Tag: 9/11

911 Network Reliability Deadline Approaching

Earlier this month, the FCC announced that its 2022 911 Reliability Certification System is now open for Covered 911 Service Providers to file annual reliability certifications.  The filings are due on October 17, 2022.  Failure to submit the certification may result in FCC enforcement action.

Background

In 2013, the FCC adopted rules aimed at improving the reliability and redundancy of the nation’s 911 network.  Those rules require Covered 911 Service Providers (“C9SP”) to take steps that promote reliable 911 service with respect to three network elements: circuit auditing, central-office backup power, and diverse network monitoring.  The Commission identified these three network elements as vulnerabilities following a derecho storm in 2012 that significantly impacted 911 service along the eastern seaboard.

Applicability. The rules apply to all C9SPs, which are defined as any entity that provides 911, E911, or NG911 capabilities such as call routing, automatic location information (ALI), automatic number identification (ANI), or the functional equivalent of those capabilities, directly to a public safety answering point (PSAP).

Certification. The rules require C9SPs to certify annually that they have met the FCC’s safe harbor provisions for each of these elements or have taken reasonable alternative measures in lieu of those safe harbor protections.  The certification must be made under penalty of perjury by a corporate officer with supervisory and budgetary authority over network operations.

In 2018 and 2020, the FCC sought comment on changes to the 911 reliability certification rules, but the rules have not yet been updated as a result of those proceedings.

Enforcement Against Noncompliant Providers

Last year, the FCC entered into eight consent decrees with Covered 911 Service Providers that failed to submit their reliability certifications in 2019, 2020, or both.  A Consent Decree typically requires the recipient to admit it violated an FCC rule, pay a fine to the federal government, and implement a Compliance Plan to guard against future rule violations.  These Compliance Plans required the C9SPs to designate a compliance officer, establish new operating procedures, and develop and distribute a compliance manual to all employees.

Additionally, the providers were required to establish and implement a compliance training program, file periodic compliance reports with the FCC detailing the steps the provider has taken to comply with the 911 rules, and report any noncompliance with 911 rules within 15 days of discovering such noncompliance.

Looking Forward

C9SPs have about one month to confirm compliance with the reliability rules and submit a required certification.  Based on the FCC’s enforcement efforts last year, C9SPs would be well-advised to work diligently to meet this upcoming deadline.

Article By Wesley K. Wright and Liam Fulling of Keller and Heckman LLP.

For more communications and telecom legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

© 2022 Keller and Heckman LLP

Sarah Palin and North Jersey Media Group Battle Over “Fair Use” of Famous 9/11 Photo

Image

 

The iconic “Raising the Flag at Ground Zero” photo of firemen raising an American flag on September 11, 2001, which appeared on the cover of The Record newspaper and other newspapers on September 12, is at the heart of a lawsuit filed in Federal District Court in New York. The Complaint, filed by the owner of the copyright in the photograph, claims copyright infringement and false designation of origin for the unauthorized reproduction of portions of the photograph on the website for Sarah Palin’sfederally registered political action committee, www.sarahpac.com,  and on her Facebook page,www.facebook.com/sarahpalin.

The suit claims that the photograph is being used by Palin and the other Defendants to raise money for her political action committee. The PAC website solicits and accepts financial contributions from supporters and accepts requests for Sarah Palin to make paid appearances at events, including media and campaign events, and Palin’s Facebook page provides links to this website. The owner of the copyright in the photograph also alleges that the use of the photo falsely designates the origin of the photograph and that its appearance on the PAC website and Palin’s Facebook page is likely to cause confusion mistake or deception as to the source or ownership of the photograph, falsely representing that Palin or the PAC owns the copyright when they do not.

Defendants have responded to the Complaint by moving to dismiss it on grounds of improper venue, failure to state a viable claim for false designation of origin, and fair use of the copyrighted photograph.  Defendants’ content that their alleged “commercial use” is no different from the conduct of Google in its Google Books Project, which was recently held by the same court in which suit was filed to favor a finding of fair use despite Google’s general commercial focus. They argue further that since the photograph in question is “an iconic depiction of a compelling and unforgettable historic moment” that there is a public interest and demand for such newsworthy photographs, making its reproduction a fair use. As to the remaining fair use factors, it is argued that the cropped and altered version of the original photograph was used only “to provide a visual context for the accompanying text” conveying the message that the day should not be forgotten, and that the use has had no effect on the market for or value of the photograph itself.

