Res Communis Blog RSS

Author Archives: P.J. Blount

FAA Statement on Malaysian Air Flight 17

Source – FAA:

Press Release – FAA Statement on Malaysian Air Flight 17
Print
Share
For Immediate Release
July 17, 2014
Contact: Kristie M. Greco
Phone: (202) 267-3883
The FAA was in contact with US carriers following the crash of Malaysian Air Flight 17. The agency confirms that carriers have voluntarily agreed not to operate in the airspace near the Russian-Ukraine border. The FAA is monitoring the situation to determine whether further guidance is necessary.
Background
On April 3, the FAA issued a Notice to Airman (NOTAM) prohibiting U.S. flight operations until further notice in the airspace over the Crimean region of Ukraine, and portions adjacent to the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov.
The NOTAM does not currently cover the airspace where Malaysian Air flight 17 crashed.
This action was taken due to the unilateral and illegal action by Russia to assert control over Crimean airspace, including international airspace administered by Ukraine without agreement by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO).
This creates the potential for conflicting air traffic control instructions from Ukrainian and Russian authorities and for the related potential misidentification of civil aircraft in this airspace. This prompted the FAA NOTAM for U.S. flights.
###

FacebookTwitterGoogle+TumblrLinkedInEvernoteDiggSlashdotEmailShare

Event: Strategic Space Law Intensive Program

Source – McGill IASL:

Strategic Space Law Intensive Program
Event Share to:FacebookTwitterGoogle PlusEmail
27 Oct 2014 to31 Oct 2014
Chancellor Day Hall : 3644 rue Peel Montreal Quebec Canada , H3A 1W9
Price: $500
An intensive, interdisciplinary and interactive program designed for lawyers and other professionals in the defence services, international relations, government, international organizations, law firms, consulting firms and industry interested in studying space law from a strategic perspective.

Deadline to apply: 15 September 2014. Fee: 500$.

Download the program brochure and registration info. [.docx]

What is it?
The McGill University Institute of, and Centre for Research in, Air and Space Law, in partnership with the University of Adelaide Law School, is pleased to present the first ever Strategic Space Law Program. The aim of the program is to provide a unique opportunity for lawyers and other professionals in the defence services, international relations, government, international organisations, law firms, consulting firms and industry around the world to study space law in a strategic context. The Montreal program will be run as a one-week intensive, interdisciplinary, interactive workshop (non-assessable) at the Institute of Air and Space Law, McGill University in October 2014. Thereafter, the program will be repeated in the form of a graduate course (assessable for academic credit) at the University of Adelaide Law School during the first semester of 2015. On both occasions, the substantive content of the program will be the same and will be delivered by world-class academics, legal and policy advisors and subject-matter experts drawn from government, civil society (including academia) and commerce.

Highlights
23 core lectures from experts on the principles and concepts involved in the various disciplines that touch on Strategic Space Law.
Hands-on workshops and practical exercises linked to lectures, on topics such as space traffic management, military use of spectrum, space debris and simulated legal, policy and commercial problem-solving and debate.
Social and other networking activities.
Professional visits to relevant sites (may include the Canadian Space Agency and Woomera launch site in South Australia).
Why study Strategic Space Law?
Today there are approximately 1,100 active satellites in orbit and the number of States directly involved in launching or operating satellites has grown substantially since the dawn of the space age. Even States that have no direct involvement in launching or operating satellites rely heavily on space infrastructure: for television, radio, banking, communications, transport, agriculture, mining, and especially for modern military services. Yet, those satellites are under increasing threat from 100,000s of pieces of space debris and increasing harmful radio interference. Furthermore, some States already possess counter-space weapons and other means capable of destroying or disrupting satellites and other States have plans to develop those capabilities. There is also greater competition for use of the limited radio frequency spectrum and prime orbital slots that are indispensable for the operation of all satellites.

Outer space is becoming more contested, congested and competitive. Concurrently, the global security situation generally is less certain. Financial and other constraints have made global powers more inward-looking and less likely to deploy forces globally – except through the sort of ‘remote reach’ capabilities that rely on space infrastructure (such as uninhabited aerial vehicles and cyber warfare). Secure, ongoing access to fossil fuels is a growing concern, yet all States are wary of the nuclear energy option and its relationship to the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Ballistic missiles, as the means of delivery of nuclear weapons, involve space flight and ballistic missile defence also relies on space-based infrastructure. Thus, space is a key element in global security, yet it is also increasingly vulnerable.

