Over at TIME.com I write that we should keep a close eye on moves by Russia, China and other countries to move Internet governance to the UN:

All this year, and culminating in December at the World Conference on International Telecommunications in Dubai, the nations of the world will be negotiating a treaty to govern international telecommunications services between countries. It is widely believed that some countries, including Russia and China, will take the opportunity to push for U.N. control of Internet governance. Such a turn of events would certainly be troubling. …

It’s amazing to think about it, but no state governs the Internet today. Decisions about its architecture are made by consensus among engineers and other volunteers. And that, in fact, is what has kept it open and free.

“Upending the fundamentals of the multi-stakeholder model is likely to Balkanize the Internet at best, and suffocate it at worst,” FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell said recently in a speech. “A top-down, centralized, international regulatory overlay is antithetical to the architecture of the Net, which is a global network of networks without borders. No government, let alone an intergovernmental body, can make decisions in lightning-fast Internet time.”

Read the whole thing at TIME.com.

Folks, I wanted to bring your attention to this conference on Feb. 24 from the Information Economy Project at George Mason University. The pitch:

The assembly line of our knowledge-based economy begins with technology discovery and ends with the moving target of a consumer market. Connectivity is funded and rewarded through exchanges of time, money, and digital goods. The conversation in this conference will identify key priorities in technology policy for innovation, network investment, and content delivery models. Articles will be published in a special issue of the Journal of Law, Economics & Policy.

See the website for speakers, schedule, and RSVP info.

On the podcast this week, Catherine Tucker, Douglas Drane Career Development Professor in IT and Management, and Assistant Professor of Marketing at MIT’s Sloan School of Management, discusses her paper with Avi Goldfarb in the Journal of Competition Law and Economics entitled, Substitution Between Offline and Online Advertising Markets. According to Tucker, the FTC treats online advertising as a distinct market from offline advertising for antitrust purposes. She describes the study she and Goldfarb conducted, where they sought to determine whether online advertising could serve as a substitute for offline advertising. Tucker also discusses Google’s role in online advertising, how its auction mechanism affects pricing, and the difference between search advertising and display advertising. The conversation ends with a discussion on policy implications on how dominant players in online advertising should be viewed.

Related Links

• Substitution between Offline and Online Advertising Markets, by Tucker & Goldfarb
• “Google faces antitrust glare on Capitol Hill”, Washington Post
• “Google Now Owns 44% of Global Advertising Market”, Search Engine Watch

To keep the conversation around this episode in one place, we’d like to ask you to comment at the webpage for this episode on Surprisingly Free. Also, why not subscribe to the podcast on iTunes?

Over at TIME.com I take a look at the different approaches to cybersecurity now being considered by Congress:

But what can congress do to improve cybersecurity? One line of thinking reportedly embodied by the Senate legislation, though details of that bill are not yet available, would tell network owners how to protect their systems. The Department of Homeland Security would be charged with creating security rules and punishing companies that did not comply. Such a prescriptive approach may not be very helpful, however. …

The bipartisan approach moving forward in the House, on the other hand, takes a different approach. At the center of the PRECISE Act is the creation of a non-profit National Information Sharing Organization (NISO) that would serve as a clearinghouse for the voluntary exchange of cybersecurity threat information between government and industry. Under the NISO umbrella, as long as they only share information for cybersecurity purposes, industry and government would be exempt from privacy laws that today restrict collaboration.

Read the whole thing at TIME.com.

Over at TIME.com I write that if you didn’t like SOPA because it threatened free speech, then you probably won’t like the new “Right to be Forgotten” proposed in the EU. Prof. Jane Yakowitz contributes some great insights to the piece. What I dislike most about the rule is that it subordinates expression to privacy:

[T]he new law would flip the traditional understanding of privacy as an exception to free speech. What this means is that if we treat free expression as the more important value, then one has to prove a harmful violation of privacy before the speaker can be silenced. Under the proposed law, however, it’s the speaker who must show that his speech is a “legitimate” exception to a claim of privacy. That is, the burden of proof is switched so that speakers are the ones who would have to justify their speech.

Read the whole thing at TIME.com.

