2011 — Page 33

Good News! Online Tracking is Slightly Boring

by Jim Harper on March 10, 2011 · 0 comments

You have to wade through a lot to reach the good news at the end of Time reporter Joel Stein’s article about “data mining”—or at least data collection and use—in the online world. There’s some fog right there: what he calls “data mining” is actually ordinary one-to-one correlation of bits of information, not mining historical data to generate patterns that are predictive of present-day behavior. (See my data mining paper with Jeff Jonas to learn more.) There is some data mining in and among the online advertising industry’s use of the data consumers emit online, of course.

Next, get over Stein’s introductory language about the “vast amount of data that’s being collected both online and off by companies in stealth.” That’s some kind of stealth if a reporter can write a thorough and informative article in Time magazine about it. Does the moon rise “in stealth” if you haven’t gone outside at night and looked at the sky? Perhaps so.

Now take a hard swallow as you read about Senator John Kerry’s (D-Mass.) plans for government regulation of the information economy.

Kerry is about to introduce a bill that would require companies to make sure all the stuff they know about you is secured from hackers and to let you inspect everything they have on you, correct any mistakes and opt out of being tracked. He is doing this because, he argues, “There’s no code of conduct. There’s no standard. There’s nothing that safeguards privacy and establishes rules of the road.”

Securing data from hackers and letting people correct mistakes in data about them are kind of equally opposite things. If you’re going to make data about people available to them, you’re going to create opportunities for other people—it won’t even take hacking skills, really—to impersonate them, gather private data, and scramble data sets. Continue reading →

0 comments

Is Digital Utopianism Dead? And Other Questions

by Larry Downes on March 10, 2011 · 0 comments

What I hoped would be a short blog post to accompany the video from Geoff Manne and my appearances this week on PBS’s “Ideas in Action with Jim Glassman” turned out to be a very long article which I’ve published over at Forbes.com.

I apologize to Geoff for taking an innocent comment he made on the broadcast completely out of context, and to everyone else who chooses to read 2,000 words I’ve written in response.

So all I’ll say here is that Geoff Manne and I taped the program in January, as part of the launch of TechFreedom and of “The Next Digital Decade.” Enjoy!

0 comments

“Privacy” as Censorship: Fleischer Dismantles the EU’s “Right to Forget”

by Berin Szoka on March 9, 2011 · 6 comments

Few people have experienced just how oppressive “privacy” regulation can be quite so directly as Peter Fleischer, Google’s Global Privacy Counsel. Early last year, Peter was convicted by an Italian court because Italian teenagers used Google Video to host a video they shot of bullying a an autistic kid—even though he didn’t know about the video until after Google took it down.

Of course, imposing criminal liability on corporate officers for failing to take down user-generated content is just a more extreme form of the more popular concept of holding online intermediaries liable for failing to take down content that is allegedly defamatory, bullying, invasive of a user’s privacy, etc. Both have the same consequence: Given the incredible difficulty of evaluating such complaints, sites that host UGC will tend simply to take it down upon receiving complaints—thus being forced to censor their own users.

Now Peter has turned his withering analysis on the muddle that is Europe’s popular “Right to be Forgotten.” Adam noted the inherent conflict between that supposed “right” and our core values of free speech. It’s exactly the kind of thing UCLA Law Prof. Eugene Volokh had in mind when he asked what is your “right to privacy” but a right to stop me from observing you and speaking about you?” Peter hits the nail on the head:

More and more, privacy is being used to justify censorship. In a sense, privacy depends on keeping some things private, in other words, hidden, restricted, or deleted. And in a world where ever more content is coming online, and where ever more content is find-able and share-able, it’s also natural that the privacy counter-movement is gathering strength. Privacy is the new black in censorship fashions. It used to be that people would invoke libel or defamation to justify censorship about things that hurt their reputations. But invoking libel or defamation requires that the speech not be true. Privacy is far more elastic, because privacy claims can be made on speech that is true.

Continue reading →

6 comments

Book Review: Siva Vaidhyanathan’s “Googlization of Everything”

by Adam Thierer on March 9, 2011 · 615 comments

In one sense, Siva Vaidhyanathan’s new book, The Googlization of Everything (And Why Should Worry), is exactly what you would expect: an anti-Google screed that predicts a veritable techno-apocalypse will befall us unless we do something to deal with this company that supposedly “rules like Caesar.” (p. xi) Employing the requisite amount of panic-inducing Chicken Little rhetoric apparently required to sell books these days, Vaidhyanathan tells us that “the stakes could not be higher,” (p. 7) because the “corporate lockdown of culture and technology” (p. xii) is imminent.

