“Instead, the country should have a national debate on security and identification that leads to a thoughtful plan that protects privacy . . . .”
August 2007
Net neutrality regulation has often been described as a “solution without a problem.” While supporters produce hypothetical concerns like little chocolate doughnuts, real-life examples of abuse have been virtually impossible to find. That probably explains the excitement in the pro-regulation camp over an incident last week involving the unlikely combination of AT&T and Pearl Jam.
It all started one week ago Sunday, during the annual Lollapalooza music festival in Chicago. Pearl Jam was singing the ancient hit “Another Brick in the Wall,” updating it to include some not-so-complimentary verses about George Bush. So far so good. But, as it turns out, some of the Bush references were bleeped out of the webcast of the event being shown on AT&T’s “Blue Room” website (attblueroom.com).
The incident has been seized on by pro-regulation advocates as their long-sought “smoking gun” on the need for neutrality rules. “Over the weekend, AT&T gave us a glimpse of their plans for the Web when they censored a Pearl Jam performance that didn’t meet their standard of “Internet freedom,” reported SavetheInternet.com. “See what the Internet would look like without Net Neutrality,” advertised Free Press.
Pearl Jam itself declared itself a political victim, issuing a statement stating that: “What happened to us this weekend was about something much bigger than the censorship of a rock band.”
Actually, the incident was about something much smaller than that.
Radley points to this story about a Minnesota ruling that the state must give a man convicted of drunk driving access to the source code of the breathalyzer used in the case against him. Radley gets it exactly right:
This is a great ruling, and needs to happen more often. Not just for breath machines, but for red light and speed cameras, too.
The companies that make these machines have in the past refused to turn over source code, which in some instances has led to mass acquittals.
You’re supposed to have the right to confront your accuser in this country. If these machines are going to be the only thing standing between an innocent person and the wreckage that comes with a DWI conviction, defendants have every right to examine their margin for error, how they process breath samples, and whether they’re tamper-proof.
Quite so. I also think the “trade secret” argument is a bit of a red herring:
This isn’t the first time breathalyzer source code has been the subject of legal scrutiny. A Florida court ruled two years ago that police can’t use electronic breathalyzers as courtroom evidence against drivers unless the source code is disclosed. Other alleged drunk drivers have had charges thrown out because CMI refuses to reveal the Intoxilyzer source code.
If a state is contractually prohibited from allowing a defendant from examining all relevant evidence in a criminal case—and that’s what the source code is—then the state should have to choose between re-negotiating the contract or dropping the case. Any trade secret issues are and should be the problem of the prosecutors, not the defendant.
Over at Ars, Ken FIsher reports on Google’s decision to drop its online video store:
Google contacted customers late last week to tell them that the video store was closing. The e-mail declared, “In an effort to improve all Google services, we will no longer offer the ability to buy or rent videos for download from Google Video, ending the DTO/DTR (download-to-own/rent) program. This change will be effective August 15, 2007.”
The message also announced that Google Checkout would issue credits in an amount equal to what those customers had spent at the Google Video store. Why the quasi-refunds? The kicker: “After August 15, 2007, you will no longer be able to view your purchased or rented videos.”
See, after Google takes its video store down, its Internet-based DRM system will no longer function. This means that customers who have built video collections with Google Video offerings will find that their purchases no longer work. This is one of the major flaws in any DRM system based on secrets and centralized authorities: when these DRM data warehouses shut down, the DRM stops working, and consumers are left with useless junk.
Today, the NY Times reports on a rather shocking surveillance program that China has in the works. The program is starting in the city of Shenzhen, where people will be required to register for residency cards containing a computer chip. According to the Times, “Data on the chip will include not just the citizen’s name and address but also work history, educational background, religion, ethnicity, police record, medical insurance status and landlord’s phone number. Even personal reproductive history will be included, for enforcement of China’s controversial “one child” policy. Plans are being studied to add credit histories, subway travel payments and small purchases charged to the card.”
Wow. George Orwell had nothing on these guys.