On the podcast this week, Reuben Grinberg, a recent Yale Law School graduate now in private practice in New York City, discusses his paper, published in the Hastings Science & Technology Law Journal entitled, Bitcoin: An Innovative Alternative Digital Currency. Grinberg first gives a brief overview of Bitcoin, the decentralized, digital currency. According to Grinberg, Bitcoin can maintain sustainability, even though it is not backed by an institution or commodity, but it must overcome several hurdles. Grinberg then discusses the potential security problems and legal issues Bitcoin faces. He also describes some of the unique qualities of Bitcoin, including the ability to conduct transactions anonymously. Grinberg ends the discussion with his thoughts on what Bitcoin could potentially become.

Related Links

• Bitcoin: An Innovative Alternative Digital Currency, by Grinberg
• “Online Cash Bitcoin Could Challenge Governments, Banks”, Time Techland
• bitcoin.org
• The Rise and Fall of Bitcoin, Wired

To keep the conversation around this episode in one place, we’d like to ask you to comment at the webpage for this episode on Surprisingly Free. Also, why not subscribe to the podcast on iTunes?

Cybersecurity is one of the issues that the President may touch upon tonight in his State of the Union speech, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has said he is ready to move on comprehensive cybersecurity legislation soon. This all raises the question: what is the problem we’re trying to fix?

In an important new working paper for the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, Eli Dourado asks if there is a market failure in cybersecurity that requires a government response. He concludes that policymakers may be jumping to conclusions a little too hastily.

Proponents of cybersecurity regulation make the case that private network owners do not completely internalize cyber risks. The reason, they say, is that a loss stemming from a cyber attack, against a financial network for example, will affect not just the network owner, but thousands of consumers as well. As a result, private network owners won’t spend the socially optimal amount on to meet that risk. That is a market failure, they say, and only government intervention can ensure that we get the right amount of cybersecurity.

In his paper, however,Dourado shows that the presence of an externality does not necessarily mean that there is a market failure. Externalities are often internalized by private parties without government intervention. This is true both generally and in the realm of cybersecurity. Policy makers, he says, should therefore be careful not to enact cybersecurity legislation just because they observe an externality. Regulating when there is no market failure will likely have dire unintended consequences.

You can download the paper at Mercatus.org.

Over at TIME.com, I consult public choice theory to glean the meaning of last week’s SOPA protest success:

The SOPA blackout protest last week was an unprecedented event. Its massive success — with dozens of members of Congress switching their stance in one day under the withering intensity of thousands of phone calls — surprised even the activists who spurred the protest. So does this mean that we are entering the much-heralded era of Internet-powered citizen democracy?

Read the whole thing here.

The Megaupload folks are not the most sympathetic defendants, to say the least. They likely knew very well they were profiting from piracy, and they probably induced it as well. Anonymous’s attacks in retaliation for the arrests and domain seizures, therefore, threaten to destroy the good will the Internet community generated the previous day with the SOPA protests. That all said, we can’t lose sight of the principle because of the bad actors involved.

This case shows that law enforcement is perfectly capable of securing international cooperation and taking direct action against large piracy operations overseas. The Megaupload principals were arrested and they now face extradition and trial. So why do we need due-process-free domain seizures or tinkering with the inner workings of the Internet to combat piracy?

This case also reminds us that the federal government already has the power to seize .com, .net, .org and other U.S.-registered domains. Stopping SOPA is one thing, but now the task should be rolling back excessive government powers to control information online.

The balance struck by the DMCA, which gives safe harbor to sites that take down allegedly infringing content when notified by the owner, is the right one. No safe harbor is available to sites that have actual knowledge that they are benefiting from pirated content, as is probably the case with Megaupload.

On the podcast this week, Michael Weinberg, staff attorney with Public Knowledge, discusses his white paper entitled, It Will Be Awesome If They Don’t Screw This Up: 3D Printing, Intellectual Property, and the Fight Over the Next Great Disruptive Technology. The discussion begins with Weinberg describing 3D printing: the process of printing three dimensional objects layer-by-layer from a digital file on a computer. According to Weinberg the design method used for printing includes programs like AutoCad and 3D scanners that can scan existing objects, making it possible to print a 3D replica. He goes on to explain why he thinks 3D printing, coupled with the Internet, is a disruptive technology. Finally, Weinberg discusses the thesis of his paper, where he anticipates industries affected by potential disruption will not compete with or adapt to this technology, but rather, will seek legal protection through IP law to preemptively regulate 3D printing.

