Articles by Berin Szoka

Berin is the founder and president of TechFreedom, a tech policy think tank based on pragmatic optimism about technology and skepticism about government. Previously, he was a Senior Fellow at The Progress & Freedom Foundation and Director of PFF's Center for Internet Freedom.


Last Call for Summer 2010 Internship Applications through Google & Koch Fellowships!

by on January 23, 2010 · 3 comments

The deadline for the Google Policy Fellowship is Monday, January 25.  The Progress & Freedom Foundation, where Adam Thierer, Adam Marcus and I work, is participating again this year, as are the Competitive Enterprise Institute (home to the TLF’s Ryan Radia, Wayne Crews & Alex Harris) and Cato Institute (Jim Harper & Julian Sanchez).

The deadline for the Charles G. Koch Summer Fellow Program, run by the Institute for Humane Studies, is Sunday January 31. PFF, CEI and Cato are all participating, as are the Pacific Research Institute (Sonia Arrison), the Reason Foundation (Steve Titch) and the Washington Policy Center (Carl Gipson). Descriptions are available here (just select “technology” on the right). Also participating, for the first time, is the Space Frontier Foundation, on whose board I sit and for which I served as Chairman in 2008-2009.

If you look through our recent posts, you’ll get a pretty good idea of the diverse array issues we all cover, and who focuses on what. There’s certainly no shortage of interesting technology policy work to be done!

Both programs run 10 weeks and offer stipends. The Koch Program (which I participated in) is specifically geared towards those interested in free market ideas, and includes an excellent retreat, ongoing series of lectures, and group research project. As a “Koch-head” myself (class of 2000), I can attest to the quality of the program and the value of the alumni network. The Google program is in its third year but will, I’m sure, develop a valuable alumni network of its own.

Of course, most of our think tanks would probably be happy to have extra help around, so if you’re interested in an internship during the school year or over the summer, don’t hesitate to reach out to one of us. We may not necessarily be able to pay you but, hey, no one ever went into the think tank world to get rich!

SHARE: 3 comments

Internet Consolidation Can Be Good for Privacy

by on January 22, 2010 · 4 comments

There’s been a lot of hand-wringing lately about Google’s recent acquisitions of Teracent (ad-personalization) and AdMob (mobile ads), as well as Apple’s response, buying AdMob’s rival Quattro Wireless. Jeff Chester, true To form, quickly fired off an angry letter to FTC Chairman Jon Leibowitz, ranting about how the Google/AdMob deal would harm consumer privacy with the same vague fulminations as ever:

Google amasses a goldmine of data by tracking consumers’ behavior as they use its search engine and other online services. Combining this information with information collected by AdMob would give Google a massive amount of consumer data to exploit for its benefit.

Yup, that’s right, it’s all part of Google’s grand conspiracy to exploit (and eventually enslave) us all—and Apple is just a latecomer to this dastardly game. It’s not as if that data about users’ likely interests might, oh, I don’t know… actually help make advertising more relevant—and thus increase advertising revenues for the mobile applications/websites that depend on advertising revenues to make their business models work. No, of course not! Greedy capitalist scum like Google and Apple don’t care about anyone but themselves, and just want to extract every last drop of “surplus value” (as Marx taught us) from The Worker. (Never mind that in 4Q2009 Google generated $1.47 billion for website owners who use Google AdSense to sell ads on their sites—up 17% over 4Q2008—or that Apple has a strong incentive to maximize revenues for its iPhone app developers.) Internet users of the world, unite!  You have nothing to lose but all those “free” content and services thrown at your feet! Continue reading →

SHARE: 4 comments

A President Worthy of a Nobel Peace Prize: Eisenhower & the Freedom of Space

by on January 16, 2010 · 6 comments

Originally published in Space News on January 11, 2010

In December, Barack Obama accepted the Nobel Peace Prize, only the third sitting U.S. president to win—and the fourth ever. The award was announced before Obama had finished eight months in office. Indeed, the February Feb. 1, 2009, nomination deadline passed just 13 days after his inauguration.

Was there something we missed in that brief span that could match Woodrow Wilson’s presiding over the settlement of World War I, or the founding of the League of Nations? Or Teddy Roosevelt’s opening of the International Court of Arbitration and ending Japan’s bloody 1905 war with Russia? Or Jimmy Carter’s three decades of peace-making and development work? Has Obama already done more to abolish nuclear weapons than President Ronald Reagan, whose anti-nuclear crusade and actual warhead reductions were never celebrated with a Peace Prize?

There is another president who should have received the Prize long ago for stabilizing a world teetering on the brink of nuclear war. After leading Allied forces to victory over Nazi Germany, Dwight D. Eisenhower negotiated a cease-fire to Harry Truman’s war in Korea, resisted calls for American intervention in Vietnam, and single-handedly defused the 1956 Suez Crisis. His warnings about the “military-industrial complex” did more to check the growth of the national security state than all past or future peace marches combined.

But only recently has Eisenhower’s greatest achievement become clear: ensuring the right to peaceful uses of outer space.