Contact Information
Contact: Ms Maria D’Amico
Organization: Institute of Air and Space Law, McGill University
Email: maria.damico@mcgill.ca
Office Phone: 1-514-398-5095

UK: Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014

Source – UK Parliament:

Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014

2014 CHAPTER 27

An Act to make provision, in consequence of a declaration of invalidity made by the Court of Justice of the European Union in relation to Directive 2006/24/EC, about the retention of certain communications data; to amend the grounds for issuing interception warrants, or granting or giving certain authorisations or notices, under Part 1 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000; to make provision about the extra-territorial application of that Part and about the meaning of “telecommunications service” for the purposes of that Act; to make provision about additional reports by the Interception of Communications Commissioner; to make provision about a review of the operation and regulation of investigatory powers; and for connected purposes.
[17th July 2014]

Be it enacted by the Queen’s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:—

Retention of relevant communications data

1Powers for retention of relevant communications data subject to safeguards

(1)The Secretary of State may by notice (a “retention notice”) require a public telecommunications operator to retain relevant communications data if the Secretary of State considers that the requirement is necessary and proportionate for one or more of the purposes falling within paragraphs (a) to (h) of section 22(2) of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (purposes for which communications data may be obtained).

(2)A retention notice may—

(a)relate to a particular operator or any description of operators,

(b)require the retention of all data or any description of data,

(c)specify the period or periods for which data is to be retained,

(d)contain other requirements, or restrictions, in relation to the retention of data,

(e)make different provision for different purposes,

(f)relate to data whether or not in existence at the time of the giving, or coming into force, of the notice.

(3)The Secretary of State may by regulations make further provision about the retention of relevant communications data.

(4)Such provision may, in particular, include provision about—

(a)requirements before giving a retention notice,

(b)the maximum period for which data is to be retained under a retention notice,

(c)the content, giving, coming into force, review, variation or revocation of a retention notice,

(d)the integrity, security or protection of, access to, or the disclosure or destruction of, data retained by virtue of this section,

(e)the enforcement of, or auditing compliance with, relevant requirements or restrictions,

(f)a code of practice in relation to relevant requirements or restrictions or relevant powers,

(g)the reimbursement by the Secretary of State (with or without conditions) of expenses incurred by public telecommunications operators in complying with relevant requirements or restrictions,

(h)the 2009 Regulations ceasing to have effect and the transition to the retention of data by virtue of this section.

(5)The maximum period provided for by virtue of subsection (4)(b) must not exceed 12 months beginning with such day as is specified in relation to the data concerned by regulations under subsection (3).

(6)A public telecommunications operator who retains relevant communications data by virtue of this section must not disclose the data except—

(a)in accordance with—

(i)Chapter 2 of Part 1 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (acquisition and disclosure of communications data), or

(ii)a court order or other judicial authorisation or warrant, or

(b)as provided by regulations under subsection (3).

(7)The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision, which corresponds to any provision made (or capable of being made) by virtue of subsection (4)(d) to (g) or (6), in relation to communications data which is retained by telecommunications service providers by virtue of a code of practice under section 102 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001.