Related Links

• It Will Be Awesome If They Don’t Screw This Up: 3D Printing, Intellectual Property, and the Fight Over the Next Great Disruptive Technology, By Weinberg
• “Difference Engine: Making it”, The Economist
• Thingverse.com
• Anthony Atala: Printing a human kidney, TED

To keep the conversation around this episode in one place, we’d like to ask you to comment at the webpage for this episode on Surprisingly Free. Also, why not subscribe to the podcast on iTunes?

Over at TIME.com, I write that while some claim that Google Search Plus Your World violates antitrust laws, it likely doesn’t. But I note that Google does have a big problem on its hands: market reaction.

So if antitrust is not Google’s main concern, what is? It’s that user reaction to SPYW and other recent moves may invite the very switching and competitive entry that would have to be impossible for monopoly to hold. … Users, however, may not wait for the company to get it right. They can and will switch. And sensing a weakness, new competitors may well enter the search space. The market, therefore, will discipline Google faster than any antitrust action could.

Read the whole thing here.

On the podcast this week, Andrew McAfee, Principal Research Scientist at MIT’s Center for Digital Business, discusses his new book, co-authored with Erik Brynjolfsson, entitled, “Race Against the Machine: How the Digital Revolution is Accelerating Innovation, Driving Productivity, and Irreversibly Transforming Employment and the Economy.” The book looks at the interplay between unemployment and fast-paced technological innovation. In the book, McAfee and Brynjolfsson propose that technology is outpacing humans, and they discuss whether humans can keep up. According to McAfee, technology is encroaching on skills that once belonged exclusively to humans. He believes that entrepreneurial thinking, different institutions, and new organizational structures can prevent humans from being left behind by the machines.

Related Links

• “Race Against The Machine: How the Digital Revolution is Accelerating Innovation, Driving Productivity, and Irreversibly Transforming Employment and the Economy”, by McAfee & Brynjolfsson
• “More Jobs Predicted for Machines, Not People”, New York Times
• “Race Against the Machine* and TGS, a comparison”, Marginal Revolution
• “Are You An Internet Optimist or Pessimist? The Great Debate over Technology’s Impact on Society”, Technology Liberation Front

To keep the conversation around this episode in one place, we’d like to ask you to comment at the webpage for this episode on Surprisingly Free. Also, why not subscribe to the podcast on iTunes?

Over at TIME.com, I recap the latest on SOPA and PIPA and look at what’s ahead once Congress reconvenes. I also address the argument that the piracy bills don’t amount to censorship since they’re aimed at unprotected speech.

Both bills would likely affect non-infringing speech because they allow for entire sites to be blocked — even if they also include otherwise legal speech. Yet the Supreme Court has ruled, “Broad prophylactic rules in the area of free expression are suspect. Precision of regulation must be the touchstone in an area so closely touching our most precious freedoms.” And you can add to that a troubling lack of due process that’s a recipe for abuse.

Read the whole thing here.

Over at TIME.com, I write about face detection technology and how privacy concerns around the tracking of consumers and targeted advertising online may be coming to the physical world.

As Congress and the FTC balance the public interest in privacy with the advantages of new tools, let’s hope they take Sen. Rockefeller’s insight to heart: Public policy does indeed have a tough time keeping up with technology. That should be a signal to policy-makers that they shouldn’t be too hasty, lest they strangle a nascent technology while it’s in the cradle.

Smart sign and face detection technology is very new—so new that we don’t really know how consumers will react to it. It’s tempting to want to get out in front privacy concerns, but it would be better to allow the technology to develop and mature a bit before we make any judgments.

Read the whole thing here.

On the podcast this week, Michael Froomkin, the Laurie Silvers & Mitchell Rubenstein Distinguished Professor of Law at the University of Miami, discusses his new paper prepared for the Oxford Internet Institute entitled, Lessons Learned Too Well: The Evolution of Internet Regulation. Froomkin begins by talking about anonymity, why it is important, and the different political and social components involved. The discussion then turns to Froomkin’s categorization of Internet regulation, how it can be seen in three different waves, and how it relates to anonymity. He ends the discussion by talking about the third wave of Internet regulation, and he predicts that online anonymity will become practically impossible. Froomkin also discusses the constitutional implications of a complete ban on online anonymity, as well as what he would deem an ideal balance between the right to anonymous speech and protection from online crimes like fraud and security breeches.

