Government “Big Data”; Request for Information, 12251-12252 [2014-04660]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 42 / Tuesday, March 4, 2014 / Notices consider the Request pertaining to the proposed Priority Mail Contract 77 product and the related contract, respectively. Interested persons may submit comments on whether the Postal Service’s filings in the captioned dockets are consistent with the policies of 39 U.S.C. 3632, 3633, or 3642, 39 CFR 3015.5, and 39 CFR Part 3020, subpart B. Comments are due no later than March 6, 2014. The public portions of these filings can be accessed via the Commission’s Web site (https:// www.prc.gov). The Commission appoints Lyudmila Y. Bzhilyanskaya to serve as Public Representative in these dockets. III. Ordering Paragraphs It is ordered: 1. The Commission establishes Docket Nos. MC2014–18 and CP2014–31 to consider the matters raised in each docket. 2. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, Lyudmila Y. Bzhilyanskaya is appointed to serve as an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in these proceedings (Public Representative). 3. Comments by interested persons in these proceedings are due no later than March 6, 2014. 4. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this order in the Federal Register. By the Commission. Shoshana M. Grove, Secretary. [FR Doc. 2014–04645 Filed 3–3–14; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7710–FW–P POSTAL SERVICE Product Change—Priority Mail Negotiated Service Agreement Postal ServiceTM. Notice. AGENCY: ACTION: The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule’s Competitive Products List. DATES: Effective date: March 4, 2014. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elizabeth A. Reed, 202–268–3179. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on February 25, 2014, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a Request of the United tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES SUMMARY: VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:07 Mar 03, 2014 Jkt 232001 States Postal Service to Add Priority Mail Contract 77 to Competitive Product List. Documents are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2014–18, CP2014–31. Stanley F. Mires, Attorney, Legal Policy & Legislative Advice. [FR Doc. 2014–04669 Filed 3–3–14; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7710–12–P Government ‘‘Big Data’’; Request for Information Notice of Request for Information. ACTION: On January 17, 2014, President Obama called for senior government officials to lead a comprehensive review of the ways in which ‘‘big data’’ will affect how Americans live and work, and the implications of collecting, analyzing and using such data for privacy, the economy, and public policy. The President requested that the review examine challenges confronted by both the public and private sectors; whether the United States can forge international norms on how to manage this data; and how we can continue to promote the free flow of information in ways that are consistent with both privacy and security. Once complete, the review will result in a report that anticipates future technological trends and frames the key questions that the collection, analysis, and use of ‘‘big data’’ raise for our government and nation. This notice solicits public input to inform this effort. DATES: Responses must be received by March 31, 2014 to be considered. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods: • Email: bigdata@ostp.gov. Include [Big Data RFI] in the subject line of the message. • Fax: (202) 456–6040, Attn: Big Data Study • Mail: Attn: Big Data Study, Office of Science and Technology Policy, Eisenhower Executive Office Building, 1650 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20502. Instructions: Response to this RFI is voluntary. Responses exceeding 7,500 words or 15 pages will not be considered. Respondents need not reply to all questions; however, they should clearly indicate the number of each question to which they are responding. Responses to this RFI may be posted without change online. OSTP therefore PO 00000 Frm 00109 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 requests that no business proprietary information, copyrighted information, or personally identifiable information be submitted in response to this RFI. Please note that the U.S. Government will not pay for response preparation, or for the use of any information contained in the response. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nicole Wong, 202–456–4444, bigdata@ ostp.gov. We are undergoing a revolution in the way that information about our purchases, our conversations, our social networks, our movements, and even our physical identities are collected, stored, analyzed, and used. The immense volume, diversity, and potential value of data will have profound implications for privacy, the economy, and public policy. Recognizing both the trajectory of these technologies and the broadening uses of such data, the President on January 17, 2014, charged counselor John Podesta with leading a comprehensive review of issues at the intersection of ‘‘big data’’ and privacy. As part of those efforts, the Administration, in coordination with the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, is engaging with privacy experts, technologists, business and government leaders and the academic community, to consider the implications of ‘‘big data,’’ and focus on how the present and future state of these technologies might motivate changes in our policies across a range of sectors. This review will explore the way that ‘‘big data’’ will affect the way we live and work; the relationship between government and citizens; and how public and private sectors can spur innovation and maximize the opportunities and free flow of this information while minimizing the risks to privacy (https://www.whitehouse.gov/ blog/2014/01/23/big-data-and-futureprivacy). For purposes of this Request For Information, the phrase ‘‘big data’’ refers to datasets so large, diverse, and/or complex, that conventional technologies cannot adequately capture, store, or analyze them. