We hear a lot today about the importance of “disruptive innovation,” “deep technologies,”  “moonshots,” and even “technological miracles.” What do these terms mean and how are they related? Are they just silly clichés used to hype techno-exuberant books, articles, and speeches? Or do these terms have real meaning and importance?

This article explores those questions and argues that, while these terms are confronted with definitional challenges and occasional overuse, they retain real importance to human flourishing, economic growth, and societal progress.

Basic Concepts

Don Boudreaux defines moonshots as, “radical but feasible solutions to important problems” and Mike Cushing has referred to them as “innovation that achieves the previously unthinkable.” “Deep technology” is another buzzword being used to describe such revolutionary and important innovations. Swati Chaturvedi of investment firm Propel[x] says deep technologies are innovations that are “built on tangible scientific discoveries or engineering innovations” and “are trying to solve big issues that really affect the world around them.”

“Disruptive technology” or “game-changing innovations” are other terms that are often used in reference to technologies and inventions with major societal impacts. “Transformative technologies” is another increasingly popular term, albeit one focused mostly on health and wellness-related innovations.

However one defines them and whatever one calls them, it is clear, as a 2015 report from the World Economic Forum (WEF) argued, that, “the list of potentially disruptive technologies keeps getting longer.” “Inventions previously seen only in science fiction,” the WEF report said, “will enable us to connect and invent in ways we never have before.”

More concretely, when people use these terms in reference to existing technologies, or ones currently on the drawing board, they often mention innovations like:

• Artificial intelligence / machine learning / robotics
• 3D printing / additive manufacturing
• Self-repairing / self-building objects
• Driverless cars / flying cars (VTOL), supersonic transport
• Private space travel / lunar mining
• Clean power / alternative energy production
• Genetic editing & life extension technologies
• Implantable tech / human augmentation
• Hyper-connected devices / wearable fitness / sensor tech / IoT
• Precision medicine
• Neural networks
• Quantum computing
• Nanotechnology / synthetic biology
• Immersive technology (AT & VR)

This is just a partial list of the type of technologies that experts mention when discussing “moonshots,” deep tech,” and other “disruptive” or “transformative innovations.” What unifies them more than anything else is the potential for major improvements in human well-being. Significant advancements in these areas could lead to substantial jumps in human welfare, health, and longevity.

Definitional Limitations

These terms have some problems and limitations, however. For example,“moonshots” conjures up thoughts of large, expensive government programs that are centrally-directed in a top-down fashion. Writing in The New Atlantis last year, Mark P. Mills argued that the notion of “ technological miracles ” can be taken to unrealistic extremes and he specifically cautioned against getting caught up in “moonshot fallacies” as well as “Moore’s Law fallacy.”

The “moonshot fallacy” is commonly heard in policy discussions whenever a policymaker or pundit insists that, “If we can put a man on the moon, then we can…” fill in the blank with your prefered aspirational goal du jour . But as Mills points out, this sort of talk often represents highly unrealistic, wishful thinking. “It is true that engineers have achieved amazing feats when tasked with particular, practical goals. But not all goals are equally achievable,” he correctly argues.  

“Moore’s Law fallacy” refers to the fact that innovation in the physical world of atoms is usually much harder and more costly than innovation in the digital world of bits. “If energy technology had followed a Moore’s Law trajectory, today’s car engine would have shrunk to the size of an ant while producing a thousandfold more horsepower,” Mills observes. The time horizons for big change are almost always going to be significantly longer in the physical world even with the increasing digitization in society and “ software eating the world .”

“Disruptive technology” is also a problematic term because its common use is quite different from Clayton M. Christensen’s original explanation of the term in his widely-cited Harvard Business Review articles from 1995 and then 2015 . “The original notion of disruption aimed to describe why great firms can fail,” Josh Gans explained in his recent book, The Disruption Dilemma . “Today, use of the term has gotten out of control,” he says. “As a concept, disruption has become so persuasive this it is at risk of becoming useless.”

Gans makes a good point. Not everything can be disruptive. Moreover, some techno-evangelists get carried away with such rhetoric regarding the “disruptive,” “transformative,” and “miracle”-working” potential of various technologies.  

But Sometimes Dreams Come True

Despite these definitional controversies or rhetorical excesses from some overly-exuberant tech boosters, these terms retain real meaning and significance.  

It is easy to ridicule dreamers, but quite a bit of life-changing innovation begins as a dream of some sort. Without a doubt, a great many “moonshots” will never get off the ground, and many “deep” technologies will end up sinking into the ocean of irrelevant or failed technologies. But that’s OK! It is in the process of risk-taking, experimentation, and failure that wisdom is generated and meaningful improvements in social and economic well-being come about.

It’s easy to talk about “trial-and-error” without thinking much about the “error” part of the process. It is only through constant experimentation and failure that we learn how to do things more efficiently and create or improve goods and services.

Perhaps the most straightforward definition of “technology” is Ian Barbour’s: “the application of organized knowledge to practical tasks by ordered systems of people and machines.” But organized knowledge requires lots of trials and lots of errors–by both people and machines–in order to find workable solutions to the tasks we hope to accomplish.