Palin is not the first politician to be sued for copyright infringement in connection with political activities. As we have reported to you in the past, politicians in recent and not so recent campaigns have also been brought to task for the unauthorized use of copyrighted works.

It remains to be seen how this issue will be decided, and we will report back to you with all further developments.

 

Article by:

Susan Neuberger Weller

Of:

Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.

How September 11 Changed Insurance

Recently posted in the National Law Review an article by Jared Wade of Risk and Insurance Management Society, Inc. (RIMS) regarding the impact on the entire insurance industry  after  September 11:

We are now more than 10 years removed from the worst terrorist attack in history. In the days and months following September 11, terrorism insurance weighed so heavily on the mind of both policyholders and insurers that the federal government was forced to add backstop capacity to the market.

But Jeff Beauman, vice president of all-risk underwriting for FM Global, explains that 9/11 affected much more than just one line of coverage. It arguably had a bigger impact on the entire insurance industry than even the vast losses suggest. Contract certainty was something that few talked about — and even fewer expected — prior to the attack.

Most insurance buyers will still tell you that they want their policies quicker, but improvement has been made. Furthermore, the number of lines involved in the claims made every insurer rethink its risk appetite. The industry, like the world, will never be the same.

RM: How did September 11 change insurance?

Jeff Beauman: Probably the biggest change I’ve seen has been a much higher interest in contract certainty. If you remember, in the months following 9/11, the concern that so many clients had, particularly those affected by the event, was that the policies they had purchased had not yet been issued. The industry as a whole had not been very good at getting policies issued quickly. Since that time, the industry has been working very hard to do so.

RM: Are clients still very concerned about contract certainty? How far along has the industry come?

Beauman: It’s always going to vary from one carrier to the next, but I do think that customers are much more appreciative of companies that are able to get policies issued on time-and [those] issuing policies where the language is very well understood by both parties. In terms of FM Global, we’re now issuing about two-thirds of our master policies before the effective date and 90% within 30 days.

What that means is that our clients have the written documentation very quickly after they decide to purchase coverage with us. Generally, I think, whether you talk to policyholders or underwriters, you will find that this emphasis on contract certainty has probably been a good thing for us as an industry.

RM: How so?

Beauman: It caused us to raise our game. Beforehand, you had a process by which policies would be issued “at some point,” and people came to accept it as normal because every [insurer] was equally bad. There was no good way for a client to compare one carrier to the next.

Now, you do have an expectation on the part of clients because, after big disasters, they have seen the importance of having that policy language issued. It’s something they now ask for. It gives the client a greater sense of confidence that they know what they have as part of their overall risk management strategy.

And the terrorism event of 9/11 helped to highlight the weakness the industry had in this area because there were so many claims being made without adequate policy documentation. There were disputes that received a lot of notoriety in the courts. So September 11 helped the industry improve.

RM: Was this because dealing with terrorism claims was so new and the specific policy language was so unfamiliar to everyone? Hurricane Andrew had many claims of its own, but did the particulars of the contract language matter less in that instance because hurricane claims had been dealt with before?

Beauman: Yes, that’s right. Part of what allowed the industry to not focus on contract certainty [in the past] was that they had some personal, first-hand experience to fall back on. Terrorism was so new to everybody and the event itself was so unusual, that it did cause a wake up. When you don’t have that personal experience to fall back on, you have to rely on policy language.

RM: There must have been a lot of people after 9/11 who believed that they had coverage for terrorism but weren’t sure what it consisted of.

Beauman: Exactly. In terms of the World Trade Center, limits were purchased under the presumption that the two buildings would never be damaged in the same event. And further complicating things was that it was what is considered a “clash event” because there were a lot of lines all involved in the same event, something no one had anticipated.

You had hull coverage for aviation because you had three airplanes involved. You had a lot of automobile policies that were affected. You had life insurance, obviously. You had property insurance. You had fine arts coverage. You had a lot of types of cargo insurance. You just had a lot of smaller lines that are not typically involved in the same occurrence. That forced insurers to re-evaluate their risk appetite and how they go about establishing their maximum lines.

