Keeping politicians' hands off the Net & everything else related to technology
Google’s recent announcement that it is creating a home for personal health records online is a natural outgrowth of Silicon Valley’s Web 2.0 consumer Internet focus. The question this raises is whether a market-driven system is better for keeping health records than one run by the government. Here is my column discussing it.
This story from the SF Chronicle is interesting in a number of ways. First, what does this baby step by Google into phone services mean in the long run? I’m not sure if the phone companies ever tried anything like this before (if you know, pls comment), but if they haven’t, it makes them look bad and reinforces the left’s “big, bad, telecoms” paranoia. Second, it is shocking to see Google working with Gavin Newsom again after the WiFi fiasco that ended SF’s attempt to provide “free” (read: government-controlled) WiFi and demonstrated how difficult it is to partner with SF’s local officials.
As James pointed out below, this week marked the anniversary of the announcement that the satellite radio firms Sirius and XM plan to merge, yet so far the companies have not been allowed to consummate the marriage. That’s because regulators are standing in the way, backed by well-heeled Washington lobbyists out to prove that ridiculous ideas still have an impact if they come with dollar-sign attachments.
For instance, the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) has spent more than US$4 million lobbying to convince regulators that the XM-Sirius deal would create a radio monopoly. That’s like arguing that the Kindle, Amazon’s new wireless reading device, is a monopoly because it is the only e-book reading device that can download books using EVDO (evolution-data optimized) technology so the user can read them immediately. Yet neither new way of enjoying books or radio excludes all others.
NAB’s claims don’t hold up to scrutiny, especially when they try to have it both ways. As the Pacific Research Institute’s Daniel Ballon has pointed out, “the NAB concocted an absurd notion of competition” with its statement that “Sirius and XM compete directly with us, but we don’t compete directly with them.” George Orwell savaged that kind of logic in his novels, and it does not belong in the debate halls of the most powerful nation in the world.
[…]
Read more here.
Hillary Clinton is my friend. On MySpace, that is. If I were going to vote for the first candidate that responded to my social networking “friend” request, it would be her. Of course, that’s a silly idea, but with all the hoopla over politicians using new technologies, one might ask: How has Web 2.0 changed the political process?
Web 2.0 generally refers to the explosion of services like social networking sites, wikis, blogs, podcasts, RSS (really simple syndication) feeds and so on. These are the technologies that have helped make the Internet even more interactive and content-rich than it was in the first place and, in this election cycle, these technologies are key.
Social news site, Digg, just announced a partnership with CBS for political coverage and also hosts its own candidates pages. MySpace held its own presidential primary the day before the Iowa caucuses (Barack Obama and Ron Paul won). Facebook cosponsored the Republican and Democratic debates with ABC and also publishes its own polling data. The candidates are embracing these technologies as well.
Sen. Barack Obama used professional networking site LinkedIn to ask “How can the next president better help small business and entrepreneurs thrive?” and at a recent speech, Hillary Clinton suggested that America “have a government blogging team.” On the Republican side, Ron Paul has raised millions by harnessing the open nature of the Net, and Rudy Giuliani’s strange behavior when he interrupted his NRA speech to answer a cell phone call from his wife was viewed more than 20,000 times on YouTube.
Clearly, American citizens no longer need to rely on mainstream media for their political data. They can now get it from numerous services all over the Web and respond just as quickly so others can see their opinion. Interactive politics is here, but is more data making things better?
[…]
Read more here.
Here’s a column I just wrote on life extension technologies and religion. And here’s a snippet:
Professor Ron Cole-Turner of the Pittsburgh Theological Seminary discussed how life extension could benefit many religious orders. “Technology will inject competition into religion and force religious authorities to clarify what they mean by immortality.” This is important, according to Cole-Turner because “there is currently a lot of evasiveness about what immortality means.”