To the extent that we would like to see more technological improvements, we need more “dreamers” who hope to change the world. Entrepreneurs are the key to this process because, by their very nature, they refuse to settle for the status quo. They dream of a world that can work differently; one in which they can improve their own lot and (whether intentionally or not) improve the lot of humanity simultaneously. “What entrepreneurs do,” venture capitalist Vinod Khosla argues , “is they imagine what feels impossible to most people, and take it all the way from impossible, to improbable, to possible but unlikely, to plausible, to probable, to real!”  

That is why entrepreneurialism is so important , and it is also why shouldn’t roll our eyes when people dream about “moonshots” and the ways in which “deep technology” might “disrupt” and “transform” society for the better.  

While we should always keep both feet firmly rooted on the ground, there is nothing wrong with looking skyward and dreaming of a better future. Indeed, as a society, we should seek to foster a culture of innovation that rewards entrepreneurial dreaming and daring, because in seeking to make the world a better place, progress and prosperity become reality.  

Additional Reading

Donald J. Boudreaux, “What’s Your Moonshot?” Mercatus Center at George Mason University, Mercatus Original Video , November 16, 2017, https://www.mercatus.org/videos/whats-your-moonshot .

Joseph L. Bower & Clayton M. Christensen, “Disruptive Technologies: Catching the Wave,” Harvard Business Review , January-February 1995,   https://hbr.org/1995/01/disruptive-technologies-catching-the-wave .

Clayton M. Christensen, Michael E. Raynor & Rory McDonald, “What Is Disruptive Innovation?”  Harvard Business Review,December 2015, https://hbr.org/2015/12/what-is-disruptive-innovation.

Tyler Cowen, “Is Innovation Over? The Case against Pessimism,” Foreign Affairs , March/April 2016, https://www.foreignaffairs.com/reviews/review-essay/2016-02-15/innovation-over .

Swati Chaturvedi, “So What Exactly is ‘Deep Technology’?” LinkedIn , July 28, 2015, https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/so-what-exactly-deep-technology-swati-chaturvedi .

Mike Cushing, “Moonshot Projects – Innovation or Wishful Thinking?” Enterprise Innovation , http://www.enterpriseinnovation.com/articles/moonshot-projects-innovation-or-wishful-thinking .

Vinod Khosla, “We Need Large Innovations,” Medium , January 1, 2018, https://medium.com/@vkhosla/we-need-large-innovations-58e3eaaf8138 .

Josh Gans, The Disruption Dilemma (MIT Press, 2016), https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/disruption-dilemma .

Mark P. Mills, “Making Technological Miracles,” The New Atlantis , (Spring 2017): 37-55, http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/making-technological-miracles .

Albert H. Segars, “Seven Technologies Remaking the World,” MIT Sloan Management Review, March 9, 2018, https://sloanreview.mit.edu/projects/seven-technologies-remaking-the-world .  

Adam Thierer, Permissionless Innovation: The Continuing Case for Comprehensive Technological Freedom , (Mercatus Center at George Mason University, 2016),   https://www.mercatus.org/publication/permissionless-innovation-continuing-case-comprehensive-technological-freedom

Adam Thierer and Trace Mitchell, “The Many Forms of Entrepreneurialism,” The Bridge , August 30, 2018, https://www.mercatus.org/bridge/commentary/many-forms-entrepreneurialism  

Adam Thierer, “Making the World Safe for More Moonshots,” The Bridge , February 5, 2018, https://www.mercatus.org/bridge/commentary/making-world-safe-more-moonshots

World Economic Forum , Deep Shift: Technology Tipping Points and Societal Impact (Geneva, Switzerland: September 2015), 3, http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GAC15_Technological_Tipping_Points_report_2015.pdf .

[first published at The Bridge on August 9, 2018]

What happens when technological innovation outpaces the ability of laws and regulations to keep up?

This phenomenon is known as “the pacing problem,” and it has profound ramifications for the governance of emerging technologies. Indeed, the pacing problem is becoming the great equalizer in debates over technological governance because it forces governments to rethink their approach to the regulation of many sectors and technologies.

The Innovation Cornucopia

Had Rip Van Winkle woken up his famous nap today, he’d be shocked by all the changes around him. At-home genetics tests, personal drones, driverless cars, lab-grown meats, and 3D-printed prosthetic limbs are just some of the amazing innovations that would boggle his mind. New devices and services are flying at us so rapidly that we sometimes forget that most did not even exist a short time ago. At this point, it feels like our smartphones have been in our lives forever, but even just a decade ago, very few of us had one. Likewise, plenty of people now regularly enjoy the benefits of the sharing economy, but ten years ago, Uber, Lyft, and Airbnb did not even exist. Most of the social networking platforms or online video and audio streaming services that we use today had not even been created 15 years ago. Back then, Netflix’s DVD mail subscription service seemed downright revolutionary.

With every innovation comes more questions about how the law should keep pace, or whether it even can. “There has always been a pacing problem,” observes Yale University bioethicist Wendell Wallach, author of  A Dangerous Master: How to Keep Technology from Slipping beyond Our Control. But what Wallach and many other scholars worry about today is that the pace of change has been kicked into overdrive, making it more difficult than ever for traditional legal schemes and regulatory mechanisms to stay relevant. Larry Downes refers to this as “The Law of Disruption.” In his 2009 book on this “law,” Downes showed how “technology changes exponentially, but social, economic, and legal systems change incrementally” and that this law was becoming “a simple but unavoidable principle of modern life.”