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY SUMMARY: 12251 Questions to the Public Without limiting the foregoing, commenters should consider the following: (1) What are the public policy implications of the collection, storage, analysis, and use of big data? For example, do the current U.S. policy framework and privacy proposals for protecting consumer privacy and E:\FR\FM\04MRN1.SGM 04MRN1 12252 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 42 / Tuesday, March 4, 2014 / Notices government use of data adequately address issues raised by big data analytics? (2) What types of uses of big data could measurably improve outcomes or productivity with further government action, funding, or research? What types of uses of big data raise the most public policy concerns? Are there specific sectors or types of uses that should receive more government and/or public attention? (3) What technological trends or key technologies will affect the collection, storage, analysis and use of big data? Are there particularly promising technologies or new practices for safeguarding privacy while enabling effective uses of big data? (4) How should the policy frameworks or regulations for handling big data differ between the government and the private sector? Please be specific as to the type of entity and type of use (e.g., law enforcement, government services, commercial, academic research, etc.). (5) What issues are raised by the use of big data across jurisdictions, such as the adequacy of current international laws, regulations, or norms? Ted Wackler, Deputy Chief of Staff and Assistant Director. [FR Doc. 2014–04660 Filed 3–3–14; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3270–F2–P institution and settlement of injunctive actions; institution and settlement of administrative proceedings; adjudicatory matters; and other matters relating to enforcement proceedings. At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in the scheduling of meeting items. For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed, please contact the Office of the Secretary at (202) 551–5400. Dated: February 28, 2014. Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary. [FR Doc. 2014–04831 Filed 2–28–14; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 8011–01–P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34–71615; File No. SR–CME– 2014–04] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Mercantile Exchange Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Allow the LSOC With Excess Model for CFTC-Regulated Swaps February 26, 2014. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Sunshine Act Meeting Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94–409, that the Securities and Exchange Commission will hold a Closed Meeting on Thursday, March 6, 2014 at 2 p.m. Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the Closed Meeting. Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters also may be present. The General Counsel of the Commission, or her designee, has certified that, in her opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (7), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR 200.402(a)(3), (5), (7), 9(ii) and (10), permit consideration of the scheduled matter at the Closed Meeting. Commissioner Gallagher, as duty officer, voted to consider the items listed for the Closed Meeting in closed session, and determined that no earlier notice thereof was possible. The subject matter of the Closed Meeting will be: VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:07 Mar 03, 2014 Jkt 232001 Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (‘‘Act’’ or ‘‘Exchange Act’’),1 and Rule 19b–4 thereunder,2 notice is hereby given that on February 12, 2014, Chicago Mercantile Exchange Inc. (‘‘CME’’ or the ‘‘Exchange’’) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (‘‘Commission’’) the proposed rule change described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared primarily by CME. CME filed the proposal pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act,3 and Rule 4(f)(4)(ii).4 thereunder so that the proposal was effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons. I. Self-Regulatory Organization’s Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change CME is filing a proposed rule change that is limited to its business as a derivatives clearing organization. More 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). CFR 240.19b–4. 3 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). 4 17 CFR 240.19b–44(f)(4)(ii). 2 17 PO 00000 Frm 00110 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 specifically, the proposed rule change would make amendments to its rules that would offer FCMs and their cleared swaps customers the option to transmit collateral specifically attributed to a cleared swap customer under an ‘‘LSOC with excess’’ model. II. Self-Regulatory Organization’s Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, CME included statements concerning the purpose and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. CME has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements. A. Self-Regulatory Organization’s Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change CME is registered as a derivatives clearing organization with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and currently offers clearing services for many different futures and swaps products. With this filing, CME proposes to add new rules to permit futures commission merchants (‘‘FCMs’’) to transmit collateral of cleared swaps customers to CME that is in excess of the CME requirement for such customers. The changes by their terms relate only to swaps and do not affect security-based swaps and therefore will be effective on filing. On November 14, 2012, CME implemented the Legally Segregated Operationally Commingled (‘‘LSOC’’) regime for the protection of Cleared Swap Customers in accordance with Part 22 of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission’s (‘‘CFTC’’) Regulations. At that time, LSOC was implemented in a ‘‘no excess’’ mode, that is, any collateral value deposited by an FCM with a derivatives clearing organization (‘‘DCO’’) in excess of the aggregate client minimum performance bond margin requirement, to the extent it is not been explicitly identified by the FCM as being provided by the firm, would be treated as unallocated cleared swap customer value without attribution to a specific cleared swaps customer. In this ‘‘no excess’’ model, the LSOC value for each cleared swaps customer is presumed to be its performance bond requirement at the last settlement cycle and any collateral on deposit at the DCO in excess of such requirement aggregate of the customer E:\FR\FM\04MRN1.SGM 04MRN1