We’ll see if I agree with Larry Lessig’s ultimate concluions regarding problems of corruption, but he has certainly started things out on the right foot, with a wiki seeking examples for study. Here are my contributions, under the heading of “The Market”:
* Dan Morgan, Sarah Cohen and Gilbert M. Gaul, Dairy Industry Crushed Innovator Who Bested Price-Control System. ”’Washington Post”’, December 10, 2006
* Eric M. Jackson, The PayPal Wars: Battles with eBay, the Media, the Mafia, and the Rest of Planet Earth, World Ahead Publishing, 2004.
* The incestuous relationship between real estate developers and local government officials is certainly an example of corruption. No specific work to cite, but Kelo v. New London is obviously a good example of the interests of ordinary citizens being shoved aside for the interests of large corporations.
* Tim Carney, The Big Ripoff: How Big Business and Big Government Steal Your Money has some good examples of corruption.
And under “history”:
* Gabriel Kolko, Railroads and Regulation, 1877-1916 Greenwood Pub Group; New Ed edition (January 1977). An excellent history of the origins of the Interstate Commerce Commission and its corruption by railroad interests. Ralph Nader produced a report documenting the outcome in 1970, which was reported on by Time magazine.
What else should be on the list? Add your suggestions in a comment here and then head over to Lessig’s wiki for more details. Be sure to read the directions at the top.
Fred von Lohmann explains why the Electronic Frontier Foundation has taken up the case of a used music merchant who’s been targeted by UMG for selling CDs marked “promotional use only.” At stake is the first sale doctrine: the principle that once a copyright holder sells or gives away a copy of a copyrighted work, that the new owner has the right to do as he pleases with that copy, including re-selling it, and that printing “not for resale” on the CD doesn’t change the equation.
Sounds like a worthwhile case. Legal documents are here.
If you’re following the ongoing debate over efforts to mandate a la carte regulation for cable and satellite TV, there’s an interesting piece in yesterday’s Wall Street Journal entitled, “TV Channels Move to Web, Think Outside the Cable Box” [subscription only] that deserves your attention. Author Bobby White argues that “The Internet is offering a new outlet for voices — including those of ethnic minorities — that weren’t heard from as much under old media.” He highlights how the Black Family Channel and some other new networks that haven’t found a home on the cable dial have decided to give it a go online instead:
Across the cable TV industry, other independent channels are also turning away from TV to the Internet. The Lime Channel, which focuses on healthy living, pulled out of cable last year and now offers its programming online and as video on demand. The Employment and Career Channel, which began streaming online in 2002, has junked its attempts to be a cable TV channel to be an online-only outlet. Others, like the Horror Channel and HorseTV (which revolves around equestrian events), have also opted to go online.
The shift illustrates how the Internet is offering a second chance to certain segments of old media. Web-based TV is now becoming a more viable business route, and Internet video is exploding. Running an online-only video channel, which doesn’t require expensive cameras and broadcasting gear, is cheaper than operating a cable TV channel. While starting a new cable channel today takes an initial investment of $100 million to $200 million, a broadband channel needs just $5 million to $10 million to get going, says Boston-based research firm Broadband Directions.
A funny comment in response to my NBC debates story:
FOX news has every right to own it’s debates because they are fictional and for entertainment purposes only. If you want non-fiction, try a legitimate news source.
Over at Ars I report on NBC’s decision to “allow” bloggers to make use of debate footage:
skeptics might question whether the networks had the right to restrict use of the footage in the first place. Under the principle of fair use, copyright law permits the reproduction of excerpts of copyrighted material for criticism, comment, and news reporting. Although determining the precise scope of fair use is never an exact science, showing a clip from a presidential debate is about as clear-cut an example as we can imagine. In most cases, bloggers will be legally entitled to use debate excerpts without paying any attention to NBC’s license restrictions.
Nevertheless, NBC’s announcement (and ABC’s and CNN’s announcements before them) will give rank-and-file bloggers peace of mind. That’s important because in the past, the networks have sometimes been trigger-happy in sending takedown notices. Even if the law was on their side, some bloggers might have been reluctant to take the risk of prolonged copyright litigation.
The Technology Liberation Front is the tech policy blog dedicated to keeping politicians' hands off the 'net and everything else related to technology.