After lambasting the company in a breathless fury over the opening 15 pages of the book, Vaidhyanathan assures us that “nothing about this means that Google’s rule is as brutal and dictatorial as Caesar’s. Nor does it mean that we should plot an assassination,” he says. Well, that’s a relief! Yet, he continues on to argue that Google is sufficiently dangerous that “we should influence—even regulate—search systems actively and intentionally, and thus take responsibility for how the Web delivers knowledge.” (p. xii) Why should we do that? Basically, Google is just too damn good at what it does. The company has the audacity to give consumers exactly what they want! “Faith in Google is dangerous because it increases our appetite for goods, services, information, amusement, distraction, and efficiency.” (p. 55) That is problematic, Vaidhyanathan says, because “providing immediate gratification draped in a cloak of corporate benevolence is bad faith.” (p. 55) But this begs the question: What limiting principle should be put in place to curb our appetites, and who or what should enforce it? Continue reading →

615 comments

Siva Vaidhyanathan on why we should worry about Google

by Jerry Brito on March 8, 2011 · 1 comment

On the podcast this week, Siva Vaidhyanathan, professor of media studies at the University of Virginia, discusses his new book, The Googlization of Everything: (And Why We Should Worry). Vaidhyanathan talks about why he thinks many people have “blind faith” in Google, why we should worry about it, and why he doesn’t think it’s likely that a genuine Google competitor will emerge. He also discusses potential roles of government, calling search neutrality a “nonstarter,” but proposing the idea of a commission to monitor online search. He also talks about a “Human Knowledge Project,” an idea for a global digital library, and why a potential monopoly on information by such a project doesn’t worry him the way that Google does.

Targeted Advertising for Cable TV & Skype

by Adam Thierer on March 7, 2011 · 4 comments

We’ve said it here before too may times to count: When it comes to the future of content and services — especially online or digitally-delivered content and services — there is no free lunch. Something has to pay for all that stuff and increasingly that something is advertising. But not just any type of advertising — targeted advertising is the future. We see that again today with Skype’s announcement that it is rolling out an advertising scheme as well as in this Wall Street Journal story (“TV’s Next Wave: Tuning In to You“) about how cable and satellite TV providers are ramping up their targeted advertising efforts.

No doubt, we’ll soon hear the same old complaints and fears trotted out about these developments. We’ll hear about how “annoying” such ads are or how “creepy” they are. Yet, few will bother detailing what the actual harm is in being delivered more tailored or targeted commercial messages. After all, there’s actually a benefit to receiving ads that may be of more interest to us. Much traditional advertising was quite “spammy” in that it was sent to the mass market without a care in the world about who might see or hear it. But in a diverse society, it would be optimal if the ads you saw better reflected your actual interests / tastes. And that’s a primary motivation for why so many content and service providers are turning to ad targeting techniques. As Skype noted in its announcement today: “We may use non-personally identifiable demographic data (e.g. location, gender and age) to target ads, which helps ensure that you see relevant ads. For example, if you’re in the US, we don’t want to show you ads for a product that is only available in the UK.” Similarly, the Journal article highlights a variety of approaches that television providers are using to better tailor ads to their viewers.

Some will still claim it’s too “creepy.” But, as I noted in my recent filing to the Federal Trade Commission on its new privacy green paper: Continue reading →

4 comments

What is Market Failure? And What if There is One?

by Jim Harper on March 4, 2011 · 14 comments

Twitter curmudgeon @derekahunter writes: “With all the medical advances of last 100 years, why hasn’t anyone created a cough drop that doesn’t taste like crap?” Dammit, he’s right! Why hasn’t the market for cold remedies produced a tasty cough drop? Put differently, the market for cold remedies has failed to produce a tasty cough drop. The market has failed. Market . . . failure.

We have now established the appropriateness of a regulatory solution for the taste problem in the field of cold remedies. Have we not? There is a market failure.

No, we haven’t.

“Market failure” is not what happens when a given market has failed so far to reach outcomes that a smart person would prefer. It occurs when the rules, signals, and sanctions in and around a given marketplace would cause preference- and profit-maximizing actors to reach a sub-optimal outcome. You can’t show that there’s a market failure by arguing that the current state of the actual market is non-ideal. You have to show that the rules around that marketplace lead to non-ideal outcomes. The bad taste of cough drops is not evidence of market failure.

The failure of property rights to account for environmental values leads to market failure. A coal-fired electric plant might belch smoke into the air, giving everyone downwind a bad day and a shorter life. If the company and its customers don’t have to pay the costs of that, they’re going to over-produce and over-consume electricity at the expense of the electric plant’s downwind neighbors. The result is sub-optimal allocation of goods, with one set of actors living high on the hog and another unhappily coughing and wheezing.

Take an issue that’s closer to home for tech policy folk: People seem to underweight their privacy when they go online, promiscuously sharing anything and everything on Facebook, Twitter, and everyplace else. Marketers are hoovering up this data and using it to sell things to people. The data is at risk of being exposed to government snoops. People should be more attentive to privacy. They’re not thinking about long-term consequences. Isn’t this a market failure?

It’s not. It’s consumers’ preferences not matching up with the risks and concerns that people like me and my colleagues in the privacy community share. Consumers are preference-maximizing—but we don’t like their preferences! That is not a market failure. Our job is to educate people about the consequences of their online behavior, to change the public’s preferences. That’s a tough slog, but it’s the only way to get privacy in the context of maximizing consumer welfare.

