The big news out of Europe today is that the European Court of Justice (ECJ) has invalidated the 15-year old EU-US safe harbor agreement, which facilitated data transfers between the EU and US. American tech companies have relied on the safe harbor to do business in the European Union, which has more onerous data handling regulations than the US. [PDF summary of decision here.] Below I offer some quick thoughts about the decision and some of its potential unintended consequences.
#1) Another blow to new entry / competition in the EU: While some pundits are claiming this is a huge blow to big US tech firms, in reality, the irony of the ruling is that it will bolster the market power of the biggest US tech firms, because they are the only ones that will be able to afford the formidable compliance costs associated with the resulting regulatory regime. In fact, with each EU privacy decision, Google, Facebook, and other big US tech firms just get more dominant. Small firms just can’t comply with the EU’s expanding regulatory thicket. “It will involve lots of contracts between lots of parties and it’s going to be a bit of a nightmare administratively,” said Nicola Fulford, head of data protection at the UK law firm Kemp Little when commenting on the ruling to the BBC. “It’s not that we’re going to be negotiating them individually, as the legal terms are mostly fixed, but it does mean a lot more paperwork and they have legal implications.” And by driving up regulatory compliance costs and causing constant delays in how online business is conducted, the ruling will (again, on top of all the others) greatly limits entry and innovation by new, smaller players in the digital world. In essence, EU data regulations have already wiped out much of the digital competition in Europe and now this ruling finishes off any global new entrants who might have hoped of breaking in and offering competitive alternatives. These are the sorts of stories never told in antitrust circles: costly government rulings often solidify and extend the market dominance of existing companies. Dynamic effects matter. That is certainly going to be the case here. Continue reading →
[UPDATE
4/30/13: This article was subsequently published in Volume 65, Issues 2 of the Federal Communications Law Journal in April 2013. The links below now point to the final FCLJ version.]
The Mercatus Center at George Mason University has just released a new paper by Brent Skorup and me entitled, “Uncreative Destruction: The War on Vertical Integration in the Information Economy.” Brent, who is the research director for the Information Economy Project at the George Mason University School of Law, and I have been working on this paper since the Spring and we are looking forward to getting it published in a law review shortly. The paper focuses on Tim Wu’s “separations principle” for the digital economy, something I’ve spent some time critiquing here in the past. Here’s the introduction from the 44-page paper that Brent and I just released:
Are information sectors sufficiently different from other sectors of the economy such that more stringent antitrust standards should be applied to them preemptively? Columbia Law School professor Tim Wu responds in the affirmative in his book The Master Switch: The Rise and Fall of Information Empires. Having successfully pushed net-neutrality regulation into the policy spotlight, Wu has turned his attention to what he regards as excessive market concentration and threats to free speech throughout the entire information economy.To support his call for increased antitrust intervention, Wu explains his view of competition in the information economy—a view that deviates substantially from current mainstream antitrust theory.
Continue reading →
Over the weekend, the always-terrific Lenore Skenazy published a provocative editorial in Forbes entitled, “Shred Your Sex Offender Map.” (For more on Skenazy, see my review of her amazing book Free-Range Kids here last year). In her Forbes essay, Skenazy argues that, as currently constructed, America’s sex offender registries “are making our kids LESS safe.” How can that possibly be? I explained why in a lengthy essay on this topic I penned last summer entitled, “
Rethinking ‘Sex Crimes’ and Sex Offender Registries.” In it, I made an argument similar to Lenore’s. In a nutshell, if we really want to keep kids safe from real sex offenders, we need to completely rethink the way we define and punish sex offenses in this country because a significant percentage of the people listed on sex offender registries pose almost no threat to children, making it difficult for us to know who really does pose a threat to our kids and what we should do about them.
