Emerson once said that we should do the thing we fear, and then death of fear is certain. Similarly, parents that fear their child’s use of technology can use technology themselves to monitor, filter and block their children’s Internet use.
I’m a member of the NTIA Online Safety and Technology Working Group (OSTWG) along with TLF’s Adam Thierer (Mr. President of PFF). Adam organized our third meeting was on parental controls, child protection technologies and content rating methods. He organized a wealth of speakers to discuss tools available from ISPs, tools existing in operating systems, browsers, and search, and settings that exist in some social networking websites.
Here are the highlights:
- Safety experts praised AOL’s parental tools that don’t report to parents every site that a child visits. Child abuse, contraception, and other sites are the kinds that many people feel children have legitimate privacy (and in abusive situations even safety concerns for their lives) surrounding the sites they visit.
- A representative from the Department of Education asked about “best practices” — a good idea in concept but given the diversity of online sites and services easier said then done.
- It is common to categorize children into age groups for parental controls but there’s data lacking about how children understand advertising and what is the harm, if any.
- Age groups: 7 and below–white list only. 7-12–no white list only but lots of restrictions. 13-17–very permissive, lots of sites accessible. 17+–only porn images blocked.
- Google will soon be launching a national media digital literacy citizenship campaign. Continue reading →
I have ranted once or twice before about the regulatory requirement that Google—a search engine—post a link to a privacy notice on its home page.
Not all computers all places may see it, but Google appears to be experimenting with a bit of javascript that leaves the page blank but for the Google image and the search field until you roll your cursor over it. But they’re leaving the privacy notice (and a copyright notice) there, probably for fear that privacy advocates will yelp about a modern-day paperwork violation.
This provides an opportunity to see the difference between a world with privacy notice regulation and one without. One is cluttered and overlawyered. The other is pure and clean and fresh.
Take a look for yourself. Which do you prefer?
This?
Or this?
I think the answer is obvious. The only difference, mind you, is aesthetic. If Google were permitted to have a truly good looking Web site, users’ privacy would be no worse off for it because they don’t read privacy notices.
As someone who follows the federal regulatory process, I was amazed to see this in a recent American Spectator post about White House technology advisor Susan Crawford’s return to the University of Michigan Law School:
But White House sources say that she ran afoul of senior White House economics adviser Larry Summers, who claimed he and other senior Obama officials were unaware of how radical the draft Net Neutrality regulations were when they were initially internally circulated to Obama administration officials several weeks ago … In the end, the proposed regulations were slightly moderated from the original language FCC chairman Julius Genachowski, a Crawford ally, circulated.
Unlike regulatory agencies that are considered part of the executive branch, the Federal Communications Commission is an “independent” regulatory agency — which means the president cannot fire its five commissioners. Before executive branch agencies can propose a regulation, it must be reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA). No administration has yet tried to bring independent agencies like the FCC under OIRA review.
Typically, congressional and private watchdogs scream bloody murder when they see the White House trying to influence independent agencies. But I haven’t heard any barking about this one.
Personally, I think independent agencies’ regulations should be subject to OIRA review. I don’t mind letting the president and his advisors have their say on regulations proposed by people he appointed. But I’d like to see it happen through the formal OIRA review process, where the public knows it’s happening and knows what the rules are.
For example: If you want to know which proposed regulations OIRA has reviewed, go here. If you want to know the standards OIRA uses to review regulations, go here. If you want to know what outside parties have met with OIRA to discuss regulations, go here.
My colleague Jerry Brito and I are attending the annual meeting of the State Policy Network in Asheville, NC. In the process, we’ve heard a lot of things said about open-source software that we don’t agree with, and some things that are just plain wrong.
The reasons for this are obvious. There are a lot of folks who have an interest in talking down open-source CMS solutions—namely because they sell proprietary, closed-source systems. But, there are non-interested parties out there who have given rave reviews to open-source solutions. For example, Drupal and WordPress have consistently won CNET’s Webware Awards. The White House now runs on Drupal, the New York Times runs its blogs on WordPress, and sites that we have built, including those for CEI, the Mercatus Center, America’s Future Foundation, Stimulus Watch, and OpenRegs.com, are built using open source tools, and they have been very successful. Bottom line, one can’t say that using open-source software is never the answer.
So how do you decide what to use? What you have to consider are the relative merits of each approach. Some web projects may be so unique that you’ll want to have a developer build a custom solution for you. You might also find a proprietary solutions that fits your needs perfectly. However, most public policy groups have very similar needs—publishing and promoting papers and press releases, creating profiles of their experts, highlighting past and future events, etc. For these cases, it’s very likely that there is an open-source solution available at a no cost, and with a large pool of independent developers who can implement it for you. And it’s certainly the case that open-source solutions can be infinitely customized to meet unique needs.
The main difference we want to point out, however, is that when you choose a proprietary solution, you’re not just tied to that solution, but to a vendor as well. Look carefully at their contracts, it will be quite clear that they own the software that runs your website. If you need to change or add functionality to your site, you need to go to that particular vendor. With an open-source solution, there are hundreds of developers you can turn to. You can keep your site exactly as it is, and simply change your contractor. Your platform is not tied to any vendor.
Continue reading →
What to do about the influences of media and advertising on children? Generally, the saying goes that where you stand depends on where you sit–but that was not apparent at today’s event on children and media.
There were 4 seats (plus moderator) at the panel on “Media, Kids, and the First Amendment” that was co-hosted by Georgetown Law School and Common Sense Media–a professor, lobbyist, FCC regulator, and attorney general. Surprisingly, while there was common ground to be shared, only the lobbyist was truly advocating on behalf of a strong First Amendment.
The Professor: Angela Campbell. She doesn’t see a need for differing legal analysis for broadcast TV or the Internet. Media is media. But she also would like to see all laws meant to protect children be subject to intermediate scrutiny by a court, not strict scrutiny (so that more regulations could be passed). She also thinks the fleeting expletives case (the Fox case) is a joke. Where does she sit? Mostly on the side of Free Speech. Some laws are necessary to protect children, but we need to focus on the harm and weigh the costs of passing law versus not passing law. But the intermediate scrutiny is troubling for free speech advocates.
The Lobbyist: Dan Brenner. He worries about laws regulation communications as being vague (what does “indecent” mean?) and overbroad (makes legitimate speech unlawful). The Maine predatory marketing law that NetChoice has engaged in is an example of being both vague and overbroad. Where does he sit? Firmly on the side of Free Speech. Dan made a powerful case that regulators have better things to do than worry about the occasional F-word or wordrobe malfunction on TV. 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.