Just as maritime commerce has thrived on “freedom of the high seas” for centuries, “freedom of space” has allowed the development of a $200 billion satellite industry that has interconnected the globe in a web of voice, video and data, and provided critical weather and climate monitoring. By ensuring that nations cannot block access to space with territorial claims, international law has prevented governments from stifling the birth of a truly spacefaring civilization. Continue reading →

SHARE: 6 comments

We Must End the (Reverse) Digital Divide!

by on January 12, 2010 · 5 comments

The Pew Internet & American Life Project recently released new “Internet, broadband, and cell phone statistics” based on surveys conducted in late 2009. The survey, among the most respected industry, reveals the shocking racism of the cell phone industry, which is clearly discriminating against historically disadvantaged European-Americans: 62% of Hispanics and 59% of non-Hispanic blacks are “wireless Internet users” compared to only 52% of white Americans.

Congress must act to correct this clear racial travesty. Since it appears that white Americans still use home broadband at higher rates, the clear answer is to create an “Internet Truth & Reconciliation Commission” responsible for reallocating (by force, if necessary) un-cool home broadband connections to more mobile minority users and much “hipper” wireless connections (which are more popular among the technologically trendsetting 18-29 crowd) to coolness-challenged white users until a perfect numerical parity is reached.  Only then will digital Racial Justice be achieved for all Americans.

Continue reading →

SHARE: 5 comments

Robotic Prostitution, Parental Controls, Caprica & Sex in the Uncanny Valley

by on January 11, 2010 · 10 comments

If this robotic girlfriend—unveiled last weekend at the AVN Adult Entertainment Expo and costing $7-9k—actually goes mainstream, I’ll bet it’s only a matter of time before we see some state lawmaker somewhere propose to ban the toys. The FCC well, no doubt, follow suit, by demanding the incorporation of parental control tools into the devices so Junior doesn’t have his way with Ms. Roxxxy (or her soon-to-be-released male counterpart, Rocky) while Mom and Dad are out at NASCAR the opera.

Laugh if you will, but if Moore’s Law holds true, such robots will become smarter, cheaper, and probably sexier as microchips continue to plummet in price and meaningful artificial intelligence becomes marketplace reality.  Move over, Roomba, Roxxxy has arrived—and she ain’t no Rosie the Robot Maid from The Jetsons! Telegraph reports that there’s a whole book about this:

In a 2007 book, “Love and Sex with Robots,” British chess player and artificial intelligence expert David Levy argues that robots will become significant sexual partners for humans, answering needs that other people are unable or unwilling to satisfy.

But the most interesting part of the telegraph article is creator Douglas Hines’s motivation:

Inspiration for the sex robot sprang from the September 11, 2001 attacks, he said, where a friend died and he vowed to store his personality forever.

This sounds an awful lot like the plot of Caprica, the new SyFi television series, a prequel set 58 years before the beginning of Battlestar Galactica, the cult phenomenon that even seduced hardened TV-refusenik like me. Continue reading →

SHARE: 10 comments

The Fiercely Competitive Mobile OS & Device Markets

by on January 5, 2010 · 3 comments

This ChangeWave consumer survey doesn’t include market share numbers, but does convey just how fierce competition has become between the five leading mobile operating systems and among top device manufacturers. The best chart is this one, which shows just how rapidly Google’s android operating system is “disrupting” the market:

Continue reading →

SHARE: 3 comments

Google & Openness: Allows Adblocking Extensions in Chrome

by on January 4, 2010 · 6 comments

Noam Cohen has a great piece in The New York Times today, In Allowing Ad Blockers, a Test for Google, explaining how Google’s decision about allowing ad blocking extensions for the new beta version of its Chrome browser puts Google’s much-ballyhooed talk about openness to the test. So far, Google is passing, with two such extensions (AdThwart & AdBlock) available in Chrome’s extensions gallery. With a combined 130,000+ users, these tools seem destined to be as popular among chrome users as AdBlock Plus has been among Firefox users: nearly 67,000,000 downloads and, according to the Times piece, 7+million active users.

Google has taken a sanguine attitude towards the issue, perhaps because as Adblock Plus creator Wladimir Palant notes, “Ad blockers are still used by a tiny proportion of the Internet population, and these aren’t the kind of people susceptible to ads anyway.” (In other words, the users most likely to download an ad blocking extensions, are likely to be more “ad-blind” and less likely to click on ads anyway.) Google’s director of engineering has noted how cautiously Google weighed its decision to allow ad-blocking programs “because Google makes all of its money from advertising.” But in the end, as the Times notes:

[H]e explained that the prevailing thinking was that “it’s unlikely ad blockers are going to get to the level where they imperil the advertising market, because if advertising is so annoying that a large segment of the population wants to block it, then advertising should get less annoying.”

“So I think the market will sort this out,” he said. “At least that is the bet we made when we opened the extension gallery and didn’t have any policy against ad-blockers.”

