So suggests this article from the Detroit Free Press.
Articles by Jim Harper 
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.
Follow @Jim_Harper
Tim Lee has published a Cato TechKnowledge piece discussing the growing problem of “orphan works” – copyrighted material the owner of which can’t be found. He highlights the work of our own Jerry Brito.
With California’s law against talking on a cell phone while driving taking effect next week, Mike Masnick is asking what else should be banned while driving.
I think the TLF audience of public policy sophisticates could add to the tenor and quality of the list. I’ve done my part (comment #42), and I obviously need a life.
Via tenacious-Google-needler Scott Cleland, Vint Cerf apparently mused at a Personal Democracy Forum panel this week about whether the Internet should be nationalized. Erick Schoenfeld of TechCrunch who heard and reported the comment first-hand is not shy with his criticisms:
[N]ationalizing the Internet is bad idea. (I can’t believe I even have to say this). It would set a horrible precedent, would undermine confidence in the American economy, and would be difficult to pull off.
There are more reasons than that, and they include: slowing down decision-making about technical issues by subjecting them to regulatory processes; giving power over the Internet’s functioning to well-heeled interests most experienced and skilled at lobbying; giving power over Internet content to self-interested politicians; and much, much more.
An interesting thing about politics and public policy is that people who are expert in a subject matter are often deemed therefore to be experts in the public policies related to that subject matter. They’re not.
A fine technologist who has made great contributions, Vint Cerf has little awareness of the profound error it would be to make the Internet a public utility. Yet he’s one of the leaders put forward to promote Google’s ‘Internet for Everyone‘ campaign.
MAPLight.org has compiled some numbers seeking to correlate changes in voting on telecom immunity with contributions from telecom providers.
When I saw the announcement of Google’s “Internet for Everyone” campaign on their Public Policy Blog, I have to admit, my BS detector started to rise.
“Ubiquitous and open broadband access for every American [should be] a priority in the next administration,” they say.
How about now, Google, and you?
You could have bought the spectrum that you encumbered with “open” rules in the 700 MHz auction, but you didn’t. Now you’re sitting back saying the government should do it for you.
Who would gain from the next administration making broadband “a priority”? Google, of course.
Then I clicked over to the site and saw the evil kid alone at the computer in the living room. Is that a parent drinking wine in the kitchen? Really, I couldn’t help myself.
The campaign “stands for” access, choice, openness, and innovation. What about fair play? Peace? Ending world hunger? A platitude in every pot and a bromide on every CRT.
Really, it’s a bunch of pap that Google will use in Washington, D.C. to insulate itself from competition and drive wealth to its owners. Seeking profit is what compaines like Google are supposed to do – but not using the nation’s public policies.
Update: Julian Sanchez nails it with: “All this may have a whiff of ‘and a pony’ about it . . . .”
A month ago, I wrote here and in a Cato TechKnowledge article about the telling imagery that a company called L-1 Identity Solutions had used in some promotional materials. The cover of their REAL ID brochure featured an attractive woman’s face with her driver license data superimposed over it, along with her name, address, height, eye color, place of birth, political affiliation, and her race. This is where the national ID system advanced by the REAL ID Act leads.
Here’s another example. A group called Family Security Matters has reprinted on its site a blog post supporting the $80 million in grant money that the Department of Homeland Security recently announced, seeking to prop up the REAL ID Act. (I’ve written about it here and here.)
What’s interesting is not that a small advocacy group should support REAL ID, but the image they chose to illustrate their thinking: a man holding his “National Identity Card,” his fingerprint and iris images printed on it, and presumably programmed into it.
Were there ever any doubt that REAL ID was a national identity system and a step toward cradle-to-grave, government-mandated biometric tracking, Family Security Matters has helped clear that up.
We’re now learning the meaning of a new policy that Americans can’t “willfully” refuse to show ID at airports. The Consumerist has a write-up of one man’s experience with IDless travel. It turns out they do a background check on you using, among other things, your political affiliation.
That’s a nice window onto what identity-based security is all about: giving the government deep access into all of our personal lives. Of course, this type of security is easy to evade, and the 9/11 plot was structured to evade it. Checking ID cannot catch someone who has no history of wrongdoing.
Identity checks at airports require law-abiding American citizens to give up their privacy, including their political affiliations, with essentially no security benefit.
This week, for a hearing in the Senate Homeland Security and Government Reform Committee, the Government Accountability Office released a report on privacy titled “Alternatives Exist for Enhancing Protection of Personally Identifiable Information.” (GAO testimony based on the report is here.) I served on a National Academy of Sciences “Expert Panel” that gave the GAO some perspectives on issues related to the Privacy Act.
The report had three main conclusions, which follow with my comments:
Continue reading →
The Technology Liberation Front is the tech policy blog dedicated to keeping politicians' hands off the 'net and everything else related to technology.