Moore’s Law Quickens the Pace

There are three primary reasons the pacing problem is such a force in our modern world. The root cause lies in the power of “combinatorial innovation,” which is driven by “Moore’s Law.”  The Information Revolution spawned a stunning array of new technological capabilities that build on top of one another in a symbiotic fashion. Think about the shared foundational elements of most modern inventions: microchips, sensors, digital code, big data, cloud computing, remote data storage, wireless networking and geolocation capabilities, machine-learning, cryptography, and more. Each of these underlying capabilities is becoming faster, cheaper, smaller, more powerful, and easier to find and use. Innovators are combining them as part of their ongoing search for new and better ways of doing things.

Moore’s Law powers these developments. Moore’s Law is the principle named after Intel co-founder Gordon E. Moore, who first observed in 1965 that “computing would dramatically increase in power, and decrease in relative cost, at an exponential pace” in coming years. Indeed, it has continued to do so for the past half century for many information technologies. A recent Technology Policy Institute white paper noted that “data transit prices fell from about $1200 per Mbps in 1998 to $0.02 per Mbps in 2017.”

These forces are now revolutionizing other sectors as “software eats the world” and innovators utilize these new technologies to address nearly every conceivable need and want. In the field of genetics, the biological equivalent of Moore’s Law is known as the “Carlson curve.” The past two decades have seen the cost of sequencing a human genome fall from over $100 million to under $1,000, a rate nearly three times faster than Moore’s Law.

What the Public Wants, the Public Gets

The second reason the pacing problem is accelerating is that the public wants it to! It is true that many people say they are uneasy with many emerging technologies. When new gadgets and services first gain attention, a “technopanic” attitude often ensues. That is unsurprising because, as others have noted, “fear has gone hand in hand with technological advancements throughout history.”

But societal attitudes toward technological change often shift rapidly. They do so even faster today as citizens quickly assimilate new tools into their daily lives and then expect that even more and better tools will be delivered tomorrow. As more people begin to realize how new technologies improve our lives in meaningful ways, it becomes extremely hard for policymakers to take those innovations away or even tell us not to expect better ones. This relationship between technological change and societal expectations acts as an extraordinarily powerful check on the ability of regulators to “roll back the clock” on innovative activities.

Broken Government Exacerbates the Problem

Finally, the pacing problem is becoming more acute because “demosclerosis” and “kludgeocracy” have taken hold within American government. Jonathan Rauch coined the term demosclerosis in his 1999 book Government’s End: Why Washington Stopped Working to describe “government’s progressive loss of the ability to adapt.” “[A]s layer is dropped upon layer,” he argued, “the accumulated mass becomes gradually less rational and less flexible.”

Instead of cleaning up old legalistic messes and adapting to the times, government solutions are more often clumsily cobbled together to patch past problems and create temporary solutions. Steven Teles refers to this as kludgeocracy. “The complexity and incoherence of our government often make it difficult for us to understand just what that government is doing,” Teles says. Kludgeocracy creates serious costs for individual citizens, governments themselves, and to our democratic systems more generally, he argues. Taken together, demosclerosis and kludgeocracy breed highly dysfunctional governments and make it even easier for the pacing problem to speed ahead.

Can Policymakers Adapt?

Regulators are not oblivious to the challenges posed by the pacing problem. “I have said more than once that innovation moves at the speed of imagination and that government has traditionally moved at, well, the speed of government,” remarked Michael Heurta, head of the Federal Aviation Administration, in a 2016 speech regarding drones. Shortly after Huerta made those comments, the Department of Transportation released a report on the regulation of driverless car technology which noted that “The speed with which [driverless cars] are advancing, combined with the complexity and novelty of these innovations, threatens to outpace the Agency’s conventional regulatory processes and capabilities.”

Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulators have increasingly referenced the pacing problem when discussing the challenge of keeping up with new medical innovations.  The New York Times recently asked Dr. Peter Marks, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, how the agency planned to deal with hundreds of “rogue” stem cell treatment clinics. “There are hundreds and hundreds of these clinics,” he said. “We simply don’t have the bandwidth to go after all of them at once.”

The pacing problem has even crept into antitrust enforcement. The US Department of Justice (DOJ) sought to break up Microsoft in the late 1990s, but as the legal proceedings dragged on through the early 2000’s, the market moved and made the DOJ’s case moot. Google Chrome and Mozilla Firefox emerged as legitimate competitors to Microsoft’s Internet Explorer without regulatory remedy. In the end, Microsoft reached a settlement with the DOJ that fell far short of the government’s original ambitions to bust up the firm, all because the market moved at a pace much faster than the regulator’s pace. More recent antitrust action in the US and EU also suffer from the pacing problem. Multi-year antitrust investigations reach conclusions that don’t reflect market trends in the intervening years and offer remedies that may be “too little, too late,” especially in the information technology sector.

Is the Pacing Problem Really the Pacing Benefit?