Consider two groups of people. Let’s call Group #1 the “petty sex crime crowd.” This would include anyone convicted of indecent exposure (streaking / public nudity / public urination); a 19-year-old teen who gets caught having sex with a 17-year-old girlfriend; two gay men who had consensual sex in a state where sodomy was previously illegal; etc, etc. The crucial distinction for this group is that their actions were consensual and non-violent. No serious harm came from their actions, even if
some of these activities are less than socially desirable. Now, let’s talk about Group #2: violent rapists, child molesters, child pornographers, and other creeps who sexually abused people (or even animals!) These people are the wretched scum of the Earth.
Anyway, here’s the first problem with the current sex offender registries: Group 1 and Group 2 are all mixed together! There’s a word for this:
Insanity. How in the hell did it ever come to pass that non-violent, consensual sex “offenders” got stuck on the same list as sadists, pedophiles, rapists, and other violent, evil scum? Honestly, I don’t know and I don’t care. I just want that nonsense to end and end right now because as I noted in my earlier essay and Lenore argues in her’s, this means current sex offender lists / maps are largely worthless to parents like me unless I take the time to drill down into the details of who was guilty of what. (Even when you do, it can still be confusing since some crimes aren’t made clear). But the public is basically being subjected to a panic attack when they hear sex offender registry numbers or see maps of sex offenders in their neighborhood because the overall number of “offenders on the lists,” or dots on the offender maps, is being artificially raised by the presence of Group 1 “offenders.”
Continue reading →
Just caught this LA Times editorial from a couple of days ago on the “Overreaction to Online Harassment.” The piece makes many of the same points that Berin Szoka and I stress in our PFF paper on “Cyberbullying Legislation: Why Education is Preferable to Regulation.” [Also, here’s a video of a debate on these issues that I took part in up on Cap Hill this summer.]
The
Times editorial notes that, “Because of a past tragedy, lawmakers and prosecutors are becoming overzealous in combating noxious behavior on the Web.” Specifically, they are referring to the tragic case of Megan Meier, the teen who committed suicide after being harassed on MySpace. “Members of Congress often try to expand the powers of federal prosecutors and courts when state law doesn’t produce the results they seek, especially when confronted with cases as heart-wrenching as Meier’s,” the Times noted. For example, in may 2008, Rep. Linda Sánchez (D-CA) introduced H.R. 1966 (originally H.R. 6123), the “Megan Meier Cyberbullying Prevention Act,” which would create a new federal felony to deal with this concern.
But creating a federal crime for something that is mostly peer-on-peer activity seems like overkill. Moreover, the
Times notes, “the bill is so vaguely written” that it “would have a hard time withstanding a 1st Amendment challenge if it ever became law.” As you’ll see in our paper, Berin and I agree, but we also point out that cyberbullying is a very serious matter since evidence suggests the cyberbullying is on the rise and that it can have profoundly damaging consequences for children.
Continue reading →
The Economist magazine has just released an important feature article entitled, “Sex Laws: Unjust and Ineffective.” In an indirect way, the article makes a point that I have been trying to get across in my work on this issue: If you want to keep your kids safe from real sex offenders, we need to scrap our current sex offender registries and completely rethink the way we define and punish sex offenses in this country. That’s because, currently, a significant percentage of those people listed in sex offender registries pose almost no threat to children, making it difficult for us to know who really does pose a threat to our kids and what we should do about them.
Simply stated, we’ve dumbed-down the notion of “sex crimes” in this country. As a nation, we have foolishly come to equate almost all sex offenses equally. While sex offender registry laws vary from state to state, many basically say that that two teens caught engaging in consensual oral sex in high school belong on the same list alongside child rapists. That is insanity. And it leaves many in the public, especially parents, thinking that the whole world is full of predators lurking on every corner just waiting to snatch, rape, and kill their children. [
For the actual facts, see the appendix I have included down below: “Is America Suffering from a National Child Abduction Epidemic”?] In reality, as The Economist feature story points out, the truth is quite different: Continue reading →
When it comes to theories about how to best raise kids, I’m a big believer in what might be referred to “a resiliency approach” to child-rearing. That is, instead of endlessly coddling our children and hovering over them like “helicopter parents,” as so many parents do today, I believe it makes more sense to instill some core values and common sense principles and then give them some breathing room to live life and learn lessons from it. Yes, that includes making mistakes. And, oh yes, your little darlings might actually gets some bump and bruises along the way — or at least have their egos bruised in the process. But this is how kids learn lessons and become responsible adults and citizens. Wrapping them in bubble wrap and filling their heads without nothing but fear about the outside would will ultimately lead to the opposite: sheltered, immature, irresponsible, and unprepared young adults — many of whom expect someone else (the government, their college, their employer, or still their parents!) to be there to take care of them well into their 20’s or even 30’s. Again, you gotta let kids live a little and learn from their experiences.
