As a safeguard, the FCC would also be required to protect legitimate communications by conducting tests, approving equipment and laying out specific rules about when and where signals could be blocked. As you might expect, the issue of inmates using cellphones to conduct nefarious business has become a problem over the last few years. The House still needs to approve the bill—but it seems like a no-brainer to me. I mean, think about all the time officers would save when they don't have to hunt for cellphones being smuggled in by carrier pigeons, R/C helicopters and buttholes. [WSJ via Phone Scoop via CrunchGear]

The new version would allow the president to "declare a cybersecurity emergency" relating to "non-governmental" computer networks and do what's necessary to respond to the threat. Other sections of the proposal include a federal certification program for "cybersecurity professionals," and a requirement that certain computer systems and networks in the private sector be managed by people who have been awarded that license.

Section 201 of the bill also seems to imply that the government can reserve the right to regulate "critical" private networks, which could include the disclosure of information.

Probably the most controversial language begins in Section 201, which permits the president to "direct the national response to the cyber threat" if necessary for "the national defense and security." The White House is supposed to engage in "periodic mapping" of private networks deemed to be critical, and those companies "shall share" requested information with the federal government.

Naturally, there has been a lot of debate on both sides of the issue—some are calling the redraft unsettlingly "vague" while others insist that a bill of this nature is essential in order to protect our nation's digital infrastructure. What do you think? Is this crossing the line or should the government have the right to exercise its power over private networks? [CNET]

Several different teams have done research showing that texting while driving is at least as dangerous as drunk driving and significantly more dangerous than talking on the phone while driving. The most interesting conclusion found that someone texting while driving is about eight times more likely to cause an accident than someone not texting, while a driver with a blood alcohol percentage of 0.08%, the legal limit, is only four times more likely than a sober driver.

The bill would force each state's highway department to institute a ban on texting within two years, or lose 25% of their federal funding each year, which is enough to cripple a highway department. Some weren't thrilled, pointing out that nobody's figured a way to enforce this kind of law, but we'll have to see if the Senate passes the bill to find out if anyone has real objections. [NY Times]

The BlackBerry, to me, is a utilitarian too. It's not easy to send e-mails on that thing [the BlackBerry Storm]. It is not a good touch screen, and it's not like the iPhone, where there are so many other great features to it.

Those are the words of Rodell Mollineau, communications staff director for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), who also adds the tale of a senior adviser to Reid who changed his iPhone for a BlackBerry Storm:

Three days later. I literally walk in and he's cursing with four-letter words, and he was slamming it down, saying, ‘I can't get e-mail to work all right.' It just is not for people here who mainly use their BlackBerrys for that.

Things are so bad that the House administrative office is setting up a workshop on the Storm. Which brings up the question: Why in hell did they ditch their old phones to get a fancy piece of crap that has been smacked by reviews everywhere?

Yes. Be fearful. These are the guys who have our future in their hands. [Politico]

The bill (a rewrite of the Obama-supported Sen. Jay Rockefeller plan) doesn't look to provide more funding for DTV vouchers—it's more a slam on the brakes maneuver to buy everyone some time. The most important point about the bill, however, is that it leaves broadcasters the "option" to still make the DTV switch on February 17th.

On one hand, that's the only fair plan that the government could leave broadcasters after forcing them to make major internal technological revisions. On the other, viewers who weren't prepped for February 17th could still lose some (or even all) channels in spite of the formal delay. [WSJ and Getty Images Photo]

Worse, they even knocked down two proposed amendments that would have at least paid lip service to holding them responsible for their actions. Now we'll never know just how it deep went, how thoroughly they violated any number of things that just shouldn't be fucked with—rights, laws, etc. [NYT]

P.S. How'd our potential prezzes vote? Unsurprisingly, Obama voted against immunity, Hillary didn't vote (too busy crying) and McCain doesn't like anything with wires, so he okayed the spying.

Mark Klein explained the situation a bit in this video and why he was lobbying against immunity for the telcos—which the FCC declined to investigate. It's this exact bill that's about to pass the Senate, as they've voted to limit debate on it "all but assuring" it gets the rubber stamp. Also included are provisions to essentially legalize the government's actions, effectively expanding its ability to spy within our borders. Scary stuff. [Threat Level, Threat Level]

The Cell Phone Consumer Empowerment Act intro'd last month, for example, would force carriers to prorate termination fees, prevent them from calling their own fees government taxes, and keep their coverage maps up-to-date and easily available to customers. Also at issue are termination fees for military personnel shipped overseas and automatic extensions forced on customers seeking small changes in their contract.

Naturally, the industry's against increased regulation, with Verizon, for instance, saying it already follows many of the proposed provisions. Some Republican Senators also argue that the competitive market provides enough protection for consumers. On the other hand, having more transparency and fairness seems like it would benefit consumers, and at least on paper, a mobile bill of rights doesn't sound like a bad thing. What do you guys think? [InfoWorld/Yahoo!, Flickr]

As sponsoring Sen. Mark Pryor correctly surmises, content is increasingly slippery, sliding from device to device with relative ease—if you want to strap blinders on children, you have to think outside of the box in your living room. But his goal is wholly unrealistic. The reason he wants a super V-chip—the infinitude of content that needs to be managed across a vast array of devices—is the very reason why any kind of super V-chip would fail. It's like trying to hold back an ocean with a fishing net.

Beyond that, forcing manufacturers to shove chips into TVs is relatively easy compared to equipping essentially every consumer electronics device with one, which is what would be necessary to filter content at the absolute end user level. And there's no point in worrying about that until every piece of content itself is tagged in a way for the chip to identify it. Finally, there's that little problem the first V-chip ran into: no one used it.

It would probably be easer to make a super-duper V-chip that's implanted at birth which would screen everything a kid sees and hears, not just TV or the internet. Real life probably has the most inappropriate content of any medium, so it's high time we started screening it, too—we don't want kids exposed to any of that dirty business. [Yahoo!/Reuters, Image via Flickr]

Basically, if a school gets enough subpoenas in the mail from the MPAA and/or RIAA to make the top 25, they go on "probation." At that point they have to prove to the Secretary of Education that they're going to foist a "technology-based deterrent to prevent the illegal downloading or peer-to-peer distribution of intellectual property" upon its hapless student body.

Naturally, provisions aren't laid out in the amendment for how the data provided by copyright holders is collected or verified at all. But it's not like the RIAA's ever been wrong or anything. [Ars Technica]