2Section 1: supplementary

(1)In this section and section 1—

“communications data” has the meaning given by section 21(4) of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 so far as that meaning applies in relation to telecommunications services and telecommunication systems;
“functions” includes powers and duties;
“notice” means notice in writing;
“public telecommunications operator” means a person who—
(a)controls or provides a public telecommunication system, or
(b)provides a public telecommunications service;
“public telecommunications service” and “public telecommunication system” have the meanings given by section 2(1) of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000;
“relevant communications data” means communications data of the kind mentioned in the Schedule to the 2009 Regulations so far as such data is generated or processed in the United Kingdom by public telecommunications operators in the process of supplying the telecommunications services concerned;
“relevant powers” means any powers conferred by virtue of section 1(1) to (6);
“relevant requirements or restrictions” means any requirements or restrictions imposed by virtue of section 1(1) to (6);
“retention notice” has the meaning given by section 1(1);
“specify” means specify or describe (and “specified” is to be read accordingly);
“telecommunications service” and “telecommunication system” have the meanings given by section 2(1) of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000;
“telecommunications service provider” means a person who provides a telecommunications service;
“unsuccessful call attempt” means a communication where a telephone call has been successfully connected but not answered or there has been a network management intervention;
“the 2009 Regulations” means the provisions known as the Data Retention (EC Directive) Regulations 2009 (S.I. 2009/859).
(2)“Relevant communications data” includes (so far as it otherwise falls within the definition) communications data relating to unsuccessful call attempts that—

(a)in the case of telephony data, is stored in the United Kingdom, or

(b)in the case of internet data, is logged in the United Kingdom,

but does not include data relating to unconnected calls or data revealing the content of a communication.
(3)Regulations under section 1(3) may specify the communications data that is of the kind mentioned in the Schedule to the 2009 Regulations and, where they do so, the reference in the definition of “relevant communications data” to communications data of that kind is to be read as a reference to communications data so specified.

(4)Any power to make regulations under section 1—

(a)is exercisable by statutory instrument,

(b)includes power to—

(i)confer or impose functions (including those involving the exercise of a discretion) on any person (including the Secretary of State),

(ii)make supplementary, incidental, consequential, transitional, transitory or saving provision,

(iii)make different provision for different purposes,

(c)may, so far as relating to provision about codes of practice, be exercised in particular by modifying the effect of sections 71 and 72 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (codes of practice in relation to certain powers and duties).

(5)A statutory instrument containing regulations under section 1 is not to be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.

Investigatory powers

3Grounds for issuing warrants and obtaining data

(1)Section 5 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (power to issue necessary and proportionate interception warrants in interests of national security, to prevent or detect serious crime or to safeguard the UK’s economic well-being) is amended as set out in subsection (2).

(2)In subsection (3)(c) (economic well-being of the UK), after “purpose” insert “, in circumstances appearing to the Secretary of State to be relevant to the interests of national security,”.

(3)Section 22 of that Act (power to obtain communications data in interests of national security, to prevent or detect serious crime, in interests of the UK’s economic well-being and for other specified purposes) is amended as set out in subsection (4).

(4)In subsection (2)(c) (economic well-being of the UK), after “United Kingdom” insert “so far as those interests are also relevant to the interests of national security”.

4Extra-territoriality in Part 1 of RIPA

(1)Part 1 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (communications) is amended as follows.

(2)In section 11 (implementation of interception warrants), after subsection (2) insert—

“(2A)A copy of a warrant may be served under subsection (2) on a person outside the United Kingdom (and may relate to conduct outside the United Kingdom).

(2B)Service under subsection (2) of a copy of a warrant on a person outside the United Kingdom may (in addition to electronic or other means of service) be effected in any of the following ways—

(a)by serving it at the person’s principal office within the United Kingdom or, if the person has no such office in the United Kingdom, at any place in the United Kingdom where the person carries on business or conducts activities;

(b)if the person has specified an address in the United Kingdom as one at which the person, or someone on the person’s behalf, will accept service of documents of the same description as a copy of a warrant, by serving it at that address;

(c)by making it available for inspection (whether to the person or to someone acting on the person’s behalf) at a place in the United Kingdom (but this is subject to subsection (2C)).

(2C)Service under subsection (2) of a copy of a warrant on a person outside the United Kingdom may be effected in the way mentioned in paragraph (c) of subsection (2B) only if—

(a)it is not reasonably practicable for service to be effected by any other means (whether as mentioned in subsection (2B)(a) or (b) or otherwise), and

(b)the person to whom the warrant is addressed takes such steps as the person thinks appropriate for the purpose of bringing the contents of the warrant, and the availability of a copy for inspection, to the attention of the person outside the United Kingdom.

The steps mentioned in paragraph (b) must be taken as soon as reasonably practicable after the copy of the warrant is made available for inspection.”
(3)In subsection (4) of that section, after “that person” insert “(whether or not the person is in the United Kingdom)”.

