Articles by James Gattuso 
James Gattuso is a Senior Research Fellow in Regulatory Policy in the Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation. Gattuso also leads the Enterprise and Free Markets Initiative at Heritage, with responsiblity for a range of regulatory and market issues. Prior to joining Heritage, he served as Vice President for Policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute and also as Vice President for Policy Development with Citizens for a Sound Economy (CSE). From 1990 to 1993, he was Deputy Chief of the Office of Plans and Policy at the Federal Communications Commission. From May 1991 to June 1992, he was detailed from the FCC to the office of Vice President Dan Quayle, where he served as Associate Director of the President's Council on Competitiveness. He lives in Alexandria, Virginia with his wife Dana, 8 year-old son, Peter (whom he relies upon to operate his VCR), and his four year-old daughter Lindsey (who does the DVD player.) He has no known hobbies, but is not nearly as boring as he seems.
Much as we complain about government interference in the Internet here at home, its sobering to take a look at what’s happening abroad–most notably in China. Heritage last week released a Backgrounder by research fellow John Tkacik on “China’s Orwellian Internet,” outlining the situation there. According to the paper:
“The Internet once promised to be a conduit for uncensored information from beyond China’s borders, and for a brief, shining instant in modern Chinese history, it was a potential catalyst for political and human rights reform in China. However, for China’s 79 million Web surfers–the most educated and prosperous segment of the country’s population–the Internet is now a tool of police surveillance and official disinformation”.
It’s worth a look. And, if you missed it, you also should take a look at Adam’s excellent post on China the other day.
The FTC opened a new front in the war against spyware yesterday, filing charges against Sanford Wallace, claiming he has distributed software surreptiously installs itself on PCs, changed user’s home pages, install advertising programs, and even cause CD trays to fly open. Then, in what the FTC calls the very definition of “online chutzpah“–the programs would trigger ads offering to sell the victim anti-spyware programs at $30 a pop.
Reportedly, the fine could be 10,000 per violation. Given the vast number of computers thus infected, that could tote up pretty fast. Good. I hope its in the trillions. This is exactly the sort of case that the government should be bringing–against Internet vermin that are violating the rights of web surfers.
Notably, the case was brought under the FTC’s current authority to stop “unfair or deceptive” practices,” without any no new legislation from Congress. Supporters of legislation nevertheless argue that future cases may be harder to make under existing laws. Perhaps true, but we should try them before rushing in with new rules. That’s exactly what the FTC is doing, to Mr. Wallace’s chagrin, and to the delight of the rest of us.
FCC Commissioner Michael Copps jumped into the Sinclair imbroglio yesterday, calling the broadcaster’s decision to air an anti-Kerry documentary an “abuse of the public trust,” and decrying the power of media conglomerates.
Casual observers of this teapot tempest may be forgiven for thinking of the FCC as a white knight here, defending robust debate of the issues. In truth, the FCC’s own pot is more than a little black. Case in point: thanks to the FCC, presidential debates were, in effect, banned before 1976. This is because the Commission interpreted the “equal time” rule so as to forbid TV coverage of debates that didn’t include all candidates. Given that there are typically dozens of nutcases running for president, that made meaningful debates impossible.
Continue reading →
Well, it was bound to happen. Howard Stern announced today that he signed a five-year deal with Sirius Satellite Radio, jumping ship from Infinity Broadcasting. The move frees Stern from from the radio nannies at the FCC, who have long hounded the shockjock for on-air indecency.
Personally, the change won’t change my listening habits. I’ve always found Stern more boring than shocking, at least since I left junior high school. But the move is significant–rather than stamp out indecency, the FCC has merely pushed it to new media the FCC doesn’t control (thanks to that pesky 1st amendment). Along with Rathergate, just more evidence that the media world has changed, and that broadcasters (and the FCC) no longer enjoy a bottleneck on what Americans see and hear.
To no one’s real surprise, the House approved the Bono spyware bill (H.R. 2929) yesterday, by a 399-1 vote. The less-comprehensive Goodlatte bill (H.R. 4661) is also expected to pass today. TLF regulars know the problems with these bills. Here’s a piece released from Heritage last week. For more vitriol, see Jim’s Harper’s vent here. I also just posted this resource page on the topic, with more links than you can shake a curser at, earlier this week.
No one, of course, really expects legislation to solve the spyware problem–the bad guys will probably escape its reach, those that can’t fall under one or another current law. And the private-sector is coming up with solutions at warp-speed. So why is Congress rushing in? The basic political problem is the “don’t stand there, do something” syndrome. It’s hard to get elected by letting markets work–its always better to have voted for a law, any law. Even if, no, especially if the problem is being solved anyway.
In any case, the whole spyware controversy may only be an opening act for a much bigger Internet privacy battle. Ari Schwartz of the Center for Democracy and Technology is quoted in today’s Internet Daily saying that the spyware bills is only “one of the first privacy bills we’ve had [pass] the House”, and calling for more comprehensive privacy legislation to follow. Stay tuned. The show is just beginning.
This morning, the U.S. Supreme Court announced it would let the FTC’s “do not call” registry stand. It had been challenged on first amendment grounds–the basic problem being that it gave special exemptions to political candidates and charitable groups–even though their calls can be just as annoying at dinnertime than those from businesses. It was an uphill battle legally, and the Supreme Court didn’t agree with the argument. As the election approaches, then, batten down your phones for a flood of unsolicited calls from you friendly local candidates.
Just a heads up on a new Heritage Foundation study on the Bush Administration’s record on regulation. The study covers regulatory policy broadly–including, but not limited to, tech. The bottom line: Bush as done relatively well in limiting adoption of new regulations, but needs to do more to reduce the burden of existing regulations.
Interestingly, the study finds that the FCC is one of the few agencies that has had more decisions that reduced burdens than decisions that increased burdens in recent years. That doesn’t, however, mean that dereg has gone as far as it should: in fact the study scores the Administration for not giving enough support to dereg initiatives at the FCC. Among the final recommendations: having the FCC submit regulatory impact analyses to OMB before actions are taken.
A new article on the spyware issue, just released by Heritage. I argue that while spyware is a real problem, the answer will be found in private-sector innovation, not new legislation…
Continue reading →
Good article by Tom Hazlett on the Oracle-PeopleSoft case (from the Financial Times):
The US government’s antitrust enforcers have been rebuked. In a stinging rejection of the Department of Justice’s lawsuit to block the acquisition of PeopleSoft by Oracle, federal judge Vaughn Walker handed the antitrust division its collective head. While the DOJ alleged that the merger would substantially reduce competition in enterprise software applications for high-end corporate users, Oracle is now free to pursue its hostile tender for PeopleSoft shares…
Interesting article by Robert Robb of the Arizona Republic, who argues that the Rathergate affair will (unfortunately) lead us to more regulation of of the media.
Sometimes you can just sense the machinery of the regulatory state shifting into gear.I sense it in what would seem an unlikely event: CBS’ use of forged documents in a story attempting to discredit President Bush’s National Guard service. Paradoxically, this journalistic blunder is likely to stimulate efforts to muzzle the conservative media, which few would accuse CBS of being part of.
He makes a good point–this is a real concern. I’d go farther, however. I fear many conservatives as well as liberals, will use this an a reason to push for more regulation. The real lesson, of course, is that the whole affair is evidence that the media is more competitive–and less in need of regulation–than ever before.
The Technology Liberation Front is the tech policy blog dedicated to keeping politicians' hands off the 'net and everything else related to technology.