What should policymakers do in light of these new challenges? The extremes will not work. Lawmakers or regulators cannot simply double-down on the lethargic and unwieldy technocratic regulatory schemes of the past. Command-and-control tactics are not going to be effective in an age when technology evolves in a quicksilver fashion. In a world where “innovation arbitrage” is easier than ever, repressive crackdowns on new tech will often backfire. Evasive entrepreneurs will often move to those jurisdictions where their innovative acts are treated more hospitably. That, too, exacerbates the pacing problem.

From the perspective of many innovation advocates, this will make it seem like the pacing problem is more like the pacing  benefit. Generally speaking, that intuition is sound. Innovation is the fundamental driver of human betterment. We need more “moonshots”—“radical but feasible solutions to important problems”—to ensure that current and future generations enjoy more choices, greater mobility, increased wealth, better health, and longer lifespans. We don’t want archaic regulatory schemes and regimes holding that back.

Constructive Solutions

But policymakers will not abandon oversight of emerging technologies altogether, nor should we want them to. The potential harms associated with some new technologies could be significant enough that a certain degree of regulatory oversight will be required. But the pacing problem means the old, inflexible, top-down approaches will need to be discarded and that the administrative state itself must become more entrepreneurial.

In a forthcoming law review article entitled, “Soft Law for Hard Problems: The Governance of Emerging Technologies in an Uncertain Future,” Jennifer Skees, Ryan Hagemann, and I discuss how “soft law” mechanisms—multi-stakeholder processes, industry best practices and standards, workshops, agency guidance, and more—can help fill the governance gap as the pacing problem accelerates. Many agencies are already tapping soft law tools to help guide the development of new technologies such as driverless cars, drones, the Internet of Things, mobile medical applications, artificial intelligence, and others. In fact, we argue that soft law has already become the dominant form of technological governance for emerging tech in the US.

Critics might decry soft law as either being too lax (and open to private abuse) or too informal (and open to government abuse), but the pacing problem makes both arguments increasingly irrelevant. We need a new governance vision for the technological age. Our new governance systems must be more flexible and adaptive than the heavy-handed regulatory regimes that preceded them.

___________________

Related Reading

• Adam Thierer, “Evasive Entrepreneurialism and Technological Civil Disobedience: Basic Definitions,” The Bridge, July 20, 2018.
• Adam Thierer, “Making the World Safe for More Moonshots,” The Bridge, February 5, 2018.
• Jennifer Skees, “Do You Need a License to Innovate?” The Bridge, June 29, 2018,
• Andrea O’Sullivan & Adam Thierer, “3D Printers, Evasive Entrepreneurs and the Future of Tech Regulation,” The Bridge, August 1, 2018.
• Adam Thierer, “Does “Permissionless Innovation” Even Mean Anything?” Technology Liberation Front, May 18, 2017.
• Adam Thierer, “Wendell Wallach on the Challenge of Engineering Better Technology Ethics,” Technology Liberation Front,  April 20, 2016,

Sherwin Siy, Vice President of Legal Affairs at Public Knowledge, discusses emerging issues in digital copyright policy. He addresses the Department of Commerce’s recent green paper on digital copyright, including the need to reform copyright laws in light of new technologies. This podcast also covers the DMCA, online streaming, piracy, cell phone unlocking, fair use recognition, digital ownership, and what we’ve learned about copyright policy from the SOPA debate.

Download

Related Links

• Sherwin Siy, Public Knowledge
• What the DMCA cell phone unlock ban means to you, Reardon
• Why The Library Of Congress Has A Lock On Your Phone, Henn

Gabriella Coleman, the Wolfe Chair in Scientific and Technological Literacy in the Art History and Communication Studies Department at McGill University, discusses her new book, “Coding Freedom: The Ethics and Aesthetics of Hacking,” which has been released under a Creative Commons license.

Coleman, whose background is in anthropology, shares the results of her cultural survey of free and open source software (F/OSS) developers, the majority of whom, she found, shared similar backgrounds and world views. Among these similarities were an early introduction to technology and a passion for civil liberties, specifically free speech.

Coleman explains the ethics behind hackers’ devotion to F/OSS, the social codes that guide its production, and the political struggles through which hackers question the scope and direction of copyright and patent law. She also discusses the tension between the overtly political free software movement and the “politically agnostic” open source movement, as well as what the future of the hacker movement may look like.

Download

Related Links

• Coding Freedom: The Ethics and Aesthetics of Hacking, by Coleman
• Hacker Politics and Publics. Public Culture, by Coleman
• Hackers. The Johns Hopkins Encyclopedia of Digital Textuality. Forthcoming, 2012, by Coleman

Over at Convergences I consider the writings of Polk Wagner, beginning thus:

Polk Wagner has written some worthwhile papers on law and technology. I heartily recommend those that support points on which we agree, such as T he Perfect Storm: Intellectual Property and Public Values, 73 Fordham L. Rev. 1107. 2005. This paper notes how the de facto balance between copyright and fair use has shifted over the years, and that in key respects copyright has lost, not gained, ground, and also noting that fair use is far from being the only key conceptual or practical limit on copyright. But his paper “On Software Regulation,” is a bit muddled.  It may not be Professor Wagner’s fault, for the article was written following up on the “code is law” meme, which is at bottom a rather unhelpful observation. If “code is law” then so is everything else—the laws of physics, architecture, road design, engineering, biology, the laws of physics, religion, education, insect swarming patterns, families, and so on. All of these things affect human behavior and shape and regularize society. My complaint with “code is law” is not that is not true, in a sense—but that it is very unhelpful in understanding any real problem. Many institutions and systems affect human behavior, but they do so in different ways. It is understanding the differences that will be the key to resolving any serious human problems. Consistent with this, Professor Wagner begins by noting that “code is law” tells us nothing about how code and law relate. But he restates the view that software code constitutes regulation. Software “regulates” in the sense that it makes human conduct more regular and affects the public. But is it really much like “regulation” enacted through a legal process by Congress or the FCC, or even like law described by courts? Certainly not. But the paper’s description of the differences is oddly incomplete.