Related Links

• Lessons Learned Too Well, by Froomkin
• “With passwords ‘broken,’ US rolls out Internet identity plan”, ARS Technica
• “What’s in a Pseudo-name? Privacy, Free Expression & Real Names on Google+ & Facebook”, Technology Liberation Front

To keep the conversation around this episode in one place, we’d like to ask you to comment at the webpage for this episode on Surprisingly Free. Also, why not subscribe to the podcast on iTunes?

Regardless of what you think of the AT&T/T-Mobile merger or the recently announced purchase of SpectrumCo licenses by Verizon, these deals tell us one thing: wireless carriers need access to more spectrum for mobile broadband. If they can’t have access to TV broadcast spectrum, they will get it where they can, and that’s by acquiring competitors.

In a new Mercatus Center Working Paper filed today as a comment in the FCC’s 15th Annual Report and Analysis of Competitive Market Conditions With Respect to Mobile Wireless proceeding, Tom Hazlett writes that while the market it competitive, the prospects for “new” spectrum look dim.

[S]pectrum allocation is the essential public policy that enables—or limits—growth in mobile markets. Spectrum, assigned via liberal licenses yielding competitive operators control of frequency spaces, sets “disruptive innovation” in motion. Liberalization allowed the market to do what was unanticipated and could not be specified in a traditional FCC wireless license. That success deserves to grow; the amount of spectrum allocated to liberal licenses needs to expand. Additional bandwidth raises all consumer welfare boats, promoting competitive entry, technological upgrades, and more intense rivalry between incumbent firms.

In this, the Report (correctly) follows the strong emphasis placed on pushing bandwidth  into  the  marketplace  via  liberal  licenses  in  the  FCC’s  National Broadband Plan, issued in March 2010. That analysis underscored  the  looming “mobile  data   tsunami,”  noting  that  the  long  delays  associated  with  new spectrum  allocations  seriously   handicap emerging wireless services. But, as if to spotlight a failure to adequately address those challenges, the FCC Report speaks approvingly of the Department of Commerce (which presides over the spectrum set-aside for federal agencies) initiative that proposes a “Fast  Track  Evaluation  report . .  . examin[ing]  four  spectrum  bands  for  potential   evaluation within five years . . . totaling 115 MHz . . . contingent upon the allocation of resources  for necessary  reallocation  activities.” A five-year  regulatory  “fast  track”—if everything goes as planned.

To paraphrase John Maynard Keynes: In  the  long  run,  we’re  all  in  a  dead  spot.

You can read the full report at the Mercatus Center website.

Over at TIME.com, I write about the recent compromise on the D Block, which would give more spectrum to public safety, and I ponder if there may not be a better way..

Patrol cars are as indispensable to police as radio communications. Yet when we provision cars to police, we don’t give them steel, glass and rubber and expect them to build their own. So why do we do that with radio communications?

Read the whole thing here.

On the podcast this week, danah boyd, Senior Researcher at Microsoft Research, and Assistant Professor in Media, Culture, and Communication at New York University, discusses her recent article in First Monday with Ester Hargitai, Jason Schultz, and John Palfrey. It’s entitled, “Why parents help their children lie to Facebook about age: Unintended consequences of the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act.” boyd discusses COPPA as it applies to Facebook, namely that children under 13 are not allowed to use the site. She then talks about her research, which looks at whether this restriction is helping parents protect their children’s privacy, and whether it is meeting COPPA’s ultimate goals. boyd discusses her findings, which indicate parents are allowing their children to lie about their age to obtain a Facebook account. According to boyd, parents want guidelines when it comes to data protection, but they do not necessarily want strict requirements. boyd feels that COPPA is not achieving its goal of privacy protection and should be evaluated with more transparency so parents and the public in general know how to protect their privacy.

Related Links

• “Why parents help their children lie to Facebook about age: Unintended consequences of the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act.”, by boyd et al.
• “apophenia”, boyd’s blog
• “The Unintended Consequences of Well-Intentioned Privacy Regulation”, Forbes.com

To keep the conversation around this episode in one place, we’d like to ask you to comment at the webpage for this episode on Surprisingly Free. Also, why not subscribe to the podcast on iTunes?

