Keeping politicians' hands off the Net & everything else related to technology
Clear’s coverage map shows service in many cities and plans to expand to many more. Competition is rendering moot the call for public utility-style regulation of Internet service in the name of ‘net neutrality. I expect to hear soon about how unsatisfactory competition is under triopoly conditions.
There is no better security for data than not collecting it in the first place. And when data is no longer needed, the best security for it is to destroy it.
That’s why I was surprised to see a request from the chairman and ranking member of the House Homeland Security Committee asking the Transportation Security Administration to preserve data that is scheduled for destruction.
Chairman Bennie Thompson (D-MS) attended and spoke at the first meeting of the DHS Privacy Committee four years ago. I have regarded him as a champion of privacy since then. But he and Rep. Peter King (R-NY) want biometric data collected for the defunct Registered Traveler program preserved on the chance that Registered Traveler is revived. This is an inappropriate request.
Anyone who submits data to the government should recognize the risk that it will be preserved longer than promised and put to new uses. There were merits to the Clear system within Registered Traveler. I wrote about them in my book and testified about them in 2005. One of the serious demerits is that Registered Traveler created stores of biometric data that politicians are now trying to control.
What Unites Advocates of Speech Controls & Privacy Regulation? [pdf]
by Adam Thierer & Berin Szoka The Progress & Freedom Foundation, Progress on Point No. 16.19
Anyone who has spent time following debates about speech and privacy regulation comes to recognize the striking parallels between these two policy arenas. In this paper we will highlight the common rhetoric, proposals, and tactics that unite these regulatory movements. Moreover, we will argue that, at root, what often animates calls for regulation of both speech and privacy are two remarkably elitist beliefs:
While our use of the term “elitism” may unduly offend some understandably sensitive to populist demagoguery, our aim here is not to launch a broadside against elitism as Time magazine culture critic William H. Henry once defined it: “The willingness to assert unyieldingly that one idea, contribution or attainment is better than another.”[1] Rather, our aim here is to critique that elitism which rises to the level of political condescension and legal sanction. We attack not so much the beliefs of some leaders, activists, or intellectuals that they have a better idea of what it in the public’s best interest than the public itself does, but rather the imposition of those beliefs through coercive, top-down mandates.
That sort of elitism—elitism enforced by law—is often the objective of speech and privacy regulatory advocates. Our goal is to identify the common themes that unite these regulatory movements, explain why such political elitism is unwarranted, and make it clear how it threatens individual liberty as well as the future of free and open Internet. As an alternative to this elitist vision, we advocate an empowerment agenda: fostering an environment in which users have the tools and information they need to make decisions for themselves and their families. Continue reading →
The Technology Liberation Front is the tech policy blog dedicated to keeping politicians' hands off the 'net and everything else related to technology.