(4)After subsection (5) of that section insert—

“(5A)Where a person outside the United Kingdom is under a duty by virtue of subsection (4) to take any steps in a country or territory outside the United Kingdom for giving effect to a warrant, in determining for the purposes of subsection (5) whether the steps are reasonably practicable for the person to take, regard is to be had (amongst other matters) to—

(a)any requirements or restrictions under the law of that country or territory relevant to the taking of those steps, and

(b)the extent to which it is reasonably practicable to give effect to the warrant in a way that does not breach any such requirements or restrictions.”

(5)In subsection (8) of that section, after “enforceable” insert “(including in the case of a person outside the United Kingdom)”.

(6)In section 12 (maintenance of interception capability), after subsection (3) insert—

“(3A)An obligation may be imposed in accordance with an order under this section on, and a notice under subsection (2) given to, persons outside the United Kingdom (and may be so imposed or given in relation to conduct outside the United Kingdom).

(3B)Where a notice under subsection (2) is to be given to a person outside the United Kingdom, the notice may (in addition to electronic or other means of giving a notice) be given to the person—

(a)by delivering it to the person’s principal office within the United Kingdom or, if the person has no such office in the United Kingdom, to any place in the United Kingdom where the person carries on business or conducts activities, or

(b)if the person has specified an address in the United Kingdom as one at which the person, or someone on the person’s behalf, will accept documents of the same description as a notice, by delivering it to that address.”

(7)In subsection (7) of that section—

(a)after “person” insert “(whether or not the person is in the United Kingdom)”, and

(b)after “enforceable” insert “(including in the case of a person outside the United Kingdom)”.

(8)In section 22 (obtaining and disclosing communications data), after subsection (5) insert—

“(5A)An authorisation under subsection (3) or (3B), or a requirement imposed in accordance with a notice under subsection (4), may relate to conduct outside the United Kingdom (and any such notice may be given to a person outside the United Kingdom).

(5B)Where a notice under subsection (4) is to be given to a person outside the United Kingdom, the notice may (in addition to electronic or other means of giving a notice) be given to the person in any of the following ways—

(a)by delivering it to the person’s principal office within the United Kingdom or, if the person has no such office in the United Kingdom, to any place in the United Kingdom where the person carries on business or conducts activities;

(b)if the person has specified an address in the United Kingdom as one at which the person, or someone on the person’s behalf, will accept documents of the same description as a notice, by delivering it to that address;

(c)by notifying the person of the requirements imposed by the notice by such other means as the person giving the notice thinks appropriate (which may include notifying the person orally, except where the notice is one to which section 23A applies).”

(9)In subsection (6) of that section, after “operator” insert “(whether or not the operator is in the United Kingdom)”.

(10)In subsection (8) of that section, after “enforceable” insert “(including in the case of a person outside the United Kingdom)”.

5Meaning of “telecommunications service”

In section 2 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (meaning of “interception” etc), after subsection (8) insert—
“(8A)For the purposes of the definition of “telecommunications service” in subsection (1), the cases in which a service is to be taken to consist in the provision of access to, and of facilities for making use of, a telecommunication system include any case where a service consists in or includes facilitating the creation, management or storage of communications transmitted, or that may be transmitted, by means of such a system.”

6Half-yearly reports by the Interception of Communications Commissioner

(1)Section 58 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (reports by the Interception of Communications Commissioner) is amended as follows.

(2)In subsection (4) (annual reports), after “calendar year” insert “and after the end of the period of six months beginning with the end of each calendar year”.

(3)In subsection (6) (duty to lay annual reports before Parliament), after “annual report” insert “, and every half-yearly report,”.

(4)In subsection (6A) (duty to send annual reports to the First Minister), after “annual report” insert “, and every half-yearly report,”.

(5)In subsection (7) (power to exclude matter from annual reports), after “annual report” insert “, or half-yearly report,”.

7Review of investigatory powers and their regulation

(1)The Secretary of State must appoint the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation to review the operation and regulation of investigatory powers.