For the remainder, visit Convergences here.

FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski suggested at an FCC field hearing this week that the federal government might create its own “version of iTunes.” Multichannel News reports:

The chairman asked panelists to think about the value of a clearinghouse where best practices could be shared. He suggested that might be a way to spur the spin-off of public-sector apps from private sector initiatives and to prevent reinventing the wheel, rather than tapping into what is already being done. There is not a lot of shared info out there, he said.

If all we’re talking about is a clearinghouse that provides easy access to apps for government-developed apps, Google Code or SourceForge may be a better model than iTunes—though perhaps without the instant name recognition by ordinary consumers. Like SourceForge, Google Code allows hosting and management of open source projects, including Google’s own products. iTunes, by contrast, essentially offers consumers finished apps. Also, iTunes is a stand-alone piece of software, of which the Apps Store is  just one part, while I can’t imagine why Genachowski’s “store” need be anything more than a website.

Whatever the analogy, such a “store” could well be a valuable tool for sharing the benefits of software development by government employees, both with the private sector and among federal agencies as well as state, local and even foreign governments. But what, exactly, Genachowski had in mind for the store remains awfully vague: Multichannel News mentions, as examples, “applications that do everything from monitoring heart rates and blood sugar to checking for greenhouse gas levels.” If the idea ever goes anywhere, it should be based on two principles:

1. All apps should be open source and available to all users to use as they see fit.
2. The store should be limited to apps developed by government employees to meet the needs of government agencies.

These principles would maximize the store’s value in making taxpayer-funded software development easily accessible. As a moral matter, it might be appropriate to limit access to U.S. taxpayers, but why bother? Attempting to authenticate users would add unnecessary complexity and raise privacy concerns needlessly: Any app we wouldn’t want to fall into the hands of, say, North Korea, simply shouldn’t be in the store at all. Sharing apps internationally would expand the potential developer base while helping to public and private sectors alike in the U.S. and abroad. If a school district in Sheboygan, WI or a village in Sudan can benefit from an app rather than starting over, so much the better for everyone!

The second requirement, combined with the open source requirement, would also help to reduce direct competition between government coders and private coders. A clearinghouse for apps government truly needs to develop on its own makes a great deal of sense: If we’re already paying a government-employee to write an app so his agency can function more effectively, that  should be shared. But a broader “public option for software” could well harm both for-profit and not-for-profit development of software by the private sector. Unless its mandate were carefully constrained by statute, such a clearinghouse could easily grow into a “public works” program for the digital age, with pressure rising for government to fund software development for as a “public good.” How to draw that line would be difficult, and it’s probably not a task that should be left to the FCC; Congress should address the question.

Keeping government-developed apps open source would allow the private sector to benefit from public sector development, rather than competing with it. But if a private company wants to incorporate a government-developed app into proprietary software, they should be free to do so. The government shouldn’t be prejudicing the private sector’s choice of business models by requiring that its apps stay open source. Nor should the government prevent commercialization of software that springs from federally funded research, as currently permitted by the Bayh-Dole Act.

Perhaps the greatest danger of such a program is that it could become a vehicle for subtle government propaganda—in violation of existing laws against using taxpayer dollars to distribute propaganda inside the U.S. The iTunes store analogy is particularly inapt (no pun intended) because iTunes, of course, provides pure content as well as apps. But apps themselves could come with a particular slant because it is increasingly difficult to distinguish “pure content” from “pure apps.” This danger could be particularly acute if the store turned into a “jobs program,” which would be inherently political, just as FDR’s New Dealers used programs like the WPA Arts Project to advance a certain ideological message, and New Deal programs in general as a way of rewarding supporters and punishing opponents. We certainly wouldn’t a Republican administration, say, trying to take revenge on Google for its support of Democrats by investing public money into direct competitors to Google’s software. Nor would we want to funding for software development to become just another dimension for the culture wars.

With those important caveats, this could be a great idea.

As Berin mentioned last week, we have a new paper out on proposals to expand the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) of 1998.   We generically refer to those COPPA-expansion efforts as “COPPA 2.0.” Hence, the title of our paper: “COPPA 2.0: The New Battle over Privacy, Age Verification, Online Safety & Free Speech.”  To recap what Berin already noted, in the name of improving online child safety, some legislators and state attorneys general (AGs) are advocating the expansion of COPPA’s “verifiable parental consent” model of age verification before certain sites or services may collect, or enable the sharing of, personal information for children.

Unlike “COPPA 1.0,” however, which only applied to children under the age of 13, “COPPA 2.0” would apply to all minors up to age 17.  Moreover, the range of sites covered by the new law would generally be expanded to include just about any site or service with social networking functionality.

