Some Thoughts on Rob Atkinson’s Who’s Who in Internet Politics

by on October 5, 2010 · 6 comments

Today it was my pleasure to take part in an Information Technology and Innovation Foundation discussion about Rob Atkinson’s interesting new white paper, “Who’s Who in Internet Politics: A Taxonomy of Information Technology Policy Perspectives .”  [You can find the video of the event here or embeded down below.]  Rob divides the information technology landscape into 8 tribes: cyber-libertarians, social engineers, free marketers, moderates, moral conservatives, old economy regulators, tech companies and trade associations, and bricks-and-mortars. Most of those are fairly self-explanatory, but during my response time, I pushed back on a few of these groupings.

First, I pointed out that there really didn’t seem to much of a difference between “cyber-libertarians” and “free marketers.”  Of course, part of the reason I feel this way is because I believe Rob is improperly equating cyber-libertarianism with Internet exceptionalism.  I’ve pointed out the distinction between the two in this essay with Berin Szoka.  We note that Internet exceptionalists are essentially first cousins to cyber-libertarians in that both groups believe that the Internet has changed culture and history profoundly and is deserving of special care before governments intervene. But cyber-libertarianism, properly understood, is something more than just special treatment for the Net.  It refers to the belief that individuals—acting in whatever capacity they choose (as citizens, consumers, companies, or collectives)—should be at liberty to pursue their own tastes and interests online. Again, please see “Cyber-Libertarianism: The Case for Real Internet Freedom” by Berin and me for more details. Continue reading →

SHARE: 6 comments

Facebook Was the ‘Next Google’

by on October 5, 2010 · 6 comments

Since I contributed $10 to the $23 million The Social Network grossed nationally this weekend, I see no reason not to blog some thoughts on the film.

First of all, the movie, which purports to be a history of the founding of Facebook, succeeds wildly as entertainment. As you may have heard by now, the film basically posits that if its founder, Harvard student Mark Zuckerberg, had not been dumped by his girlfriend for questioning the academic credibility of her school, Boston University, Facebook may never have existed at all.

Whether or not the film’s facts are straight on this is another matter. Nonetheless, it is not my purpose to comment extensively on either the film or its veracity, other than to recommend it highly as long as you ingest the story and characters with the copious grains of salt.

But some facts the film depicts are undeniable. The most significant for my purposes here is that the idea that became Facebook was germinated in the fall of 2003, just six years ago, and, as a website, was launched on the Harvard campus in February 2004.

Continue reading →

SHARE: 6 comments

Announcing “The Sin Think Tank” — Now Accepting Applications

by on October 4, 2010 · 14 comments

Since joining the ranks of the unemployed, a number of folks have sent kind notes wishing me well and asking what’s next for me.  Well, now that I finally have the time to pursue my lifelong dream, I’m pleased to announce my new venture: The Sin Think Tank.  The mission of the Sin Think Tank will be to promote prurient interests, gun play, gambling, unhealthy eating, and alcohol and tobacco appreciation.  Some of our positions or programs will include:

  • The Bob Guccione Fellow in Cultural Studies
  • The Joe Camel Chair in Environmental Analysis
  • The Smith & Wesson Institute for Peace
  • The Jack Daniels Center for Spirited Discussion
  • The Center for Gambling Promotion
  • The Dunkin Donuts Nutrition & Nourishment Initiative (aka, the “Feed the World” initiative)
  • The Hunter S. Thompson Foundation for Free Living & High Times

Our official headquarters — a unique edifice constructed entirely from stacks of Benjamins stuck together with trans fats and extra-sugary kids’ gum — will eventually be located in Las Vegas, Nevada, of course.  Job benefits are excellent, especially our Mixed Martial Arts day care center for the kiddies.

Resumes are welcome but personal interviews are preferred and will take place at Gilbert’s Indoor Gun Range or at The Brickskeller while applicants are expected to sample 2% of every beer in stock during one sitting.

I welcome ideas for other positions and centers.  [The Sin Think Tank is an Equal Opportunity Offender Employer.]

SHARE: 14 comments

Faux Urgency

by on October 4, 2010 · 0 comments

Tech policy polemicist Scott Cleland has hit home with today’s “FreePress’ Faux Urgency on Net Neutrality.”

FreePress’ problem is that people have wised up to their repeated hysterical calls to “Save the Internet” from a problem that has never materialized as they recklessly warned. FreePress has failed miserably in finding or defining any real-world problem that needs radical intervention to fix.

Cleland is meaner to the folks at Free Press than I would be, but he’s right to note that the problems net neutrality regulation might fix haven’t materialized over a long period of, yes, faux urgency.

