Keeping politicians' hands off the Net & everything else related to technology
Jim is the Director of Information Policy Studies at The Cato Institute, the Editor of Web-based privacy think-tank Privacilla.org, and the Webmaster of WashingtonWatch.com. Prior to becoming a policy analyst, Jim served as counsel to committees in both the House and Senate.
Bruce Schneier has a very good op-ed on the Transportation Security Administration’s airport security programs in the Los Angeles Times today. The winner line: “That’s the TSA: Not doing the right things. Not even doing right the things it does.”
In fairness, security is hard. By their nature, federal agencies aren’t smart and nimble. I argued that the TSA should be scrapped in a March, 2005 Reason magazine debate.
Along similar lines, I found this amusing:
When you hear that E-Verify and REAL ID databases will be secure, be sure to ponder this. (Via FREEDOMand[STUFF].org)
The more I hear about people’s experiences getting back from Aspen, the more I want to brag about my double-top-unsecret, non-patented method of accessing the rarified air of that mountain hideaway. Fly to Denver and drive up and back.
This:
Will get you this (click for the whole thing):
And get you this:
The concept of deep packet inspection has come up a couple of times here at the Progress & Freedom Foundation’s Aspen Summit. And I’ve been interested to find people in other fora talking about deep packet inspection in the way they used to talk about cookies: “You’ll get to like once you understand what it is.”
I’m not so sure. Here’s a sample discussion of the issue among us TLFers, conducted on Twitter yesterday. (I’ve reorganized the tweets, so you can read from top to bottom.)
So I’m enjoying the high-caliber presentations so far at the PFF Aspen Summit. (Full disclosure: I spoke on the first panel dealing with intermediary liability.) But I’ve heard a couple of speakers say things that made me ask, “Where’s Mike Masnick?”
Jim Griffin of OneHouse kicked off the morning. He’s an advisor to the Warner Music Group. I didn’t write anything down, so risk mischaracterizing what he said, but one of the premises in his keynote was that creators of music and other digital content have to paid for producing that content.
Likewise, as he was setting up the second panel discussion, Tom Sydnor of PFF took it as a given that producers of copyrighted content have to paid for that production, and that the problem is figuring out how to get them paid. The premise behind this conclusion is one that should be explored.
I take it as a given that intellectual property law should promote the progress of science and useful arts. There are differences on this question, as proponents of moral rights will tell you. But taking creation of new works as the goal, what does it take to make that happen? Do creators need to be paid for their production all the time? Or can we sometimes get the benefit of their production while requiring them to earn money elsewhere, such as by bundling their creative works with other works. This is something TechDirt’s Mike Masnick has harped on for years now. He summarized his thinking to date a year or so ago in his “Grand Unified Theory On The Economics Of Free” post.
To summarize: Having fun. Good discussions. I want more! Specifically, more breadth! The economics of free is (are?) an elephant in the room.
Soren Dayton has some interesting commentary at NextRight on the candidates’ technology policies and criticisms thereof.
A representative critic on the left engages in “unserious technology fetishism,” says Dayton. His foil is Joho the Blog, who takes after Senator McCain’s technology policy thusly:
There is nothing — nothing — in his policy statement that acknowledges that maybe the Net is also a new way we citizens are connecting with one another. The phrase “free speech” does not show up in it. The term “democracy” does not show up in it. What’s the opposite of visionary?
Joho wants government technology rhapsody, and Dayton has had enough:
Does he really want government policy to regulate the “cultural, social, and democratic” aspects of anything? Should these be the subject of tax policy? Which government agency? Should we make a new “Federal Cultural and Social Regulatory Agency?”
There’s something to this criticism. Too many folks see technology as the story, and they think government policy will write the next chapter.
No. People are the story: the people who invent, build, experiment with, and use technology to do interesting things, have fun, and make their lives better.
A policy that gets the government out of the way is a policy that’s true to technology and its role.
Sometimes, items come across my desk(top) that are almost too obvious to make note of, but it’s probably worthwhile to highlight the e-passport.
Adam Laurie and Jeroen van Beek, at the Black Hat security conference in Las Vegas, showed the Business Technology Blog how to capture and change information stored on chips included in new passports from many countries. . . . Laurie showed us his son’s British passport, in which he embedded a chip that displays Osama Bin Laden’s photograph. The passports have a key needed to access the electronic information, but it is taken from information found in the passport like the date of birth. Laurie was able in about four hours to decipher the key and use an RFID scanner to steal the digital information from a passport contained in a sealed envelope.
The State Department implemented the e-passport with no sense of the ends it was trying to achieve. Naturally, the means it chose weren’t well suited.
Though I don’t think you’re going to cost-effectively stop or slow terrorism at the borders, Customs and Border Patrol may be less able to interdict bad people at the borders because of the e-passport misadventure.
The Technology Liberation Front is the tech policy blog dedicated to keeping politicians' hands off the 'net and everything else related to technology.