Since Berin has already summarized our general concerns with efforts to expand COPPA’s “verifiable parental consent” online age verification system to cover more online users and sites, I thought I would focus here on what I believe will be the most controversial (and important) part of our paper — our discussion about how COPPA 2.0 affects the speech rights of both adults and adolescents.

Remember COPA?

To understand why COPPA expansion will raise serious First Amendment issues, we first need to step back and recall the legal battle over the Children’s Online Protection Act (COPA), another 1998 law sometimes confused with COPPA.  Both COPPA and COPA rest on a stratification of users by age, but the approach of the two laws is very different: While COPPA requires age verification if content is “directed at” minors under age 13, COPA would have required that all website operators restrict access to material deemed “harmful to minors” by minors under the age of 17 and therefore requires age verification of all users who attempt to access such content (in order to identify minors). COPPA is focused on certain kinds of potentially harmful contacts while COPA is focused on potentially harmful content.

But by expanding the age range of COPPA to include adolescents, COPPA 2.0 proposals essentially converge with COPA, reaching the same practical consequence: age verification mandates for large numbers of adults as users (not as parents). Only the scope of sites covered by the laws is different: under COPA, sites deemed “harmful to minors,” and, under COPPA 2.0, adolescent-oriented or certain social networking sites. Thus, to the extent that COPPA 2.0 proposals require age verification of adults, they would be subject to constitutional attacks similar to those against COPA.  But COPPA 2.0 proposals would also burden the rights of adults to communicate with adolescents and the free speech rights of adolescents.

Finally, the fact that COPPA (like COPA) applies only to commercial sites would do little to protect it from constitutional attack, because in a world of user-generated content, the commercial nature of a site has little to do with the commercial/non-commercial nature of the speech carried on it. For example, obviously commercial sites like MySpace and Facebook serve as platforms for a wide variety of not-for-profit and political communications.

How COPPA 2.0 Would Impact the Free Speech Rights of Adults

After a decade-long court battle over the constitutionality of COPA, the U.S. Supreme Court in January 2009 rejected the government’s latest request to revive the law, meaning it is likely dead. Three of the key reasons the courts struck down COPA would also apply to COPPA 2.0 proposals.

(1) First, like COPA, COPPA  2.0 would raise burden the speech rights of adults to access information subject to age verification requirements, both by making speech more difficult and by stigmatizing it.  In 2003, the Third Circuit noted that age verification requirements “will likely deter many adults from accessing restricted content, because many Web users are simply unwilling to provide identification information in order to gain access to content, especially where the information they wish to access is sensitive or controversial.” In 2008, in striking down COPA for the third and final time, the Third Circuit approvingly quoted the district court, which had noted that part of the reason age verification requirements deterred users from accessing restricted content was “because Internet users are concerned about security on the Internet and because Internet users are afraid of fraud and identity theft on the Internet.” The district court had held that: “Requiring users to go through an age verification process would lead to a distinct loss of personal privacy” by threatening their anonymity.

By imposing broad age verification requirements, COPPA 2.0 would restrict the rights of adults to send and receive information anonymously just as COPA did. If anything, the speech burdened by COPPA 2.0 deserves more protection, not less, than the speech burdened by COPA: Where COPA merely burdened access to content deemed “harmful to minors” (viz., pornography), COPPA 2.0 would burden access to material by adults as well as minors not because that material is harmful or obscene but merely because it is “directed at” minors! Thus, the content covered by COPPA 2.0 proposals could include not merely pornography, but communications about political nature, which deserved the highest degree of First Amendment protection.

(2) Second, like COPA, COPPA expansion threatens the speech rights of website operators. The necessary corollary of blocking adults from accessing certain content anonymously — and thereby deterring some users from accessing that content — is that COPPA 2.0, like COPA, would necessarily reduce the audience size of websites subject to age verification mandates. Furthermore, such mandates would encourage websites to self-censor themselves to avoid offering content they fear could be considered “directed at” adolescents because doing so might subject them to an age verification mandate — or to legal liability if they fail to implement age verification. The substantial cost of age verification could significantly impact, if not make impossible, the business models of many personal information-collecting (PI) sites, which generally do not charge for content and rely instead on advertising revenues. The Third Circuit cited all of these burdens on the free speech rights of website operators in striking down COPA.

(3) Third, less restrictive alternatives are available to COPPA 2.0, just as they were for COPA.

The Third Circuit drew on the Supreme Court’s 2004 decision striking down COPA on the grounds that “blocking and filtering software is an alternative that is less restrictive than COPA, and, in addition, likely more effective as a means of restricting children’s access to materials harmful to them.” Similarly, parental control software already empowers parents to restrict their kids’ access to PI-collecting sites. (It’s particularly easy for parents to restrict access to the leading social networking sites that seem to be driving so much of the push for COPPA 2.0, so that their kids.)