SHARE: 0 comments

Joanne McNeil on online introversion and curation

by on October 4, 2010

On the podcast this week, Joanne McNeil, a science and technology writer living in Brooklyn, New York, and curator of Tomorrow Museum, a collection of images and speculative essays exploring how technology, science, and economics are affecting the fine arts, discusses online introversion and curation. McNeil discusses realspace introverts turned online extroverts, explains the lack of social media presence of many extroverts and celebrities, and parses the distinction between shyness and introversion. She also talks about Hanoi Wi-Fi and other technology encountered on her recent trip to Southeast Asia and addresses online curation, link blogs, and Tumblr.

Related Links

To keep the conversation around this episode in one place, we’d like to ask you to comment at the web page for this episode on Surprisingly Free. Also, why not subscribe to the podcast on iTunes?

SHARE:

What Privacy Invasion Looks Like

by on October 2, 2010 · 6 comments

The details of Tyler Clementi’s case are slowly revealing themselves. He was the Rutgers University freshman whose sex life was exposed on the Internet when fellow students Dharun Ravi and Molly Wei placed a webcam in his dorm room, transmitting the images that it captured in real time on the Internet. Shortly thereafter, Clementi committed suicide.

Whether Ravi and Wei acted out of anti-gay animus, titillation about Clementi’s sexual orientation, or simply titillation about sex, their actions were utterly outrageous, offensive, and outside of the bounds of decency. Moreover, according to Middlesex County, New Jersey prosecutors, they were illegal. Ravi and Wei have been charged with invasion of privacy.

This is what invasion of privacy looks like. It’s the outrageous, offensive, truly galling revelation of private facts like what happened in this case. Over the last 120 years, common law tort doctrine has evolved to find that people have a right not to suffer such invasions. New Jersey has apparently enshrined that right in a criminal statute.

The story illustrates how quaint are some of the privacy “invasions” we often discuss, such as the tracking of people’s web surfing by advertising networks. That information is not generally revealed in any meaningful way. It is simply being used to serve tailored ads.

This event also illustrates how privacy law is functioning in our society. It’s functioning fairly well. Law, of course, is supposed to reflect deeply held norms. Privacy norms—like the norm against exposing someone’s sexual activity without consent—are widely shared, so that the laws backing up those norms are rarely violated.

It is probably a common error to believe that law is “working” when it is exercised fairly often, fines and penalties being doled it with some routine. Holders of this view see law—more accurately, legislation—as a tool for shaping society, of course. Many of them would like to end the societal debate about online privacy, establishing a “uniform national privacy standard.” But nobody knows what that standard should be. The more often legal actions are brought against online service providers, the stronger is the signal that online privacy norms are unsettled. That privacy debate continues, and it should.

It is not debatable that what Ravi and Wei did to Tyler Clementi was profoundly wrong. That was a privacy invasion.

SHARE: 6 comments

Eliminating the Fear Factor From Online Privacy Debates

by on October 1, 2010 · 1 comment

At the Safe Internet Alliance event earlier this week there was a surprising amount of agreement on one aspect of sharing information on the Internet: eliminating the fear factor.

“Facts, not fear” was a meme throughout the event. Rep. Boucher discussed how comprehensive privacy legislation encourages Internet use because consumers don’t need to fear how their information is protected. And Josh Gottheimer of the FCC cited a study that shows that one of the main reasons why people don’t have broadband is due to, as he called it, the “fear factor.”

For increased use and adoption of the Internet and online services, cutting through the fear is key. That’s why I stressed why one of the main goals of a group that’s discussing privacy-related public policies should be to distinguish between legitimate concerns versus overreactions.

For online safety, there was a period just a year or two ago where we saw a lot of rhetoric, but not a lot of facts, about the real risks and likely threats kids face when online. Today the discussion is less fear-based, and as a result is much more productive for making the Internet safer. The NTIA OSTWG report stressed this fact-based approach.

Today privacy is where the online safety debate was a few years ago. There’s a similar danger of overreaction where rhetoric may crowd-out productive solutions. But there’s also a risk of being too glib on each side: pro-regulatory privacy advocates may not value the need for legitimate revenue models while businesses may sometimes dismiss legitimate privacy concerns.

Ultimately it may come down to a question of who decides. Whether it’s default settings or what is personal information, is it government, companies, or consumers that decide? I’ll tip my hand here: I think the key is for consumers to on the one hand understand the decisions they make, and on the other hand be allowed to make decisions.

Fear not, NetChoice looks forward to working with the Safe Internet Alliance and policymakers on privacy issues.