Michael Gundlach, creator of the AdBlock extension for Chrome (no direct connection to Palant’s AdBlock plus for Firefox, despite the similar names),

who once worked for Google in Ireland helping to ensure that ads kept appearing on Web sites, says he does not fear for media companies that increasingly rely on online ad revenue. Sounding like a firm believer of Mr. Rosenberg’s embrace-the-chaos manifesto, Mr. Gundlach said a brighter day would emerge from the challenge of ad blockers.

Extensions like his, he said, will make “every one else change their ways, to make ads more useful. Everyone wins, that’s competition. The ideal result would be to retire this extension because the entire Web was covered with ads that people loved and no one wanted to block them.”

What is this but a call for more relevant and less annoying web ads? Ironically, of course, personalized advertising is currently under attack on all fronts, and some experts have asserted that users don’t really want ads tailored to their interests—or, for that matter, news or discounts, either—on the basis of highly questionable opinion polls, as I’ve described. Continue reading →

SHARE: 6 comments

OK… It’s True, Media “Gatekeepers” Really Are Evil!

by on January 3, 2010 · 0 comments

OK, now that the television industry has admitted it, I guess I finally can, too: Hulu, far from being the key to “cable freedom” is just another evil plot by an evil industry to control us all—with the help of mind-bending advertising, of course!

Yes, I know this commercial aired on last year‘s Super Bowl. I’m behind the times… I still remember when Alex Baldwin was thin!

SHARE: 0 comments

Political Ads: Good for Publishers, Not Harmful to Advertising Overall

by on January 1, 2010 · 2 comments

The negativity of political advertising is a constant complaint and has given rise to no end of proposals to regulate purely political speech despite the plain language of the First Amendment and obvious intention of the founders to prevent government from censoring criticism. The importance of this issue extends well beyond politics: With U.S. political advertising for all media expected to hit $3.3 billion in 2010, political ad spending constitutes a significant source of advertising revenue for all kinds of publishers. To put that number in perspective, it’s just 1.4% of the $241 billion in advertising spending expected for 2010, but is nearly half as large the total spent on display advertising revenue (which makes up 1/3 of total online advertising revenue) in 2008. So as advertising revenues continue to decline and more advertising moves online, political ad spending is an increasingly important source of revenue for publishers of both traditional and new media.

But one of the more powerful arguments against such advertising is that it diminishes the effectiveness of advertising in general for all products and services—and potentially lowers revenue for publishers even more than is spent on political advertising. That’s why some advertisers and even publishers could conceivably support restrictions on negative campaign ads. The problem with this argument is that it’s just not true. That’s the conclusion of this very interesting 1999 Stanford study by Shanto Iyengar and Markus Prior I just stumbled upon: “Political Advertising: What Effect on Commercial Advertisers?”  The authors conclude:

Despite the inherent bias of all forms of advertising, people perceive product ads as generally truthful and interesting. In contrast, political ads are dismissed as dishonest, unappealing, and uninformative. When judged against political advertising, product advertising enjoys considerable public support….

They suggest two explanations for “the significant reputation gap between the two genres of advertising”: Continue reading →

SHARE: 2 comments

More on the Independence of Genachowski’s FCC

by on December 30, 2009 · 8 comments

In a letter to the editor of the Washington Post last week, former FTC Commissioner Thomas Leary responded to a Post article describing the FTC’s suit against Intel as a  “major step for President Obama,” consistent with his campaign promise to “reinvigorate antitrust enforcement.”  Leary responded indignantly to this characterization by declaring:

People seem to forget that the FTC is a bipartisan independent agency.

As a Republican FTC commissioner appointed by a Democratic president, I can vouch for the agency’s independence. During my service from 1999 to 2005 in the administrations of presidents Bill Clinton and George Bush, I never received a direct or indirect policy recommendation on a pending matter from anyone in the White House or from any of the people in Congress who had actively supported me.

Leary’s leeriness about political encroachment on the FTC illustrates the depth of abiding faith in independent regulatory agencies as standing truly apart from the day-to-day politics of Washington—especially when the might of the regulatory state is being wielded against a particular company in quasi-judicial prosecutions, such as antitrust enforcement actions. But if the independence of the FTC is this important, what about the independence of the Federal Communications Commission, with its broad jurisdiction over the media and tools of free speech?

Leary would probably be appalled at the politicization of the FCC in recent years. Bush’s second FCC chairman, Kevin Martin, was infamous for his political Machiavellianism and widely despised by the communications law bar. By contrast, when it became clear that Obama’s high-tech advisor Julius Genachowski would succeed Martin as FCC Chairman shortly before Obama’s inauguration, he received a chorus of applause from a wide range of philosophical perspectives, including from our former president at PFF, Ken Ferree:

Julius Genachowski is an outstanding choice to chair the Commission.  He is knowledgeable, experienced, and presumably will have the ear of the most influential people within the Administration.

While no one would compare the eminently likable Genachowski to Martin, his relationship to the Obama administration appears unprecedented in its closeness, and one must ask whether that’s a good thing for the head of a supposedly “independent” regulatory agency or integrity of that agency’s decision-making. Continue reading →

SHARE: 8 comments

← Previous Entries

Next Entries →