(2)The independent reviewer must, in particular, consider—

(a)current and future threats to the United Kingdom,

(b)the capabilities needed to combat those threats,

(c)safeguards to protect privacy,

(d)the challenges of changing technologies,

(e)issues relating to transparency and oversight,

(f)the effectiveness of existing legislation (including its proportionality) and the case for new or amending legislation.

(3)The independent reviewer must, so far as reasonably practicable, complete the review before 1 May 2015.

(4)The independent reviewer must send to the Prime Minister a report on the outcome of the review as soon as reasonably practicable after completing the review.

(5)On receiving a report under subsection (4), the Prime Minister must lay a copy of it before Parliament together with a statement as to whether any matter has been excluded from that copy under subsection (6).

(6)If it appears to the Prime Minister that the publication of any matter in a report under subsection (4) would be contrary to the public interest or prejudicial to national security, the Prime Minister may exclude the matter from the copy of the report laid before Parliament.

(7)The Secretary of State may pay to the independent reviewer—

(a)expenses incurred in carrying out the functions of the independent reviewer under this section, and

(b)such allowances as the Secretary of State determines.

(8)In this section “the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation” means the person appointed under section 36(1) of the Terrorism Act 2006 (and “independent reviewer” is to be read accordingly).

Final provisions

8Commencement, duration, extent and short title

(1)Subject to subsection (2), this Act comes into force on the day on which it is passed.

(2)Section 1(6) comes into force on such day as the Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument appoint; and different days may be appointed for different purposes.

(3)Sections 1 to 7 (and the provisions inserted into the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 by sections 3 to 6) are repealed on 31 December 2016.

(4)This Act extends to England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

(5)This Act may be cited as the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014.

State Department: Crash of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 in Eastern Ukraine

Source – U.S. State Department:

Crash of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 in Eastern Ukraine

Press Statement
John Kerry
Secretary of State
Washington, DC
July 17, 2014
Share
We are horrified by the crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17. There are no words adequate to express our condolences to the families of the nearly 300 victims. We offer our sympathies and support to the Governments of Malaysia and the Netherlands at this difficult time, as well as to all those whose citizens may have been on board. We are reviewing whether any American citizens were aboard the flight. The United States Government remains prepared to assist with a credible, international investigation any way we can, and we will continue to be in touch with all relevant partners as we seek the facts of what happened today.

H.R. 5119: To authorize the Secretary of the Air Force to modernize C-130 aircraft using alternative communication, navigation, surveillance, and air traffic management program kits and to ensure that such aircraft meet applicable regulations of the Federal Aviation Administration

H.R. 5119: To authorize the Secretary of the Air Force to modernize C-130 aircraft using alternative communication, navigation, surveillance, and air traffic management program kits and to ensure that such aircraft meet applicable regulations of the Federal Aviation Administration was introduced on July 16, 2014 by Rep. John Carney:

H.R.5119 — To authorize the Secretary of the Air Force to modernize C-130 aircraft using alternative communication, navigation, surveillance, and air traffic management program kits and to ensure… (Introduced in House – IH)

HR 5119 IH

113th CONGRESS
2d Session

H. R. 5119
To authorize the Secretary of the Air Force to modernize C-130 aircraft using alternative communication, navigation, surveillance, and air traffic management program kits and to ensure that such aircraft meet applicable regulations of the Federal Aviation Administration.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
July 16, 2014

Mr. CARNEY (for himself and Mrs. LUMMIS) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services

A BILL
To authorize the Secretary of the Air Force to modernize C-130 aircraft using alternative communication, navigation, surveillance, and air traffic management program kits and to ensure that such aircraft meet applicable regulations of the Federal Aviation Administration.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. C-130 FLEET MODERNIZATION.

(a) In General- For purposes of modernizing the C-130 fleet, the Secretary of the Air Force may install alternative communication, navigation, surveillance, and air traffic management program kits in lieu of C-130 avionics modernization program kits if the Secretary determines, on a case-by-case basis, that such alternative program is appropriate and notifies the congressional defense committees (as defined in section 101(a)(16) of title 10, United States Code) of such determination.
(b) Compatibility With FAA Regulations- The Secretary shall ensure that all C-130 aircraft are capable of meeting applicable regulations of the Federal Aviation Administration by January 1, 2020.