Thus, the free speech rights burdened COPPA 2.0 proposals are at least as important as those burdened by COPA, and blocking software already empowers parents to restrict their kids’ access to PI-collecting sites, just as it allows parents to restrict access to pornography. Of course, if COPPA 2.0 laws were actually enacted and subject to legal challenge, the outcome of the case would depend largely on the level of constitutional scrutiny involved. COPPA 2.0 advocates might argue that, whatever the rights at stake, a lower level of constitutional scrutiny should apply because COPPA 2.0 does not target a special category of content. If true, this could mean that, although age verification mandates to restrict access to “harmful” material are unconstitutional, far more sweeping mandates restricting access to non-harmful information could be constitutional. Such inconsistency is indeed a perverse consequence of the fact that our First Amendment jurisprudence focuses not on the rights at stake, but on whether a regulation is “content-neutral” in deciding what level of scrutiny to apply—which, in turn, often determines the outcome of the case. But in this case, COPPA 2.0 proposals likely would be subject to strict scrutiny to the extent that they are, like COPA, focused on a certain category of content: that “directed at” adolescents (rather than “harmful to minors”).

Legislators who attempt to escape strict scrutiny by defining the scope of their bill not by its targeted audience but by reference to specific functional capabilities (in the definition of “social networking site”) will likely find that a court will see through such window-dressing: If they recognize that such bills are nonetheless aimed at a certain category of adolescent-oriented content, they will apply strict scrutiny anyway. But even under intermediate scrutiny, COPPA 2.0 proposals would be subject to serious attack.

Minors Have Speech Rights, Too!

In addition, in COPPA 2.0 approaches, the government would restrict the ability of adolescents to access content, not because it could be harmful to them or because it is obscene, but merely because it is “directed to” them. While the First Amendment rights of minors may not be on par with those of adults, adolescents do have the right to access certain types of information and express themselves in certain ways. The Supreme Court has held (in Planned Parenthood of Cent. Mo. v. Danforth) that “constitutional rights do not mature and come into being magically only when one attains the state-defined age of majority.” It remains unclear how an expanded COPPA model might interfere with the First Amendment rights of adolescents, but it is clear that privacy and speech rights would come into conflict under COPPA 2.0, as they do in other contexts.

For example, how might the parental-consent based model limit the ability of adolescents to obtain information about “safer sex” or how to deal with trauma, depression, family abuse, or addiction. Would an abusive father authorize a teen to visit a website about how to report child abuse? Would a parent of an adolescent struggling with their sexual identity let their kid participate in a self-help social networking page for gay and lesbian youth? What rights are at play here and how do we reconcile them?

Maintaining the ability of kids to participate online interactions goes beyond content that most people would recognize as “serious”—from the perspective of both First Amendment values and the education of children. As a recent MacArthur Foundation study of the online youth Internet use concluded:

Contrary to adult perceptions, while hanging out online, youth are picking up basic social and technological skills they need to fully participate in contemporary society. Erecting barriers to participation deprives teens of access to these forms of learning. Participation in the digital age means more than being able to access “serious” online information and culture.

It was at least in part in recognition of such difficult First Amendment questions that Congress removed the requirement in the initial legislative draft of COPPA that would have required PI-based sites to “use reasonable efforts to provide the parents with notice and an opportunity to prevent or curtail the collection or use of personal information collected from children over the age of 12 and under the age of 17.”

Even if parents have an absolute right to block their adolescents’ access to such data, they can already exercise that right by applying strict controls on the computers in their home. COPPA 2.0 proposals go well beyond recognizing this right by setting the default to “parental consent required” for adolescents to access a wide range of content—meaning that parents must “opt-in” on behalf of their children before their children can participate in PI-collecting sites. This, in turn, burdens the ability of adolescents to communicate, because their parents might censor (rightly or wrongly) certain information, or simply fail to understand the technologies involved or to be actively engaged. But whatever the free speech rights of adolescents, if anyone should be interfering with those rights, it should be their parents — not the government.

Some parents may object that, however effective parental control software may be in the home, it does not allow parents to control what their kids’ access outside the home. This argument is understandable on some level, but in the end, it amounts to a demand that roadblocks be put up everywhere for the sake of particularly sensitive parents at the expense of everyone else in society, including potentially huge numbers of adult users — and of online anonymity in general.

But Illinois’s COPPA 2.0 proposal goes even further, not merely expanding COPPA to cover a particular variety of social networking sites, but requiring that such sites “allow the parent or guardian of the minor unrestricted access to the profile webpage of the minor at all times.” Congress considered just such a parental access mandate in the initial draft of COPPA legislation back in 1998, but ultimately removed it from the final version of the legislation, apparently because even some of COPPA’s supporters worried, given the bill’s initial application to the 13-16 age bracket, that “The establishment of a parental right to access all personal information about a teenager may intrude on older minors’ privacy, rather than protect.”

What about Communication between Adolescents & Adults?

Finally, COPPA 2.0 could infringe on the free speech rights of adults to communicate with adolescents online by driving PI-collecting sites to segregate users by age or to attempt to block access by adolescents. The vast majority of adult-minor interactions online are not of a harassing or predatory nature—indeed, they generally involve adults looking to help or assist minors in various ways. As the MacArthur Foundation study cited above concluded:

In contexts of peer-based learning, adults … have an important role to play, though it is not the conventionally authoritative one. In friendship-driven practices, direct adult participation is often unwelcome, but in interest-driven groups we found a much stronger role for more experiences participants to play. Unlike instructors in formal educational settings, however, these adults are passionate hobbyists and creators, and youth see them as experienced peers, not as people who have authority over them. These adults exert tremendous influence in setting communal norms and what educators might call “learning goals,” though they do not have direct authority over newcomers.

