Google has just launched a new tool that lets users view the total number of requests received “from government agencies around the world to remove content from our services, or provide information about users of our services and products.” As the FAQ explains, the tool overlays the requests received over the last six months, except for countries like China that prohibit the release of such numbers, on a map with totals for both data requests if over 30 (criminal-related but not civil) and removal requests if over 10 (not including requests from private parties, like DMCA copyright take-down notices). Google makes a few important observations about the data—especially that Brazil and India’s numbers are skewed way off because of the popularity of Orkut, Google’s answer to Facebook, there.
This tool represents the beginning of a new era in transparency into how governments censor the Internet and violate users’ privacy. I very much look forward to seeing Google improve this tool to provide greater granularity of disclosure, and to seeing other companies improve upon what Google has started. Over time, this transparency could do wonders to advance Internet freedom for users by promoting positive competition among countries.
To illustrate the kinds of things one could do with this data with a more robust interface, I put together the following spreadsheet (by scraping Google’s request numbers and mashing them up with total Internet users numbers I found here (which are mostly from late 2009):
The Congressional Internet Caucus Advisory Committee is hosting their second annual State of the Mobile Net conference this Wednesday, April 21 at the DC Hyatt Regency (400 New Jersey Ave NW). The conference runs 12-5 pm followed by a cocktail reception. This conference and the larger State of the Net conference are probably the two best annual Internet policy events in DC, so I hope you’ll attend! This year’s SOMN includes a bonus: a “Growing Up with the Mobile Net” seminar coordinated by Common Sense Media, 9-11:45 am. I’ll be on the first panel of the morning on Kids’ Privacy on the Mobile Net: Is it PII or TMI? with:
Amanda Lenhart of the Pew Internet & American Life Project, veritable goddess of cyber-sociological data (check out her terrific Social Media & Young Adults report);
Phyllis Marcus, who handles childrens’ privacy and COPPA issues at the FTC (and is one of my favorite people there); and
Alan Simpson, Common Sense Media, a tireless advocate for educating children & parents.
I can only assume Alan asked me to be on this distinguished panel panel to represent kids directly on account of my baby-faced-ness! Jerry Rubin famously said, “Don’t trust anyone over thirty”—so I’ve still got 3.5 months of trustworthiness to go! (Or perhaps he actually read the huge PFF paper Adam Thierer and I did last summer about COPPA and my recent post on the FTC’s recently announced COPPA implementation review or my testimony on Maine’s COPPA 2.0 law.) Anyway, the rest of the day looks great (so register here), including these sessions: Continue reading →
Check out this amazing map of the “Dogs of War” of online competition created by Gizmodo’s Shane Snow (view full size here):
For all the complaining about these three tech titans, they’re locked in fierce competition with each other. This chart doesn’t even mention other players in the vibrantly competitive online ecosystem, like Facebook, Yahoo!, Twitter, and countless others. Makes you want to go spend a weekend playing an endless game of Risk, Axis & Allies or Supremacy with your best frenemies, doesn’t it? But of course, the board game analogy only goes so far, because today’s battlelines and players are only a snapshot of a long-term process of dynamic, highly rivalrous competition. But as Adam and I noted in our Forbes.com piece last fall calling for quick approval of Microsoft’s search partnership with Yahoo!:
Alas, regulators seem stuck in the past. European officials in particular seem hell-bent on continuing the antitrust crusade of the ’90s against Microsoft, myopically focused on fading paradigms (desktop operating systems and Web browsers). But instead of narrowly defining high-tech markets based on yesterday’s technologies or market structures, policymakers should embrace the one constant of the Internet economy: dynamic, disruptive and irrepressible change. Continue reading →
Last Thursday I shared my thoughts in two short (<5 min) RussiaToday interviews on on President Obama’s big speech about NASA and his long-overdue cancellation of NASA’s white elephant known as “Ares I” rocket. (See Jeff Foust’s analysis here and here.) I was sorry to see the Administration decide to preserve the Orion capsule as a lifeboat for the International Space Station, but as I indicate below, I can’t really blame them for feeling they had to “throw a bone” to the Congressional lions defending that program and the jobs it created (using tax dollars that killed far more jobs, of course—a classic “seen v. unseen” problem).
But as I note below, the far more important good news is that, if Obama gets his way, NASA would finally buy crew launch services to ISS and for future deep space missions from the private sector (expanding its limited COTS program) instead of building its own rockets and capsule for this purpose. This decision is easily single best thing the Administration has done thus far. They have a tough fight ahead with the few members of Congress who actually care about this—who just so happen to be the ones whose districts will face job cuts when dead-end, wasteful make-work programs are canceled. The irony here is just too thick: Many of the same kinds of folks who’ve been decrying Obama as a socialist (not unjustly, in my opinion) now attack him on nationalist grounds for trying to turn part of our ultra-socialist space program over to the private sector.
Please join us for this Progress & Freedom Foundation luncheon briefing today at 12-2 pm in the Capitol Visitor Center, Room SVC 208/209 at E Capitol St NE & 1st St NE. I’ll be moderating a discussion of the growing powers of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and what it might mean for consumers, advertisers, media creators, and the Internet.
If you can’t make it in-person, you can listen live here.
