A leading organization of computing professionals is seeking a Public Policy Analyst in its Washington DC Office of Public Policy. The position will assist in carrying out the society’s policy agenda by working with the federal government, the organization’s volunteer leadership and other organizations. The position’s duties include:
• Following, researching, analyzing and reporting on policy issues being discussed in the Congress, the Executive Branch, the Judicial Branch and the media
• Providing advice and direction on policy issues and strategies for engagement • Keeping members informed of relevant policy developments
• Developing and/or reviewing policy position statements (letters, white papers, etc.)
• Planning meetings and/or conference calls
• Developing and managing projects to implement policy agenda
• Maintaining and updating website
• Identifying and recommending opportunities to further the overall policy agenda
• Producing and distributing newsletters, blog posts and various other communications
The qualifications for this position are:
• Minimum of a Bachelor’s Degree
• Command of the legislative, regulatory and legal process, including the ability to conduct legal research and analyze policy developments
• Minimum of three years of experience in the policy, legislative or regulatory
environment
• Superior communication (writing and oral) and organizational skills
• Demonstrated interest in and/or prior experience in the technology policy
• Ability to work both in teams and independently
• Self-starter and ability to manage multiple projects and meet tight deadlines • Strong IT skills
Applicants should submit a resume and cover letter describing interests and qualifications by e-mail policy.analyst.job@gmail.com
A year ago, I filed a joint amicus brief with the Electronic Frontier Foundation urging the Supreme Court to overturn California’s paternalistic law on the dangerous grounds that videogame depictions of violence constituted “obscenity” unprotected by the First Amendment. Fortunately, we won. Thus, the First Amendment protects all media, while parents have a variety of tools available to them to limit what content their kids can consume, or games they can play.
But in case you’re wondering what the world might look like had the decision gone the other way, check out the contrast between the US version of Maroon 5’s hit song “Misery” and the UK version. First, here’s the (raucous and sexy) US version:
Now, here’s the UK version, where the sexually suggestive parts remain (kids love that stuff) but all the “violent” parts have been replaced with, or covered by, ridiculous cartoon images. Really, it’s just too funny. The best part is where the knife she uses to stab the gaps between his fingers on the table has been replaced with a cartoon ice cream cone. Don’t try that at home, kids—you’ll make a chocolatey mess! Continue reading →
[NOTE: The following is a template for how to script congressional testimony when invited to speak about online safety issues.]
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, thank you inviting me here today to testify about the most important issue to me and everyone in this room: Our children.
There is nothing I care more about than the future of our children. Like Whitney Houston, “I believe the children are our future.”
Mr. Chairman, I remember with fondness the day my little Johnny and Jannie came into this world. They were my little miracles. Gifts from God, I say. At the moment of birth, my wife… oh, well, I could tell you all about it someday but suffice it to say it was a beautiful scene, with the exception of all the amniotic fluid and blood everywhere. I wept for days.
Today my kids are (mention ages of each) and they are the cutest little angels on God’s green Earth. (NOTE: At this point it would be useful for you to hold up a picture of your kids, preferably with them cuddling with cute stuffed animals, a kitten, or petting a pony as in the example below. Alternatively, use a picture taken at a major attraction located in the Chairman’s congressional district.) Continue reading →
On the podcast this week, Derek Bambauer, associate professor of law at Brooklyn Law School, discusses his forthcoming University of Chicago Law Review article entitled Orwell’s Armchair. In the paper, Bambuer writes that America has begun to censor the Internet, and he distinguishes two forms of censorship: hard and soft. He defines hard censorship as open and transparent, and where the government directly controls what information can and cannot be transmitted. Soft censorship, says Bambauer, is indirect, where government tells third parties to prevent users from accessing information, and it’s not clear what is being censored. He submits that if America is going to censor the Internet, it should do so through hard censorship. Indirect censorship strategies, he writes, are less legitimate than direct regulation.
To keep the conversation around this episode in one place, we’d like to ask you to comment at the webpage for this episode on Surprisingly Free. Also, why not subscribe to the podcast on iTunes?
California police will now be able to conduct warrantless searches of optical disc (DVD, CD, BluRay) factories to look for piracy and seize pirated discs, under a bill just signed by California Governor Jerry Brown (full text). Even those who think copyright law has gone much too far, or cherish fair use, shouldn’t defend such blatant, commercial piracy, which does nothing but deny creators the market for their artistic products. One need only look at China to see how such infringement can destroy creative industries.
The bill’s sponsors justify this law as necessary to enforce existing laws that require manufacturers to label discs so their origin and validity can be established. That seems like a reasonable requirement and one worth enforcing. But like the Electronic Frontier Foundation, I’m highly skeptical the courts will uphold the constitutionality of this law. And I worry about the consequences of upholding warrantless searches. The debate centers on whether optical disc manufacturing qualifies as a “closely regulated industry” under New York v. Burger, 482 U.S. 691, 701. (1987). The sponsors argued:
In determining whether a particular industry is closely regulated, the Court looks to a history of regulation in the industry as well as the hazardous nature of the industry. Examples of closely regulated industries that fall under this exception include auto dismantling yards and the mining industry. Here, the optical disc manufactures are subject to the provisions of chapter 11.5 of the Business and Professions Code, as well as 653h and 653w of the Penal Code [California’s anti-copyrighting laws]. These manufacturers are also subject to federal copyright restrictions. These provisions may be enough for a court to determine that this industry is closely regulated, and therefore, potentially subject to administrative searches.