S. 2614: A bill to amend certain provisions of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012

S. 2614: A bill to amend certain provisions of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 was introduced on July 16, 2014 by Sen. James “Jim” Inhofe:

S.2614 — To amend certain provisions of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012. (Introduced in Senate – IS)

S 2614 IS

113th CONGRESS
2d Session

S. 2614
To amend certain provisions of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
July 16, 2014

Mr. INHOFE (for himself and Mr. BROWN) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

A BILL
To amend certain provisions of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. ROLLOVER OF AMOUNTS RECEIVED IN AIRLINE CARRIER BANKRUPTCY.

(a) Extension of Time To File Claim for Refund- Section 1106(a)(3) of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (26 U.S.C. 408 note) is amended by striking `2013′ and inserting `2015′.
(b) Definitions and Special Rules- Section 1106(c) of such Act is amended–
(1) in paragraph (1)(A)(i), by inserting `or filed on November 29, 2011,’ after `2007,’; and
(2) in paragraph (2)(B)–
(A) by striking `terminated or’ and inserting `terminated,’; and
(B) by inserting `, or was frozen effective November 1, 2012′ after `Pension Protection Act of 2006′.

Library: A Round-up of Reading

Space Law
An Asteroid Impact Will Someday Be Mistaken for an Act of War – Motherboard

NEOSSat Not Up to the Job; Government Report Blames Contractor – Commercial Space Blog

Space junk damages ISS US segment – Space Travel

The New Asia Space Dream – Space News

Editorial | Another Continuing Resolution Looms for NASA – Space News

ULA Asks Court To Dismiss SpaceX’s Block-buy Protest – Space News

Launius: Public-Private Partnerships Neither Panacea Nor Pandora's Box – Space Policy Online

NASA OIG: SOFIA: NASA's Stratospheric Observatory for Infrared Astronomy – SpaceRef

Options for Assuring Domestic Space Access – USSCCST

Space Florida: Cape Risks Irrelevance – Space News

ULA joins call for dismissal of SpaceX suit – Space Politics

Ruling on sharper satellite images poses a privacy problem we can no longer ignore – Directions Magazine

Would a Liberal Government Reform the Canadian Space Program? – SpaceRef Canada

FAA environmental decision clears the way for SpaceX Texas spaceport – NewSpace Journal

Indian Space Budget Slated To Rise by 6.5 Percent – Space News

SpaceX Just Got Permission to Build a Spaceport in Texas – Motherboard

FAA Ruling Clears Path for SpaceX Launch site in Texas – Space News

Preparing for the 65th International Astronautical Congress; September 29th – October 3rd in Toronto, ON – Commercial Space Blog

Hidden Benefits of NRO “Spy” Technology Revealed in Hill Briefing – Space Policy Online

SpaceX moves a step closer to Air Force certification – NewSpace Journal

SpaceX One Step Closer to AF EELV Contracts & Gets FAA OK for Texas Launch Site – Space Policy Online

SpaceX Receives FAA Approval for Proposed Spaceport in Texas – Space.com

If Neil Armstrong stubbed his toe on a moon rock, who's liable? – Texas Lawyer

SpaceX Texas Spaceport One Step Closer – NASA Watch

Two Perspectives on U.S.-China Space Cooperation – Space News

EU Courts Support for Space Code of Conduct – Space News

Inspector General: NASA Needs New Plan if Congress Saves Airborne Observatory – Space News

Office of Commercial Space Transportation Notice of Approval on a Record of Decision for SpaceX Texas Launch Site, Cameron County, TX – SpaceRef

U.S. Air Force Seeks Bids for NRO Launch – Space News

On the legality of commercial asteroid mining and the purposefulness of related domestic legislation – Flight Laws

Posey, Kilmer Introduce ASTEROIDS Act To Grant Property Rights to Asteroid Resources – UPDATE – Space Policy Online

SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 Flights Deemed Successful = SpaceRef

DOD official defends EELV block buy, endorses launch competition – Space Politics

U.K. Government Green Lights Next Phase in Spaceport Development – NASA Watch

U.S. LAUNCH ENTERPRISE: Acquisition Best Practices Can Benefit Future Efforts. GAO-14-776T

