public Administration and Public Policy. Her time on Capitol Hill as a Science and Technology Legislative Assistant has given her insight into the tech community. In her spare time she enjoys visiting her favorite city, Seattle, and playing fantasy football. Contact Teerah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Did Your Toaster Just Spam Me? appeared first on Law Street.