SHARE: 1 comment

Can Telework Work for the Federal Government?

by on October 1, 2010 · 3 comments

The House and Senate have now both passed bills aimed at encouraging telework in the federal government. As anyone who has had to commute to work in the Washington DC area knows, the national capital area could probably use a good dose of telework to relieve traffic congestion.

According to Joe Davidson’s column in the Washington Post, “The inability or unwillingness of supervisors to manage staff members they can’t see has long been cited as a major reason” more federal employees don’t telework. This fits with what I’ve heard from some current or former federal managers.  “I have enough trouble getting work out of people when they’re in the office,” one remarked.

The legislation offers some simple solutions: Tell federal agencies they have to allow all employees to work remotely unless there’s some reason a position isn’t conductive to telework. And accompany that with training so that managers will be better equipped to manage employees who aren’t in the office.

I’m a big fan of telework. But one of the keys to making it work is holding employees accountable for results instead of inputs like time on task or time hanging around the office.  It’s possible to do this even when the desired results are hard to measure.  Universities, for example, evaluate professors based on the quality of their teaching and research, not the number of hours they spend preparing for class or writing. This system is hardly perfect, and some places do this better than others. But on balance, it works much better than telling professors they’ve fulfilled their obligation by showing up at the office 40 hours a week.

So the key question in making telework work in the federal government is, “How well do agencies hold individual employees accountable for results?”  Here, the federal government has a few handicaps to overcome. It’s hard to fire people for poor performance.  Pay is set by the federal pay scale, which does not necessarily create a direct link between pay and the value of the employee’s accomplishments to taxpayers. And agencies do not always create a clear understanding of how the individual employee’s contribution affects the results the agency is supposed to produce.

Granted, the federal government is probably better at dealing with some of these challenges now than it was 20 years ago, especially for the senior executive service. But most federal jobs are still a long way away from at-will employment with clear performance measures tied to the organization’s goals. This is a change that requires not just “more training” or “cultural transformation,” but also a redefinition of the terms of federal employment.

Given those circumstances, I think federal managers are justified in their concern that giving most employees the automatic right to telework could reduce productivity.  I can think of two ways to make telework work in the current federal employment environment:

1. Make people earn it. Employees who show they can get things done without a lot of supervision in the office are the most obvious candidates to be effective working remotely.

2. Mandate a trial period and evaluation. If you think it’s fair to guarantee the opportunity to telework to most employees, mandate only that it must be offered on a trial basis. Continuation depends on performance.

These are, of course, second-best solutions.  And there may be others.

SHARE: 3 comments

Taxpayers Against Earmarks Debuts

by on October 1, 2010 · 0 comments

Taxpayers Against Earmarks is a new effort to rid the federal legislative process of some of its most acute horse-trading: earmarks. Find it at the cleverly named URL, EndingSpending.com.

My project WashingtonWatch.com has worked to generate earmark transparency. Here’s the earmarks main page, and you should expect to see FY 2011 earmarks there soon.

Republicans earmarksThere’s little doubt that many spending earmarks are part of a subtle—or not-so-subtle—quid pro quo in which federal legislators buy votes by directing funds to favored home-state or home-district interests. Taxpayers Against Earmarks has a well-produced web site that invites people to sign up and join the anti-earmark effort.

Earmarked spending is a small part of the overall budget, of course, but earmarking is emblematic of the “favor factory” that Congress has become as the federal budget and federal power have bloated. Federal spending is appropriate in the small number of cases when it provides national public goods that benefit the country as a whole, but refurbishing local museums, funding projects at state universities, and requiring the military to buy from a particular defense contractor do not benefit the general welfare. Taxpayers Against Earmarks is working to begin the process of getting federal spending under control.

SHARE: 0 comments

Contension Over Privacy in the Cloud? There Shouldn’t Be…

by on September 30, 2010 · 0 comments

I’d like to recommend Sonia Arrison’s recent article on the need for updating the Electronic Privacy Communications Act (ECPA). She makes a good case why citizens should feel a bit worried about the ability of government to invade their privacy when they keep data in the cloud. And citizens are customers, so online businesses are worried if people may use less of their services. But here’s another angle for why we need to update ECPA…it’s to promote online safety. From an excellent analysis by Becky Burr, ECPA reform:

Would establish uniform, clear, and easily understood rules about when and what kind of judicial review is needed by law enforcement to access electronic content; and

Would, by clarifying the applicable rules, enable business to respond more quickly and with greater confidence to law enforcement requests and to avail themselves of hosted productivity technology.

Right now the law is muddled, and online services have a hard time determining legitimate requests from those that are overreaching. When the law is clarified, businesses and law enforcement can (with appropriate legal process) share information that can help find sexual predators and other online miscreants.

SHARE: 0 comments

← Previous Entries

Next Entries →