Agencies

Office of Science and Technology Policy

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 42 (Tuesday, March 4, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12251-12252]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-04660]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY


Government ``Big Data''; Request for Information

ACTION: Notice of Request for Information.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: On January 17, 2014, President Obama called for senior 
government officials to lead a comprehensive review of the ways in 
which ``big data'' will affect how Americans live and work, and the 
implications of collecting, analyzing and using such data for privacy, 
the economy, and public policy. The President requested that the review 
examine challenges confronted by both the public and private sectors; 
whether the United States can forge international norms on how to 
manage this data; and how we can continue to promote the free flow of 
information in ways that are consistent with both privacy and security. 
Once complete, the review will result in a report that anticipates 
future technological trends and frames the key questions that the 
collection, analysis, and use of ``big data'' raise for our government 
and nation. This notice solicits public input to inform this effort.

DATES: Responses must be received by March 31, 2014 to be considered.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
     Email: bigdata@ostp.gov. Include [Big Data RFI] in the 
subject line of the message.
     Fax: (202) 456-6040, Attn: Big Data Study
     Mail: Attn: Big Data Study, Office of Science and 
Technology Policy, Eisenhower Executive Office Building, 1650 
Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20502.
    Instructions: Response to this RFI is voluntary. Responses 
exceeding 7,500 words or 15 pages will not be considered. Respondents 
need not reply to all questions; however, they should clearly indicate 
the number of each question to which they are responding. Responses to 
this RFI may be posted without change online. OSTP therefore requests 
that no business proprietary information, copyrighted information, or 
personally identifiable information be submitted in response to this 
RFI. Please note that the U.S. Government will not pay for response 
preparation, or for the use of any information contained in the 
response.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nicole Wong, 202-456-4444, 
bigdata@ostp.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: We are undergoing a revolution in the way 
that information about our purchases, our conversations, our social 
networks, our movements, and even our physical identities are 
collected, stored, analyzed, and used. The immense volume, diversity, 
and potential value of data will have profound implications for 
privacy, the economy, and public policy.
    Recognizing both the trajectory of these technologies and the 
broadening uses of such data, the President on January 17, 2014, 
charged counselor John Podesta with leading a comprehensive review of 
issues at the intersection of ``big data'' and privacy. As part of 
those efforts, the Administration, in coordination with the President's 
Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, is engaging with privacy 
experts, technologists, business and government leaders and the 
academic community, to consider the implications of ``big data,'' and 
focus on how the present and future state of these technologies might 
motivate changes in our policies across a range of sectors. This review 
will explore the way that ``big data'' will affect the way we live and 
work; the relationship between government and citizens; and how public 
and private sectors can spur innovation and maximize the opportunities 
and free flow of this information while minimizing the risks to privacy 
(https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2014/01/23/big-data-and-future-privacy).
    For purposes of this Request For Information, the phrase ``big 
data'' refers to datasets so large, diverse, and/or complex, that 
conventional technologies cannot adequately capture, store, or analyze 
them.

Questions to the Public

    Without limiting the foregoing, commenters should consider the 
following:
    (1) What are the public policy implications of the collection, 
storage, analysis, and use of big data? For example, do the current 
U.S. policy framework and privacy proposals for protecting consumer 
privacy and

[[Page 12252]]

government use of data adequately address issues raised by big data 
analytics?
    (2) What types of uses of big data could measurably improve 
outcomes or productivity with further government action, funding, or 
research? What types of uses of big data raise the most public policy 
concerns? Are there specific sectors or types of uses that should 
receive more government and/or public attention?
    (3) What technological trends or key technologies will affect the 
collection, storage, analysis and use of big data? Are there 
particularly promising technologies or new practices for safeguarding 
privacy while enabling effective uses of big data?
    (4) How should the policy frameworks or regulations for handling 
big data differ between the government and the private sector? Please 
be specific as to the type of entity and type of use (e.g., law 
enforcement, government services, commercial, academic research, etc.).
    (5) What issues are raised by the use of big data across 
jurisdictions, such as the adequacy of current international laws, 
regulations, or norms?

Ted Wackler,
Deputy Chief of Staff and Assistant Director.
[FR Doc. 2014-04660 Filed 3-3-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3270-F2-P

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.