That’s a pretty weak argument—and one that could sweep in a wide variety of other industries, including media. That analysis goes on to allege that the searches and seizures authorized by the bill would be reasonable, which EFF also disputes on all points. As a subsequent California Senate committee counsel’s official legal analysis noted, “It is unclear whether this bill, which allows law enforcement to search private property without a warrant, would stand up to a constitutional challenge.” That official analysis, which covers both sides of the argument goes on to note (p. 7) the First Amendment problems raised by deeming any media business, including those that only manufacture physical media, as “closely regulated.”
The bill’s sponsors make a second argument that would set an even more dangerous precedent: Continue reading →
I’m currently finishing up my next book. It addresses various strands of “Internet pessimism” and attempts to explain why all the gloom and doom theories we hear about the Internet’s impact on modern culture and economy are not generally warranted. A key theme of my book is that most Internet pessimists overlook the importance of human adaptability in the face of technological change. The amazing thing about humans is that we adapt so much better than other creatures. We learn how to use the new tools given to us and make them part of our lives and culture. The worst situations often bring out the most creative, innovative solutions. Media critic Jack Shafer has noted that “the techno-apocalypse never comes” because “cultures tend to assimilate and normalize new technology in ways the fretful never anticipate.”
In a cultural sense, humans have again and again adapted to technological change despite the radical disruptions to their lives, mores, manners, and methods of learning. As Aleks Krotoski recently points out in her new Guardian essay, “How the Internet Has Changed Our Concept of What Home Is”: Continue reading →
Nearly a year after the FCC passed controversial new “Open Internet” rules by a 3-2 vote, the White House finally gave approval for the rules to be published last week, unleashing lawsuits from both supporters and detractors.
The supporters don’t have any hope or expectation of getting a court to make the rules more comprehensive. So why sue? When lawsuits challenging federal regulations are filed in multiple appellate courts, a lottery determines which court hears a consolidated appeal.
So lawsuits by net neutrality supporters are a procedural gimmick, an effort to take cases challenging the FCC’s authority out of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, which has already made clear the FCC has no legal basis here.
Remember when you had to wait until the end of the month to see your bank statement?
Last week, on the cusp of failing to pass any annual appropriations bills ahead of the October 1 start of the new fiscal year, congressional leaders came up with a short-term government funding bill (or “continuing resolution”) that would fund the government until November 18th. For whatever reason, that deal (H.R. 2608) wasn’t ready to go before the end of the week, so Congress passed an even shorter-term continuing resolution (H.R. 2017) that funds the government until tomorrow, October 4th.
Every weekend, I hunch over my computer and update key records in the database of WashingtonWatch.com, a government transparency website I run as a non-partisan, non-ideological resource. Then I put a summary of what’s going on into an email like this one (subscribe!) that goes out to 7,000 or so of my closest friends.
Last weekend, the Library of Congress’ THOMAS website, which is one of my resources, was down a good chunk of the time for maintenance. Even after it came up again, some materials such as bill text and committee reports weren’t available. (They had come up by the wee hours this morning.) Maintenance is necessary sometimes, though when the service provider I use for the WashingtonWatch.com email does maintenance, it’s usually for an hour or so in the middle of a weekend night.
In his latest weekly Wall Street Journal column, Gordon Crovitz has penned a review of the new Jeff Jarvis book, Public Parts: How Sharing in the Digital Age Improves the Way We Work and Live. Gordon’s review closely tracks my own thoughts on the book, which I laid out last week in my Forbes essay, “Is Privacy Overrated?” Gordon’s essay is entitled “Are We Too Hung Up on Privacy” and he finds, like I do, that Jarvis makes compelling case for understanding the benefits of publicness as the flip-side of privacy. Instead of repeating all the arguments we make in our reviews here, I’ll just ask people go check out both of our essays if they are interested.
I did, however, want to elaborate on one thing I didn’t have time to discuss in my review of the Jarvis book. While I like the approach he used in the book, I thought Jarvis could have spent a bit more time exploring some the thorny legal issues in play when advocates of privacy regulation look to enshrine into law quite expansive views of privacy “rights.”
One of the things that both Crovitz and I appreciated about the Jarvis book was the way he tries to get us to think about privacy in the context of ethics instead of law. “Privacy is an ethic governing the choices made by the recipient of someone else’s information,” Jarvis argues, while “publicness is an ethic governing the choices made by the creator of one’s own information,” he says. In my review, I explained why this was so important: Continue reading →
Here’s a sharp editorial from The Economist about Internet governance entitled, “In Praise of Chaos: Governments’ Attempts to Control the Internet Should be Resisted.” In the wake of the recent Internet Governance Forum meeting, many folks are once again debating the question of who rules the Net? Along with Wayne Crews, I edited a huge collection of essays on that topic back in 2003 and it’s a subject that continues to interest me greatly. As I noted here last week, many of those who desire greater centralization of control over Net governance decisions are using the fear that “fragmentation” will occur without some sort of greater plan for the Net’s future. I believe these fears are greatly overstated and are being used to justify expanded government meddling with online culture and economics.
The new Economist piece nicely brings into focus the key question about who or what we should trust to guide the future of the Internet. It rightly notes that the current state of Net governance is, well, messy. But that’s not such a bad thing when compared to the alternative: 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. Learn more about TLF →
The Technology Liberation Front is the tech policy blog dedicated to keeping politicians' hands off the 'net and everything else related to technology.