House members press NASA for information on “epidemic of anomalies” with SpaceX missions – Space Politics

House Members Press NASA for Information on “Epidemic of Anomalies” with SpaceX Missions – Space News

UAE sets up agency to send first Arab mission to Mars by 2021 – Emirates 24/7

NASA, members of Congress make case for Europa mission – Space Politics

News from the Farnborough International Airshow | U.S. Government Officials Tout Benefit of Space Technology Export Reforms – Space News

US Too Dependent on Russian Rocket Engines, Experts Tell Lawmakers – Space.com

Senators Wants Quick RD-180 Replacement, SpaceX Certification – Space Policy Online

Aviation Law
TSA Travel Tips: Enhanced Security Measures for Electronic Devices at Certain Airports Overseas – TSA Blog

UAV Pilot Gets Warning From FAA For 'High-Altitude' Flight – ANN

FAA Proposes $295,750 Civil Penalty Against Skywest Airlines – ANN

Will they eventually ask us to fly naked? – Homeland Security Watch

NTSB denies reconsideration of flight TWA 800 investigation – Flight Laws

FAA Proposes to Increase its Authority Over Off-Airport Development – Aviation and Airport Development Law Blog

NOAA AIRCRAFT: Aging Fleet and Future Challenges Underscore the Need for a Capital Asset Plan. GAO-14-566

New Court Orders Signal More Drone Documents Are on the Way – Just Security

Federal, State Authorities Suspend Alaskan Helicopter Flights

The Air Navigation (Restriction of Flying) (Watnall) (Revocation) Regulations 2014

Amazon marches forward on drones, asks FAA for permission to test Prime Air – Salon

New York City Wants to Ban Drones That 'Endanger the Lives' of Its Citizens – Motherboard

FAA Continues Wildlife Strike Reporting Outreach for GA Airports – FAA

UK Parliament Transport Committee Publishes Offshore Helo Safety Report – ANN

NTSB Gives Partial Blame To FAA In 2011 Accident – ANN

Single European Sky or Single European Snail? EU Commission sends letters of formal notice to 18 States to accelerate implementation of common airspace management – Flight Laws

US, others complain to ICAO over North Korean missile launches – North Korea Tech

Geospatial Law
A Network of Recycled Phones Is Listening for Illegal Logging in the Rainforest – Motherboard

The differences between Google Earth and Google Maps – Google Earth Blog

Using Google Earth for crime analysis – Google Earth Blog

Cyberlaw
The Ex-Google Hacker Taking on the World’s Spy Agencies – Threat Level

Edward Snowden: Civil Liberties Violator – Lawfare

Republishing Litigation Brief Is Fair Use–White v. Westlaw – Technology & Marketing Law Blog

TPP Negotiations Go Further Underground with Unprecedented Secrecy Around Meetings in Canada – EFF

CANADIAN COURT FORCES GOOGLE TO DELIST WEBSITES WORLDWIDE – CIS

ARE CRITICS OF MULTISTAKEHOLDER GOVERNANCE COMMITTING A NIRVANA MISTAKE? – IGP

ARGENTINE SUPREME COURT TO DECIDE WHETHER INTERMEDIARIES MUST MONITOR/TAKE DOWN SEARCH RESULTS – CIS

WHOSE LAWS CONTROL YOUR DATA? THE IMPLICATIONS OF THE MICROSOFT SEARCH WARRANT CHALLENGE – CIS

Net Neutrality and Transparency Principles Must Extend to Mobile Internet Access Too – EFF

NSA REVELATIONS AT-A-GLANCE – CIS

RILEY, AEREO, AND THE "ARTHUR C. CLARKE RULE" – CIS

Steptoe Cyberlaw Podcast, Episode #27: An Interview with David Heyman – Lawfare

Latest Snowden Leaks: FBI Targeted Muslim-American Lawyers – Threat Level

Rights That Are Being Forgotten: Google, the ECJ, and Free Expression – EFF

Programme for Media & Communications Law at SLS 2014 – Lex Ferenda

Glenn Greenwald on Why the Latest Snowden Leak Matters – Threat Level

Snowden and Civil Liberties: A Brief Follow-Up – Lawfare

Joint Statement by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the Department of Justice on Court-ordered Legal Surveillance of U.S. Persons – IC on the Record