Over at TIME.com, I write about the “Russian hackers are in our water plants” min-panic that erupted last week. Turns out it was a false alarm, but that didn’t stop the rhetoric from going on overdrive. Check out this story from Nov. 21, one day before DHS and the FBI announced there was no attack, which said that a variant of Stuxnet had been used to attack the Illinois water plant and “caused the destruction of a water pump”. My takeaways from this incident:

First, we shouldn’t jump to conclusions based on sketchy first reports of cyberattacks. Bad reporting tends to take on a life of its own. Two years ago, an electrical blackout in Brazil was similarly blamed on hackers, but the cause turned out to be nothing more than sooty insulators. That hasn’t stopped pundits, defense contractors and politicians from citing the debunked incident as evidence that we need comprehensive legislation to regulate Internet security.

Second, although Bellovin was mistaken in believing the initial reports, he’s right that such an attack is possible. The discussion should be about the possible magnitude of attacks and what can be done to prevent them. Although the rhetorical engines of those who want new cyber-legislation were spinning into overdrive before the facts abruptly shut them down, this incident, if it had been a cyberattack, would not have shown a dire need for new rules. Instead, it showed that the damage was not catastrophic and that the water utility worked well with federal authorities under existing law.

Read the whole thing at TIME.com.

On the podcast this week, Joseph Flatley, Features Editor with The Verge, discusses his recent article entitled, “Condo at the End of the World.” Flatley first gives an overview of The Verge, a new website dedicated to in-depth reporting usually seen in traditional media such as newspapers and magazines. He describes The Verge as a website dedicated not only to what technology means, but also to how it affects our lives. The discussion then turns to Flately’s article on survival condos, which have attracted the attention of wealthy citizens concerned about end of the world calamity and economic collapse. According to Flatley, the interest in survival condos has increased after 9/11, and after the recent economic downturn. The “condos” are abandoned missile silos that date back to the cold war. Flatley describes his interviews with different people who are carving out a market for high-end survival real estate, turning these abandoned missile silos into luxury living. He describes how survivalists might live in an end of the world scenario, including what they will eat and how they will stay properly hydrated.

Related Links

• “Condo at the End of the World”, by Flatley
• 20th Century Castles, LLC, missilebases.com
• survivalcondo.com

To keep the conversation around this episode in one place, we’d like to ask you to comment at the webpage for this episode on Surprisingly Free. Also, why not subscribe to the podcast on iTunes?

Over at TIME.com, I write that while Congress mulls an Internet blacklist in SOPA, there are efforts underway to reengineer parts of the Net to make communications more decentralized and censorship-proof. These include distributed and decentralized DNS systems, currencies, and social networks, as well as attempts to circumvent ISPs using mesh networking.

It’s not a certainty that these projects will all succeed. Most probably won’t. Yet these far-out efforts serve as proof-of-concept for a censorship-resistant Internet. Just as between Napster and BitTorrent there was Gnutella and Freenet, it will take time for these concepts to mature. What is certain is the trend. The more governments squeeze the Internet in an attempt to control information, the more it will turn to sand around their fingers.

Read the whole thing here.

On the podcast this week, Laura Heymann, Professor of Law at William & Mary Law School, discusses her recent article in the Boston College Law Review entitled, The Law of Reputation and the Interest of the Audience. Heymann proposes viewing the concept of reputation as something formed by a community rather than something owned by an individual. Reputation, according to Heymann, is valuable because of the way a community uses it. She then discusses how thinking of reputation differently leads to thinking about different remedies for reputation-based harms. Heymann thinks current remedies for damage to one’s reputation do not focus enough on the affect it has on the community and proposes remedies for emotional injuries be separate from remedies for damages to the reputation. She then discusses how the Internet affects reputation, including how it enlarges communities, and how it intersects with privacy.

Related Links

• The Law of Reputation and the Interest of the Audience, by Heymann
• “Herman Cain seeks to salvage reputation as scandal continues”, CBS News
• “When It Comes to Information Control, Everybody Has a Pet Issue & Everyone Will Be Disappointed”, Technology Liberation Front

To keep the conversation around this episode in one place, we’d like to ask you to comment at the webpage for this episode on Surprisingly Free. Also, why not subscribe to the podcast on iTunes?

Over at TIME.com, I write about last week’s flap over Apple kicking out famed security researcher Charlie Miller out of its iOS developer program:

So let’s be clear: Apple did not ban Miller for exposing a security flaw, as many have suggested. He was kicked out for violating his agreement with Apple to respect the rules around the App Store walled garden. And that gets to the heart of what’s really at stake here–the fact that so many dislike the strict control Apple exercises over its platform. …

What we have to remember is that as strict as Apple may be, its approach is not just “not bad” for consumers, it’s creating more choice.