As I’ve discussed here, here and here, financial reform legislation passed by the House (HR 4173) and now under debate in the Senate would give the FTC sweeping new powers to regulate not just Wall Street, but also unfair or deceptive trade practices across the economy. This could reshape regulation in a wide range of areas, such as privacy, cybersecurity, child safety, COPPA, and child nutrition, affecting media online as well as offline. Unfortunately, as Adam and I have noted, there seems to be a disconnect at the FTC between concerns over the future of struggling media creators and efforts to step up regulation on a number of fronts, especially privacy. The FTC has also asserted expanded authority to regulate “unfair” competition in its lawsuit against Intel, based solely on the FTC’s Section 5 unfairness authority rather than traditional antitrust law. PFF has assembled a group of expert panelists—veteran FTC practitioners, scholars and insiders—to discuss these issues and more. Here’s our panel:
Jack Calfee, Resident Scholar, American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research (AEI) & author of Fear of Persuasion: A New Perspective on Advertising and Regulation (1998)
Maureen Ohlhausen, Partner, Wilkinson Barker Knauer, Consumer Protection Law and Competition Law practices, & 11-year FTC veteran
Jim Davidson, Chair of the Public Policy group, Polsinelli Shughart PC
Friday, April 16: I’ll be moderating a PFF Capitol Hill briefing on Super-Sizing the FTC & What It Means for the Internet, Media & Advertising. My panel of FTC veterans and observers will discuss the growing powers of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). As I’ve mentioned here and here, financial reform legislation passed by the House and now pending in the Senate would give the FTC sweeping new powers to regulate not just Wall Street, but also unfair or deceptive trade practices across the economy. This could reshape regulation in a wide range of areas, such as privacy, cybersecurity, child safety, child nutrition, etc. The FTC has also asserted expanded authority to regulate “unfair” competition in its lawsuit against Intel. Register here for this 12-2 pm briefing in the Capitol Visitor Center!
Thursday, April 15: I’ll be participating in Capitol Hill briefing on Google’s proposed acquisition of AdMob, a leading in-app mobile ad network, which the FTC appears poised to challenge. (RSVP here.) Geoff Manne has probably done the best job debunking arguments against the deal but, sadly, couldn’t make the panel. ITIF’s Dan Castro will moderate a panel including (besides myself):
Simon Buckingham, who’s expressed concerns about the deal on his Appitalism blog and accused Google of leveraging Google’s desktop search dominance into the high-end mobile market”;
Lillie Coney of the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), which never passes up an opportunity to denounce Google on privacy grounds;
Jonathan Kanter, Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP, who represented TradeComet.com in their antitrust suit against Google and has also represented Microsoft in the past; and
“This is an opportunity for President Obama to show that he understands President Reagan’s central lesson: ‘Government is not the solution to our problem—government is the problem,'” says Berin Szoka, an attorney at the Progress and Freedom Foundation. “These proposals offer a sensible, long-overdue way of protecting us from the real Big Brother, our government, without crippling law enforcement or the private companies that keep giving us all wonderful new content and services, mostly for free.”
This is a point Adam Thierer and I have made repeatedly in the debate over how to deal with concerns about online privacy. Check out our/my key pieces on this point:
Not exactly a highpoint in the history of deliberative democracy or rhetoric (in the best sense), but I suppose it beats wading through the 376 page National Broadband Plan… Anyway, given all this talk about increasing funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting as a way of “saving media,” I do have to wonder: Just how far will we go in allowing taxpayer-funded muppets to rally public support for this (or future) administration’s policy agenda? I mean, if the White Houe had put Oscar the Grouch on national TV to lobby for health care socialization “reform” by explaining whatever trash-related chronic medial conditions are responsible for making him so darn cranky, I think some folks would rightly have been upset.
Yes, I’m trying to be funny here but, seriously, where’s the line between harmless fun and… inappropriate use of taxpayer-funded resources for political purposes? I’m not sure. The administration probably crossed that line last September when President Obama gave a speech to kids and the Department of Education sent a proposed lesson plan to schools nationwide (later withdrawn) suggesting that pre-K-6 teachers have their students “write letters to themselves about what they can do to help the president.” But is Elmo’s meeting with Chairman Genachowski ok as a way of rallying kids—and, more importantly, their parents and everyone else who finds it cute—around a policy agenda? Any thoughts on where this line should be drawn?
This is the 5,000th post on the TLF. We started on August 14, 2004 with this post, so we celebrated our fifth anniversary last August. As Adam Thierer explained back then:
The idea for the TLF came about after I asked some tech policy wonks whether it was worth putting together a blog dedicated to covering Internet-related issues from a cyber-libertarian perspective. The model I had in mind was a “Volokh Conspiracyfor Tech Issues,” if you will. I wanted to bring together a collection of sharp, liberty-loving wonks (most of whom worked in the think tank world) to talk about their research on this front and to give them a place to post their views on breaking tech policy developments. It was to be a sort of central clearinghouse for libertarian-oriented tech policy analysis and advocacy.
At first, Tim Lee and I debated whether it even made sense to have that sort of narrow focus, but I think the passage of time and the rise of plenty of competition on this front shows that it was worthwhile. And I’ve been very pleased with the tag-team effort of all our TLF contributors and the way—without anyone planning it, in true libertarian fashion—we’ve sort of developed a nice division of labor on various tech policy issues.
Our traffic level is roughly in the same place as it was last summer: hovering somewhere around 2600 active Feedburner subscribers measured on a rolling basis (see the little red box at the top right-hand corner of the page under the banner) and our PageRank is still a healthy 7, putting us in the same league (logarithmically speaking) with the Volokh Conspiracy, our model, as well as popular sites like TechMeme, my daily first-stop for tech news. Here are a few key traffic statistics:
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.