This explains why I find Lenore Skenazy’s new book,
Free-Range Kids: Giving Our Children the Freedom We Had Without Going Nuts with Worry
, to be such a breath of fresh air. [Here’s her blog of the same name.] She argues that “if we try to prevent every possible danger of difficult in our child’s everyday life, that child never gets a chance to grow up.” (p. 5) As she told
Salon recently:
You want kids to feel like the world isn’t so dangerous. You want to teach them how to cross the street safely. You want to teach them that you never go off with a stranger. You teach them what to do in an emergency, and then you assume that generally emergencies don’t happen, but they’re prepared if they do. Then, you let them go out.
The fun of childhood is not holding your mom’s hand. The fun of childhood is when you don’t have to hold your mom’s hand, when you’ve done something that you can feel proud of. To take all those possibilities away from our kids seems like saying: “I’m giving you the greatest gift of all, I’m giving you safety. Oh, and by the way I’m taking away your childhood and any sense of self-confidence or pride. I hope you don’t mind.”
Exactly right, in my opinion. Again, let kids live and learn from it. Teach lessons but then encourage ‘learning by doing’ and let them understand these things for themselves. That is resiliency theory in a nutshell.
Continue reading →
Today was a big day — and not just because there was an election going on! As I mentioned yesterday, the other big news was that the U.S. Supreme Court was hearing oral arguments in the potentially historic free speech case of Federal Communications Commission v. Fox Television Stations, Inc. Again, all the background you need can be found in my post yesterday, so here I will just be summarizing my general thoughts about how the oral arguments played out this morning.
Unfortunately, because no electronic devices or even notepads are allowed in the courtroom, much of what I am relaying here is from memory or from the notes that I surreptitiously scribbled on a tiny piece of scrap paper when the guards weren’t looking. (And yes, I have been reprimanded before for taking notes in the Court!) The transcript has just been released, however, so you can read it through and judge for yourself. Anyway, here are some general thoughts:
Continue reading →
Tomorrow morning, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the potentially historic free speech case of Federal Communications Commission v. Fox Television Stations, Inc. I plan on attending and will try to post some thoughts about how the arguments played out here later tomorrow afternoon or evening. [I won’t be able to live blog of Twitter it because no electronic devices are allowed in the courtroom, which I’ve always thought is outrageous.] In the meantime, here again is the background of the case.
The
FCC v. Fox case is the indecency case involving the FCC’s new policy for “fleeting expletives.” I wrote about the Second Circuit Court of Appeals decision here and the full 2nd Circuit decision is here. [By contrast, the so-called “Janet Jackson case” — CBS v. FCC — took place in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals and that court recently handed down a decision that also went against the FCC. I wrote about the Third Circuit’s decision here.]
In a 2-1 decision, the Second Circuit ruled that “the FCC’s new policy sanctioning “fleeting expletives” is arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act for failing to articulate a reasoned basis for its change in policy.” The decision demonstrates how, over just the past few years, the FCC has arbitrarily thrown out 30+ years worth of precedent and greatly expand the scope of its regulatory authority over speech on broadcast TV and radio. As a result, the FCC’s order was vacated and remanded to the agency. The agency appealed the decision, however, and the Supreme Court accepted it for review.
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.