Keeping politicians' hands off the Net & everything else related to technology
The concept of deep packet inspection has come up a couple of times here at the Progress & Freedom Foundation’s Aspen Summit. And I’ve been interested to find people in other fora talking about deep packet inspection in the way they used to talk about cookies: “You’ll get to like once you understand what it is.”
I’m not so sure. Here’s a sample discussion of the issue among us TLFers, conducted on Twitter yesterday. (I’ve reorganized the tweets, so you can read from top to bottom.)
So I’m enjoying the high-caliber presentations so far at the PFF Aspen Summit. (Full disclosure: I spoke on the first panel dealing with intermediary liability.) But I’ve heard a couple of speakers say things that made me ask, “Where’s Mike Masnick?”
Jim Griffin of OneHouse kicked off the morning. He’s an advisor to the Warner Music Group. I didn’t write anything down, so risk mischaracterizing what he said, but one of the premises in his keynote was that creators of music and other digital content have to paid for producing that content.
Likewise, as he was setting up the second panel discussion, Tom Sydnor of PFF took it as a given that producers of copyrighted content have to paid for that production, and that the problem is figuring out how to get them paid. The premise behind this conclusion is one that should be explored.
I take it as a given that intellectual property law should promote the progress of science and useful arts. There are differences on this question, as proponents of moral rights will tell you. But taking creation of new works as the goal, what does it take to make that happen? Do creators need to be paid for their production all the time? Or can we sometimes get the benefit of their production while requiring them to earn money elsewhere, such as by bundling their creative works with other works. This is something TechDirt’s Mike Masnick has harped on for years now. He summarized his thinking to date a year or so ago in his “Grand Unified Theory On The Economics Of Free” post.
To summarize: Having fun. Good discussions. I want more! Specifically, more breadth! The economics of free is (are?) an elephant in the room.
Over on Techdirt, Mike Masnick discusses an interesting new survey that highlights the sharp disconnect between how much we claim privacy matters to us and how far we’re willing to go to safeguard it. America Online polled 1,000 users in the United Kingdom, and the results further reinforce what other recent studies have suggested:
The study found 84% of users say they carefully guard their info online — but when tested, 89% of people actually did give away info in the same exact survey.
The AOL survey brings to mind security guru Bruce Schneier’s insightful quip on privacy from back in 2001:
If McDonald’s in the United States would give away a free hamburger for a DNA sample they would be handing out free lunches around the clock. So people care about their privacy, but they don’t care to pay for it.
When presented with the option of sacrificing a bit of privacy for something of value, like a chocolate bar or a free gift certificate, many users are surprisingly willing to dole out data to third parties for commercial use. And the value of personal details to marketers is massive. As social networking sites and ad-serving networks amass ever greater knowledge of our hobbies, political views, and even our favorite music, these sites are getting better at mining data to tailor ads with pinpoint precision, commanding high click rates while sustaining server farms and original content publishers.
Soren Dayton has some interesting commentary at NextRight on the candidates’ technology policies and criticisms thereof.
A representative critic on the left engages in “unserious technology fetishism,” says Dayton. His foil is Joho the Blog, who takes after Senator McCain’s technology policy thusly:
There is nothing — nothing — in his policy statement that acknowledges that maybe the Net is also a new way we citizens are connecting with one another. The phrase “free speech” does not show up in it. The term “democracy” does not show up in it. What’s the opposite of visionary?
Joho wants government technology rhapsody, and Dayton has had enough:
Does he really want government policy to regulate the “cultural, social, and democratic” aspects of anything? Should these be the subject of tax policy? Which government agency? Should we make a new “Federal Cultural and Social Regulatory Agency?”
There’s something to this criticism. Too many folks see technology as the story, and they think government policy will write the next chapter.
No. People are the story: the people who invent, build, experiment with, and use technology to do interesting things, have fun, and make their lives better.
A policy that gets the government out of the way is a policy that’s true to technology and its role.
Several of us here have outlined our reservations about the proposal to allocate a block of the Advanced Wireless Services (AWS) spectrum for a free, nationwide wireless service. (Here’s a filing I signed on to that critiques the portion of the plan that requires censorship of the entire band once allocated).
But, strictly from an economic perspective, this is the best overview and critique of the plan I have seen so far: “The Static and Dynamic Inefficiency of Abandoning Unrestricted Auctions for Spectrum,” by Bob Hahn, Allan Ingraham, Greg Sidak, and Hal Singer. It’s a response to a paper favoring the M2Z plan that was penned by Simon Wilkie of USC, who also formerly served as the Chief Economist of the FCC. (Wilkie’s work on behalf of M2Z can be found on the M2Z site here). It’s a good debate and I encourage you to look at both papers if you are interested in this issue.
I’m thrilled that Julian Sanchez will be joining Ars full-time, where he’ll be their Washington editor. It’s a real coup for Ars and will beef up their already-superb tech policy coverage.
You can check out his freelance output over the last year here. And really, if you’re a TLF reader, there’s no excuse for you not to be subscribed to Ars already.
Braden has noted the release of John McCain’s tech policy–rightly decrying McCain’s socialistic community broadband concept. But far more outrageous, in my view is this bit of doublethink. First, the good part we should all applaud:
John McCain Has Fought to Keep the Internet Free From Government Regulation
The role of government in the Innovation Age should be focused on creating opportunities for all Americans and maintaining the vibrancy of the Internet economy. Given the enormous benefits we have seen from a lightly regulated Internet and software market, our government should refrain from imposing burdensome regulation. John McCain understands that unnecessary government intrusion can harm the innovative genius of the Internet. Government should have to prove regulation is needed, rather than have entrepreneurs prove it is not.
Amen! Even a hardened Ron Paul/Bob Taft/Grover Cleveland/Jack Randolph-survivalist/libertarian-crank like me can rally behind that banner. But then this self-styled champion of deregulation pulls a really fast one:
John McCain Will Preserve Consumer Freedoms. John McCain will focus on policies that leave consumers free to access the content they choose; free to use the applications and services they choose; free to attach devices they choose, if they do not harm the network; and free to chose among broadband service providers.
That sure sounds nice, but it’s all Wu-vian code for re-regulation, not de-regulation. You might recognize that McCain is talking obliquely here about the FCC’s 1968 Carterfone doctrine, which has consumed much attention on the TLF (see this piece in particular).
McCain then insists that he will be a bold leader for “good” regulations: 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.