RM: Has there ever been a “clash event” as broad as 9/11?

Beauman: No — and I would hope that none of us ever see an event like it again. It was the worst type of clash event because it was something that had never been imagined beforehand by anyone aside from the people who perpetrated it.

Take a typical event like Hurricane Irene that just happened. Underwriters understand that there is going to be wind damage. They understand there is going to be flood damage. They understand that there is going to be some damage to automobiles and buildings. They understand that there may be some people who lose their lives. Because they can visualize it, they can establish what their risk exposure might be, and they can operate their business comfortably depending on their risk appetite. 9/11 caused all underwriters to reconsider their risk appetite to make sure they weren’t over-extended.

———-

Jared Wade is senior editor of Risk Management.

Risk Management Magazine and Risk Management Monitor. Copyright 2011 Risk and Insurance Management Society, Inc. All rights reserved.

Ten Years Later : The legacy of September 11

Recently posted in the National Law Review an article by Morgan O’Rourke of Risk and Insurance Management Society, Inc. (RIMS) regarding  moments, none resonates so clearly in my mind as the attacks of September 11, 2001.

Of all the “where were you when?” moments, none resonates so clearly in my mind as the attacks of September 11, 2001. I’m not a sentimental person by any means but even a decade later, I find myself getting choked up when watching or reading reports of that day.

Everyone has a story. I was working in Midtown Manhattan. From my 20th floor office window, I had a view of the towers and watched as they buckled and fell before my eyes. No one in the office said anything. There were no words.

As I made my way to the train that would take me home to Long Island, the city was in shock. The expressions of sorrow, horror, confusion and fear that I saw likely mirrored my own. As I walked, I stared in a daze at the black smoke in the distance until I realized that I had been walking in the middle of the street for blocks with no regard for traffic. But no car horns ever sounded. At the train station, the mood was the same. Even though trains were delayed, no riders complained. Who would dare when you were sharing the platform with downtown workers covered in the dust of collapsed buildings that once dominated the New York skyline?

When I finally made it home, everyone wanted to hear about what I saw, but I didn’t want to talk about it. How do you describe what it’s like to watch a skyscraper full of people fall to the ground?

Thankfully, no one I knew died. I was lucky. Loss was everywhere, however, and when I finally returned to the city after a few days, sagging shoulders and hollow, glassy-eyed stares were all too common. I had to stop reading the newspapers because the reports became too excruciating. It was all I could do to keep from crying.

It’s a cliche to say that the world irrevocably changed on September 11, but it did. In a sense, the world shrank. Terrorism was no longer something that only happened overseas. The fears of the world were our fears now. And with that came the increased need for more and better security. To a certain extent, Americans had always taken their safety for granted, but now this kind of thinking was obsolete. The attacks showed us that all risks were possible and our mitigation plans were going to have to change to reflect this reality. Ten years later, this mindset lives on every time we go to the airport or participate in a disaster preparedness drill. It is a testament to our resiliency that we now find most of these things to be annoying. Evidently, not even terrorists could stop us from complaining.

If there can be anything positive to take away from this tragedy, perhaps it is that September 11 has made us more vigilant to all the risks that are around us and, as a result, organizations and individuals alike have taken great steps to reduce these threats. We still have blindspots, as evidenced by Hurricane Katrina, for instance. But overall, the argument could be made that in some ways we may be safer than we were 10 years ago.

Of course, this doesn’t mean the painful memories of September 11 have vanished, particularly for the families and friends of the nearly 3,000 people who died that day.

But there has been progress. At the World Trade Center site, the National September 11 Memorial and Museum will open this month on the anniversary of the attacks, while the new One World Trade Center steadily climbs to its eventual 1,776-foot height after years of political infighting and financial controversy. Hopefully, these signs of rebirth, coupled with the memory of those we lost, can inspire us to move beyond tragedy and create a new legacy for September 11 — a legacy of a better, safer world.

Risk Management Magazine and Risk Management Monitor. Copyright 2011 Risk and Insurance Management Society, Inc. All rights reserved.