If you still think there’s a market failure in this area—I readily admit that I’m on the far edge of my expertise with complex economic concepts like this—you haven’t finished making your case for regulation. You need to show that the rules, signals, and sanctions in and around the regulatory arena would produce a better outcome than the marketplace would. Be sure that you compare real market outcomes to real regulatory outcomes, not real market outcomes to ideal regulatory outcomes. Most arguments for privacy regulation simply fail to account for the behavior of the regulatory universe.

Adam has collected quotations on the subject of regulatory capture from many experts. I wrote a brief series of “real regulators” posts on the SEC and the Madoff scam a while back (1, 2, 3). And a recent article I’m fond of goes into the problem that many people think only consumers suffer, asking: “Are Regulators Rational?”

There’s no good-tasting cough drop because the set of drops that remedy coughing and the set of drops that taste good are mutually exclusive. Not because of market failure.

14 comments

Progress on Spectrum Inventory…if Only Illusory

by Larry Downes on March 3, 2011 · 8 comments

I’ve written posts today for both CNET and Forbes on legislation introduced yesterday by Senators Olympia Snowe and John Kerry that would require the FCC and NTIA to complete inventories of existing spectrum allocations. These inventories were mandated by President Obama last June (after Congress failed to pass legislation), but got lost at the FCC in the net neutrality armageddon.

Everyone believes that without relatively quick action to make more spectrum available, the mobile Internet could seize up. Given the White House’s showcasing of wireless as a leading source of new jobs, investment, and improved living conditions for all Americans, both Congress and President Obama, along with the FCC and just about everyone else, knows this is a crisis that must be avoided.

Indeed, the National Broadband Plan estimates conservatively that mobile users will need 300-500 mhz of new spectrum over the next 5-10 years. Continue reading →

8 comments

Free the Toll-Free Numbers

by Steven Titch on March 2, 2011 · 0 comments

Toll-free number allocation remains one of the last vestiges of telecom’s monopoly era. Unlike Internet domain names, there is no organized way of requesting, registering, reserving, purchasing 800, 888, 877, 866, or the newly available 855 numbers, the five prefixes that currently designate toll-free service. If you’re lucky or creative enough, you can visit any number of sites (just Google “855 toll free code”) and the number you request might be available. If not, you’re SOL.

That’s because the toll-free number regulation regime is cumbersome, opaque and bureaucratic. And while the FCC technically prohibits the warehousing, hoarding, transfer and sale of toll-free numbers, enforcement is difficult and inconsistent.

The North American Numbering Council, a federal advisory committee that was created to advise the FCC on numbering issues will be meeting in Washington March 9. On the agenda will be discussion on whether to go forward with exploring market mechanisms that can be applied to toll-free number assignment.

It’s an idea worth pursuing. It is clear that some toll-free numbers have equity value, especially when they can bolster a brand identity or be easily remembered. 1-800-SOUTHWEST, 1-800-FLOWERS are two examples.

Yet right now, the toll-free numbering pool is a vast and unruly commons that recognizes no difference in value between a desirable mnemonic and a generic sequence of digits. Numbers are assigned on a first-come, first-served basis. End users can request a specific number, but they can get it only if it is available from the pool. Under the current rules, they cannot offer to buy the number from its current user. Nor can the user of 1-800-555-2665, which alphanumerically translates to both 1-800-555-BOOK and 1-800-555-COOK, put the number up for auction to see who will pay more, the bookstore or cooking school.

Continue reading →

0 comments

TLFers Attending Two Important Sec. 230 / Net Liability Events in CA This Week

by Adam Thierer on March 1, 2011 · 0 comments

This week I will be attending two terrific conferences on Sec. 230 and Internet intermediary liability issues. On Thursday, the Stanford Technology Law Review hosts an all-day event on “Secondary and Intermediary Liability on the Internet” at the Stanford Law School. It includes 3 major panels on intermediary liability as it pertains to copyright, trademark, and privacy. On Friday, the amazing Eric Goldman and his colleagues at the Santa Clara Law School’s High Tech Law Institute host an all-star event on “47 U.S.C. § 230: a 15 Year Retrospective.” Berin Szoka and Jim Harper will also be attending both events (Harper is speaking at Stanford event) and Larry Downes will be at the Santa Clara event. So if you also plan to attend, come say ‘Hi’ to us. We don’t bite! (We have, however, been known to snarl.)

In the meantime, down below, I just thought I would post a few links to the many things we have said about Section 230 and online intermediary liability issues here on the TLF in the past as well as this graphic depicting some of the emerging threats to Sec. 230 from various proposals to “deputize the online middleman.” As we’ve noted here many times before, Sec. 230 is the “cornerstone of Internet freedom” that has allowed a “utopia of utopias” to develop online. It would be a shame if lawmakers rolled back its protections and opted for an onerous new legal/regulatory approach to handling online concerns. Generally speaking, education and empowerment should trump regulation and punishing liability.

Deputization of the Middleman

Continue reading →

0 comments

← Previous Entries

Next Entries →