At the Computers Freedom and Privacy conference, I moderated a panel on “Do Not Track.” I tried to make sure it was fun, and I think it was. Among other things, yes, I called Ed Felten, “baby.” Check it out.
Keeping politicians' hands off the Net & everything else related to technology
If you’ve been following Reason.com or Reason.tv for the past 48 hours you will know that Jim Epstein, a Reason TV reporter, was one of two journalists arrested Wednesday for videotaping a meeting of the Washington D.C. Taxi Commission.
Epstein and Pete Tucker, who blogs for TheFightBack.org, a site that spotlights local D.C. issues that affect minorities and low-income residents, were reporting from what was expected to be contentious meeting as the Taxi Commission was set to address a plan to introduce a medallion system for the District. The proposal had generated considerable opposition from the city’s large base of cab drivers, many of whom attended the meeting to voice their opposition. They essentially believe a medallion system will concentrate cab ownership among a handful of large fleet operators and likely result in the loss of their livelihood.
The arrests were regrettable all around. Epstein’s video, which shows Tucker, dressed neatly in a white shirt and tie, being handcuffed and led away, captures a deeply uncomfortable “it-can’t-happen-here” moment. Epstein was arrested next. Epstein’s video and statement can be found here.
Aside from the fact Epstein and Tucker were released a few hours later, the best thing that can be said is that the arrests were ordered by someone who can charitably be described as a low-level local government functionary, namely Dena Reed, interim chairman of the Taxi Commission. But that doesn’t excuse it. Reed emerges from this affair looking like a third-grade hall monitor who’s allowed that modicum of authority to go to her head.
[By Geoffrey Manne & Joshua Wright. Cross-posted at Truth on the Market]
No surprise here. The WSJ announced it was coming yesterday, and today Google publicly acknowledged that it has received subpoenas related to the Commission’s investigation. Amit Singhal of Google acknowledged the FTC subpoenas at the Google Public Policy Blog:
At Google, we’ve always focused on putting the user first. We aim to provide relevant answers as quickly as possible—and our product innovation and engineering talent have delivered results that users seem to like, in a world where the competition is only one click away. Still, we recognize that our success has led to greater scrutiny. Yesterday, we received formal notification from the U.S. Federal Trade Commission that it has begun a review of our business. We respect the FTC’s process and will be working with them (as we have with other agencies) over the coming months to answer questions about Google and our services. It’s still unclear exactly what the FTC’s concerns are, but we’re clear about where we stand. Since the beginning, we have been guided by the idea that, if we focus on the user, all else will follow. No matter what you’re looking for—buying a movie ticket, finding the best burger nearby, or watching a royal wedding—we want to get you the information you want as quickly as possible. Sometimes the best result is a link to another website. Other times it’s a news article, sports score, stock quote, a video or a map.
It is too early to know the precise details of the FTC’s interest. However, We’ve been discussing various aspects of the investigation here and at TOTM for the last year. Indeed, we’ve written two articles focused upon framing and evaluating a potential antitrust case against Google as well as the misguided attempts to use the antitrust laws to impose “search neutrality.” We’ve also written a number of blog posts on Google and antitrust (see here for an archive).
For now, until more details become available, it strikes us that the following points should be emphasized: Continue reading →
Deets after the jump. Continue reading →
The Supreme Court yesterday handed down a 6-3 decision in Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc. striking down a Vermont law restricting marketing to doctors based on their past history of writing drug prescriptions. The law required that doctors opt in before drug companies could use data about their prescription patterns to market (generally name-brand) drugs to them.
I’ve been closely following this case, having filed TechFreedom amicus curiae brief with the Supreme Court earlier this year, written by First Amendment expert litigator Richard Ovelmen, and previously joined with other free speech groups in an amicus brief before the Second Circuit. Our media statement on the Supreme Court brief provides a pretty concise summary of our views and what’s at stake in this case, and Jane Yakowitz’s initial blog reactions are especially worth reading.
The lopsided decision should surprise no one: Vermont’s law was a brazen effort to suppress speech disfavored by the state based on the paternalist assumption that name-brand drug marketing is “too effective.” In essence, the Court has reaffirmed the core meaning of the First Amendment: government must trust the marketplace of ideas unless fraud or deception occurs. Anyone who takes the First Amendment seriously should be roused to applaud when Justice Kennedy writes, for the majority, that “fear that speech might persuade provides no lawful basis for quieting it.” Clearly, this principle is as true for commercial advertising as for any form of speech. I’m particularly glad to see that Justice Sotomayor joined in this decision.
This is just the latest in a line of cases upgrading protection for commercial speech stretching back over 30 years since Central Hudson and including Lorillard (2001) and 44 Liquormart (1996). But the opinion will also surely be remembered as the beginning another line of cases that attempt to guide lawmakers trying to protect legitimate privacy interests without suppressing speech. The First Circuit, upholding a similar law, had previously deemed prescriber-identifying information “as a mere ‘commodity’ with no greater entitlement to First Amendment protection than “beef jerky.’” But the Supreme Court rejected this, unequivocally declaring that “information is speech,” including both its creation and dissemination, even while recognizing the privacy problems raised by the “capacity of technology to find and publish personal information.” Continue reading →