Read the whole thing here.

On the podcast this week, Johnny Ryan, Senior Researcher at the Institute of International and European Affairs, discusses his recent book, “A History of the Internet and the Digital Future.” The book is a comprehensive overview of the Internet and where it came from. Ryan discusses some of the core concepts, including what made the Internet revolutionary, and how many of these ideas came from RAND Corporation researcher Paul Baran. He explains that the initial concept for packet switching did come from the need to build a communications system to withstand nuclear attack. The discussion then turns to the advent of communication between computers, which sprang from a group of graduate students who used a collaborative process to create the network. Finally, Ryan discusses Web 2.0, and how technologies like cloud computing and 3-D printing will disrupt industries in the future.

Related Links

• A History of the Internet and the Digital Future, by Ryan
• “Paul Baran and the Origins of the Internet”, Rand Corporation
• “Is collaboration the future of invention?”, CNN.com

To keep the conversation around this episode in one place, we’d like to ask you to comment at the webpage for this episode on Surprisingly Free. Also, why not subscribe to the podcast on iTunes?

Over at TIME.com Techland, I write about the newly introduced Stop Online Piracy Act and the renewed push for a “rogue website” law.

At a moment when Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is urging world governments to keep their hands off the Internet, creating a blacklist would send the wrong message. And not just to China or Iran, which already engage in DNS filtering, but to liberal democracies that might want to block information they find naughty. Imagine if the U.K. created a blacklist of American newspapers that its courts found violated celebrities’ privacy? Or what if France blocked American sites it believed contained hate speech? We forget, but those countries don’t have a First Amendment.

The result could be a virtually broken Internet where some sites exist for half the world and not for the other. The alternative is to leave the DNS alone and focus (as the bills also do) on going after the cash flow of rogue websites. As frustrating as it must be for the content owners who are getting ripped off, there are some cures worse than the disease.

Read the whole thing here.

On the podcast this week, Alisdair Gillespie, Professor of Criminal Law and Justice at De Montfort University in Leicester UK, discusses his new paper in the International Journal of Law and Information Technology, Restricting Access to the Internet by Sex Offenders. Gillespie discusses whether access to the Internet is a human right, and if so, when that right can be curtailed. He establishes that access to the Internet could be a negative right, then turns to how Internet access can be restricted in the case of sex offenders. Gillespie talks about different ways to prevent these offenders from using the Internet for ill, including complete restriction as well as technological tools similar to parental control software, and the difficulties that arise when trying to implement any one of these schemes.

Related Links

• Restricting access to the internet by sex offenders, by Gillespie
• “The U.N. Declares Internet Access a Human Right”, The Atlantic Wire
• “If Banning The Internet For Sex Offenders Is Unfair, Is Banning The Internet For Copyright Infringers Fair?”, Tech Dirt

To keep the conversation around this episode in one place, we’d like to ask you to comment at the webpage for this episode on Surprisingly Free. Also, why not subscribe to the podcast on iTunes?

On the podcast this week, Adam Thierer, a Senior Research Fellow with the Technology Policy Program at the Mercatus Center, discusses his new paper, co-authored with Veronique de Rugy, The Internet, Sales Tax, and Tax Competition. With several states in the midst of budget crunches, states and localities struggle to find a way to generate revenue, which, according to Thierer, leads to an aggressive attempt to collect online sales tax. He discusses some of these attempts, like the multi-state compact, that seeks taxation of remote online vendors. Thierer believes this creates incentives for large online companies like Amazon to cut deals with certain states, where jobs will be created in exchange for tax relief. This, according to Thierer, creates unfairness for smaller online companies as well as for brick and mortar shops who have to pay taxes to the state where they have a physical presence. He proposes an origin-based tax, which imposes the tax where the purchase is made instead of tracing the transaction to its consumption destination. This proposal, he submits, will level the playing field between brick and mortar companies and online companies, and promote tax competition.

Related Links

• The Internet, Sales Taxes, and Tax Competition, by Thierer & de Rugy
• The Main Street Fairness Act
• The Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Agreement
• “Working up a tax storm in Illinois”, George F. Will

To keep the conversation around this episode in one place, we’d like to ask you to comment at the webpage for this episode on Surprisingly Free. Also, why not subscribe to the podcast on iTunes?