On Glenn Greenwald’s Latest – Lawfare

CISPA's Privacy-Killing Successor Just Cleared Its First Hurdle – Motherboard

New Greenwald bombshell: NSA spied on 5 politically active Muslim-Americans – Salon

The UK Is Rushing Emergency Surveillance Laws to Keep Its Grip on Citizens' Data – Motherboard

Cyber Attacks – MIT Technology Review

First Amendment Precludes Disorderly Conduct Conviction for Ranting on Police Department Facebook Page – Technology and Marketing Law Blog

The Vocabulary of Cyber War – Public Intelligence

The People Suing Tor Don't Actually Know What Tor Is – Motherboard

“Loopholes for Circumventing the Constitution”, the NSA Statement, and Our Response – Freedom to Tinker

NSA Retaining “Useless” and Highly Personal Information of Ordinary Internet Users, Spying on Prominent American Muslims, CBP’s Internal Affairs Division Under Investigation Yet Again, and Much More: FRINFORMSUM 7/10/2014 – Unredacted

Ninth Circuit Doubles Down in Garcia v. Google – EFF

Document shows that it was not NSA, but FBI that monitored 5 Americans – Top Level COmmunications

British Government’s “Fast-Track” Surveillance Legislation Proposals – Just Security

New Commerce Report Explores the Value of Government Data – Directions Magazine

Barton Gellman on the Washington Post’s NSA Story – Lawfare

Open letter from UK legal academics on surveillance – Lex Ferenda

Legal Attacks Against Tor – Schneier on Security

Thune Bipartisan Bill to Permanently Block Taxes on Internet Access Overwhelmingly Passes House – USSCCST

Net Neutrality Regulation is Bad for Consumers and Probably Illegal – Tech Freedom

Steptoe Cyberlaw Podcast, Episode #28: An Interview with David Medine – Lawfare

INCOMING! Commission's Net Neutrality Comment Conundrum – CommLawBlog

Taking Bitcoin for Payment in California is Now Legal – IEEE Spectrum

Why All the Snowden Docs Should Be Public: An Interview with Cryptome – Motherboard

H.R. 5036: Satellite Television Access Reauthorization Act of 2014

H.R. 5036: Satellite Television Access Reauthorization Act of 2014 was introduced on July 10, 2014 by Rep. Howard Coble:

H.R.5036 — Satellite Television Access Reauthorization Act of 2014 (Introduced in House – IH)

HR 5036 IH

113th CONGRESS
2d Session

H. R. 5036
To amend title 17, United States Code, to extend expiring provisions of the Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act of 2010.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
July 9, 2014

Mr. COBLE (for himself and Mr. GOODLATTE) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL
To amend title 17, United States Code, to extend expiring provisions of the Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act of 2010.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Satellite Television Access Reauthorization Act of 2014′.
SEC. 2. REAUTHORIZATION.

Chapter 1 of title 17, United States Code, is amended–
(1) in section 111(d)(3)–
(A) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by striking `clause’ and inserting `paragraph’; and
(B) in subparagraph (B), by striking `clause’ and inserting `paragraph’; and
(2) in section 119–
(A) in subsection (c)(1)(E), by striking `2014′ and inserting `2019′; and
(B) in subsection (e), by striking `2014′ and inserting `2019′.
SEC. 3. TERMINATION OF LICENSE.

(a) In General- Section 119 of title 17, United States Code, as amended in section 2, is amended by adding at the end the following:
`(h) Termination of License- This section shall cease to be effective on December 31, 2019.’.
(b) Conforming Amendment- Section 107(a) of the Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act of 2010 (17 U.S.C. 119 note) is repealed.

S. 1681: Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (signed into law)

Source – The White House:

The White House
Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release July 07, 2014
Statement by the Press Secretary on S. 1681

On Monday, July 7, 2014, the President signed into law:

S. 1681, the “Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014,” which authorizes fiscal year 2014 appropriations for U.S. intelligence-related activities and establishes and provides other authorities concerning U.S. intelligence and counter-terrorism activities.