A substantial portion of those interactions involve parents talking to their own kids, older and younger siblings communicating with one another, teachers and mentors talking to their students, or even co-workers of different ages communicating. Even when adult-minor communications involve complete strangers, there is typically a socially-beneficial purpose. Think of two people — one an adult and one a minor — debating politics on a discussion board, or creating a Wikipedia entry together. What about a presidential campaign website that involves millions of volunteers of all ages communicating and collaborating to a common purpose? There are countless other examples. How would such interactions be affected by COPPA 2.0? Restricting such interactions would raise profound First Amendment concerns about freedom of speech as well as of association.

In any First Amendment analysis, a court must consider not only the free speech rights at stake and the availability of less restrictive alternatives to regulation, but the governmental interest being advanced. Again, neither COPPA nor the COPPA 2.0 proposals discussed herein (e.g., the New Jersey and Illinois proposals) requires exclusion of older users from a website, nor directly governs the sharing of personal information among users (where that sharing does not also constitute collection by the site itself). But separation of adolescents from adults is likely to be an indirect effect of COPPA 2.0 requirements—as COPPA 2.0 advocates probably realize—because, once PI-collecting sites are required to age-verify users, they will face reputational, political and potentially legal pressure to make interactions between adolescents and children more difficult in the name of “child safety.” More subtly, if PI-collecting site operators have an incentive to avoid being considered “directed at” adolescents, they will also have an incentive to discourage adolescent participation on their site—which achieves a similar result.

Here, one must further ask if attempting to quarantine children from adults (however indirectly) actually advances, on net, a strong governmental interest in child protection. Such a quarantine is unlikely to stop adults with truly nefarious intentions from communicating with minors, as systems designed to exclude participation by adults in a “kids-only” or “adolescents-only” area can be easily circumvented. Given the lack of strong identity records for minors, it’s much easier for an adult to pretend to be a minor than vice versa. The effect of age stratification on truly bad actors is likely to be marginal at best—or harmful at worst: Building walls around adolescents through age-verification might actually make it easier for predators to target teens, since a predator who gains access to a supposedly teen-only site will be less likely to be exposed as a predator by targeting an adult they think is a teen. So for the sake of marginal (if any) gains in child protection, would we not be excluding beneficial interaction between adults and minors?

To hear some of the advocates of COPPA 2.0 talk about how teens currently behave online, one might think that online environments in which adolescents were left to their own devices—imagine a “Teen MySpace” for the 13-17 crowd, walled off from the rest of MySpace—would be far worse, perhaps an online version of Lord of the Flies. These concerns are clearly exaggerated: The critics frequently complain about “the way kids talk to each other these days” while looking at their own past adolescent banter with rose-colored lenses. What is clear is that adolescents (and young adults) behave better in online environments where adults are present, too. Perhaps the best demonstration of this fact has been the uproar from adolescents and young adults that has accompanied Facebook’s explosive growth in popularity among older users in recent months. Many kids hate the idea of adults joining Facebook precisely because the presence of adults encourages kids to “self-regulate” by exercising better judgment and following better netiquette.

Anne Collier, founder and executive director of the child safety advocacy organization Net Family News, Inc. and editor of NetFamilyNews.org and ConnectSafely.org, suggests that the push for “segregation” by age (e.g., creating a teen-only version of Second Life) for safety’s sake is “losing steam” because:

it’s a response to the predator panic teens and parents have been subjected to in U.S. society, not to the realities of youth on the social Web. What nearly a decade of peer-reviewed academic research shows is that peer-to-peer behavior is the online risk that affects many more youth, the vast majority of online kids who are not already at-risk youth offline. Segregating teens from adults online doesn’t address harassment, defamation, imposter profiles, cyberbullying, etc. It may help keep online predators away from kids (even though online predation, or abuse resulting from online communication, constitutes only 1% of overall child sexual exploitation…), which is a great outcome, but it’s not enough unless all that parents are worried about is predators.

Collier discusses the particularly acute problem of “actual or perceived sexual orientation and gender expression,” which the Salt Lake Tribune has noted are “two of the top three reasons secondary school students said their peers were most often bullied at school.” This kind of harassment recently attracted widespread public attention after two 11-year-old boys committed suicide after experiencing anti-gay harassment and bullying at school. Nationwide, “Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and questioning youth are up to four times more likely to attempt suicide than their heterosexual peers.” This child safety risk is painfully real, with anti-gay harassment being only its most obvious form. But “segregating” teens from adults seems likely to aggravate this problem by removing adults from the mix as a potential source of discipline.

Of course, adults play a critical role in disciplining interaction among the 0-12 age bracket, but not as direct participants in on-site interaction. Again, how many adults actually want to use Club Penguin? Instead, parents can supervise what their kids do online through parental control software. Parents could, of course, use that same software to monitor what their adolescent kids do, too. But as kids get older, most parents realize that the training wheels have to come off at some point. Few parents will want to spy on their 17-year old until the day before the kid starts college (or enlists in the military or gets married). But most parents probably would prefer that, if their kids are interacting in an online environment, they think twice about what they do and say online. It is by no means clear that restricting online interaction between teens and adults will serve that end.