David Sohn
Senior Policy Counsel and Director of CDT's Project on Intellectual Property and Technology

David Sohn joined CDT in 2005. He is Senior Policy Counsel and Director of CDT's Project on Intellectual Property and Technology, which seeks to promote reasonable pro-consumer approaches to copyright and related policy issues raised by the emergence of the Internet, new digital media, and digital rights management (DRM) technology.

Prior to joining CDT, Mr. Sohn worked for nearly five years as Commerce Counsel for Senator Ron Wyden, where he advised the Senator on technology and telecommunications issues coming before the Senate Commerce Committee. In that capacity, Mr. Sohn worked on legislation relating to such matters as spyware, digital copyright, and online privacy, and played a major role in enactment of the first federal anti-spam law. Before joining Senator Wyden's office, Mr. Sohn practiced law in Washington, D.C. at Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering, with a focus on telecommunications law and regulation.

Mr. Sohn received his B.A. degree from Amherst ... More »

David Sohn joined CDT in 2005. He is Senior Policy Counsel and Director of CDT's Project on Intellectual Property and Technology, which seeks to promote reasonable pro-consumer approaches to copyright and related policy issues raised by the emergence of the Internet, new digital media, and digital rights management (DRM) technology.

Prior to joining CDT, Mr. Sohn worked for nearly five years as Commerce Counsel for Senator Ron Wyden, where he advised the Senator on technology and telecommunications issues coming before the Senate Commerce Committee. In that capacity, Mr. Sohn worked on legislation relating to such matters as spyware, digital copyright, and online privacy, and played a major role in enactment of the first federal anti-spam law. Before joining Senator Wyden's office, Mr. Sohn practiced law in Washington, D.C. at Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering, with a focus on telecommunications law and regulation.

Mr. Sohn received his B.A. degree from Amherst College (magna cum laude, Phi Beta Kappa) and his J.D. from Stanford Law School. He also received an M.Sc. degree from the London School of Economics.

« Less
CDT is sending a letter to the Department of Justice today objecting to precisely three words -- indeed, the last three words -- of DoJ's press release earlier this month announcing its Task Force of Intellectual Property Enforcement.  Those words are "Federal Communications Commission."  Specifically, the end of the press release names the FCC as an agency that DoJ intends to work with in combatting I.P. crime.  
 
What's wrong with that?  It's an invitation to major mission creep.  The FCC's job is to execute and enforce federal communications law.  It has no authority and no role in enforcing other laws.  Lots of unlawful activity -- from intellectual property infringement to racketeering to securities fraud to deceptive advertising -- may occur over or using communications networks.  But that doesn't make it the FCC's job to police such activity.  The FCC's focus is, and should remain, promoting the availability of high quality communications capabilities in the United States -- not policing what users do with those capabilities.
 
In addition, the only reason to involve the FCC would be to force the entities the FCC regulates -- communications providers, and in particular ISPs -- to start actively policing I.P. infringement.  Having government force ISPs to take on this new role should raise serious red flags.

CDT submitted extensive comments yesterday on the FCC's proposed "open Internet" rules.

Our basic take is that the FCC has put its finger on a crucial policy challenge.  The current legal and policy framework does not adequately guarantee the future of the Internet's open and nondiscriminatory structure.  Protecting the Internet's ability to serve as a platform for independent, upstart speech and innovation should be a central goal of modern communications policy.  At the same time, though, the FCC has not to date laid out a sound basis for the regulatory jurisdiction it asserts.  CDT's comments argue that the FCC needs to go back to square one on jurisdiction and articulate a carefully targeted and expressly limited legal basis for its action in this area.

CDT submitted a brief comment yesterday in response to an FCC notice aimed at promoting more useful, transparent information about broadband services.  The notice is most directly aimed at the data, especially speed figures, that broadband providers advertise.  Given that actual speeds often vary, how can consumers be sure that they're comparing apples to apples?  What if one provider cites peak speed while another cites average speed?  But CDT, while acknowledging that these are good questions, focused on two elements of transparency that might be at risk of being overlooked.  First, CDT discussed the idea of giving individual subscribers tools to monitor their own broadband usage.  After all, much of the Internet neutrality debate focuses on questions of congestion and "bandwidth hogs" -- but how many consumers even have the foggiest idea of how much bandwidth they are using, or of which of their applications create the heaviest bandwidth drain?  Second, CDT noted that there may be opportunities for broadband networks to communicate technical information about network utilization or congestion to applications and other network operators.  The Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) has proposed a "Congestion Exposure" working group to address precisely this question.  In short, there are a variety of ways that transparency can play a helpful role for consumers, network operators, and applications providers alike.

12/9/2009 Consumer Privacy

The House of Representatives yesterday passed two bills that CDT testified on back in May.  H.R. 2221, focusing on data security, would create a nationwide data breach notification standard.  More importantly, from CDT's point of view -- since numerous state laws already have effectively made it the law of the land to notify consumers about data breaches -- the bill also would give consumers greater ability to review and/or control their data broker files.  This is a fundamentally good bill, and could be improved further if it were married up with Senator Leahy's data security bill, S. 1490, to include the best concepts of both.

Syndicate content
See all David Sohn's Work