On the podcast this week, Simon Chesterman, Vice Dean and Professor of Law at the National University of Singapore, and Global Professor and Director of the NYU School of Law Singapore Programme, discusses his new book, One Nation Under Surveillance: A New Social Contract to Defend Freedom Without Sacrificing Liberty. The discussion begins with a brief overview of the NSA and how it garnered the attention of Americans after 9/11. Chesterman discusses the agency’s powers and the problems the NSA encounters, including how to sort through large amounts of data. The discussion then turns to how these powers can become exceptions to constitutional protections, and how such exceptional circumstances can be accommodated. Finally, Chesterman suggests that there has been a cultural shift in western society, where expectations of privacy have dimished with technological and cultural trends, so that information collection by the government is generally accepted. However, he says, society is concerned with how that information is used. According to Chesterman, there should be limits and accountability mechanisms in place for government agencies like the NSA.

Related Links

• One Nation Under Surveillance: A New Social Contract to Defend Freedom Without Sacrificing Liberty, by Chesterman
• “Warrantless Wiretaps: A Guide to the Debate”, NPR
• Stronger Online Privacy Regulation Comes with Tradeoffs, TIME.com Techland

To keep the conversation around this episode in one place, we’d like to ask you to comment at the webpage for this episode on Surprisingly Free. Also, why not subscribe to the podcast on iTunes?

Over a week ago the Washington Post published an interview with Google’s Eric Schmidt to which I’ve been meaning to draw your attention. He’s reflecting on the relationship between Silicon Valle and D.C. days after his Senate testimony, and it’s incredibly candid, perhaps because as the Post noted, “He had just come from the dentist. And had a toothache.” Here are some choice quotes:

On getting told to testify:

So we get hauled in front of the Congress for developing a product that’s free, that serves a billion people. Okay? I mean, I don’t know how to say it any clearer. I mean, it’s fine. It’s their job. But it’s not like we raised prices. We could lower prices from free to…lower than free? You see what I’m saying?

On regulation:

And one of the consequences of regulation is regulation prohibits real innovation, because the regulation essentially defines a path to follow—which by definition has a bias to the current outcome, because it’s a path for the current outcome.

On the D.C. shakedown:

And privately the politicians will say, ‘Look, you need to participate in our system. You need to participate at a personal level, you need to participate at a corporate level.’ We, after some debate, set up a PAC, as other companies have.

On political startups:

Now there are startups in Washington. And these startups have the interesting property that they’re founded by people who were policymakers, let’s say in telecommunications. They’re very clever people, and they’ve figured out a way in regulation to discriminate, to find a new satellite spectrum or a new frequency or whatever. They immediately hired a whole bunch of lobbyists. They raised some money to do that. And they’re trying to innovate through the regulation. So that’s what passes for innovation in Washington.

There’s a real sense of exasperation that is almost absurd–that is, an exhausting attempt to find rationality in political decision making. Of course, there is rational decision making, it’s just on a different margin. Here is Schmidt on expanding H-1B visas:

I’m so tired of this argument. I’m tired of making it. I’ve been making it for twenty years. In the current cast of characters, the Republicans are on our side, our local Democrats support us because our arguments are obvious, and the other Democrats don’t—because they don’t get it. The president understands the argument and would like to support us, he says, but there are various political issues. That’s roughly the situation. That’s been true for twenty years, through different presidents and different leaders. It’s stupid.

The whole thing is worth reading.

On the podcast this week, David Robinson, a fellow at the Information and Society Project at Yale Law School, discusses his new paper, Following the Money: A Better Way Forward on the PROTECT IP Act. The bill, now being considered by Congress, targets “rouge” websites. Robinson discusses the different ways these websites host infringing content and sell counterfeit goods, as well as the remedies proposed in the bill. The measures involve two main consequences: cutting off information through the seizure of domain names by law enforcement, and cutting off financial gain by prohibiting payment processors like Visa and Mastercard from delivering profits to infringing website owners. Robinson discusses why he thinks the Act will better serve IP law if the flow of money is restricted, and not the flow of information. He goes on to discuss what he considers to be troubling about information control, including several constitutional implications.

Related Links

• Following the Money: A Better Way Forward on the PROTECT IP Act, by Robinson
• Text of the proposed Act, opencongress.org
• “Dozens of law professors: PROTECT IP Act is unconstitutional”, ARS Technica

To keep the conversation around this episode in one place, we’d like to ask you to comment at the webpage for this episode on Surprisingly Free. Also, why not subscribe to the podcast on iTunes?