Presidential candidate Ron Paul (R-Texas) became the “Internet” candidate this month when 36,672 people contributed more than US$4 million online to his campaign in a single 24-hour period. This impressive feat demonstrates the power of an open source culture, a lesson that should not be lost when it comes to other important issues.
The campaign to raise money for Rep. Paul was open source in a number of ways. First, it was a decentralized effort, promoted by people all over the country simultaneously. Indeed, Paul’s campaign was so hands-off that the candidate told The New York Times that he “had nothing to do with it.” It was two independent people who started the ball rolling.
James Sugra posted an online video proposing a big day of fund-raising for Paul, and Trevor Lyman separately created a site, www.thisnovember5th.com, that featured the video. Lyman’s site is now planning another big day on Dec. 16, the anniversary of the Boston Tea party.
On that day, Paul’s open source campaigners are hoping to encourage 100,000 people to donate $100 each.
Choosing a historical day may not be a particularly new fundraising tactic, but the additional open source cultural spin is that the site is automatically updating how many people have pledged so far. This transparency complements the home page of Ron Paul’s Web site, which constantly pops up names of his campaign donors. Those revelations stand in direct contrast to traditional campaigns, which tend to be silent and proprietary about who is donating.
Paul’s “donation feed” is reminiscent of the somewhat addictive “newsfeed” on social networking site Facebook,and it appears to have the effect of increasing donations. In a society where privacy is shrinking, it seems many embrace the idea of sharing more information, not less. Paul’s supporters are not alone in their recognition of the power of a voluntary open source culture.
Internet giant, Google, announced this week that it is offering $10 million in prizes for people who build the best software for Android, the company’s new open platform for mobile devices. This move shows that Google knows its tech history. Back in 1985, Apple made a huge mistake of saying no to a young Bill Gates who wanted the company to open up its proprietary architecture to developers. We all know how that ended, and now a similar story is likely to play out if the big phone companies stay closed while Google opens things up.
This reality, unfortunately, has led many to the erroneous conclusion that since openness is good, the government should force it, no matter what the cost. However, government force rarely leads to the open societies people seek. Take Net neutrality advocates, for example.
[…]
Read more here.
If you thought this post was going to be about Microsoft, you’re wrong. Now that the Redmond firm has been smacked down by EU regulators, other companies await a similar fate. The latest target is Qualcomm, who competitors say is charging too much in royalty fees for next-generation mobile phone chips. This is a very bad sign for continuing intellectual property development as it sends a message to technologists that you don’t really get to own what you create. EU regulators apparently think they should be the ones to decide what companies can charge for their goods. This is a fine state of affairs in the short term for competitors, but it doesn’t go over well with investors or for anyone who is hoping for greater innovation in the long run.
Verizon originally rejected Naral text messages, as Tim notes below, but it quickly changed its tune when the news became public. That’s because there is competition in the marketplace and public pressure made Verizon act faster that it probably has on any other issue in the last year. This is one more example of why Net neutrality advocates should relax and focus their efforts on problems that actually exist, such as the waste and corruption in the Universal Service system.
Also, I have been meaning for a while to post PRI’s new paper on Net neutrality, so here it is.
At a time when most people agree that Google or Apple have replaced Microsoft as the tech industry’s top player, government regulators on two continents are going retro, pushing old antitrust arguments. This backward-looking thinking threatens innovation for all companies and needs to stop now.
While the technology community has moved from obsessing over operating systems to focusing on Internet search and digital media government regulators are stuck in the past, wasting taxpayer time and money. A case in point is a group of states, led by California’s Attorney General and former governor Jerry Brown. This week, they told a federal judge that Microsoft’s “market power remains undiminished,” a statement that must make the execs at Google and Apple giggle with glee. For those who see the transition to Web-based services taking off, it’s a total joke.
[…]
Read more here.
Today, the NY Times reports on a rather shocking surveillance program that China has in the works. The program is starting in the city of Shenzhen, where people will be required to register for residency cards containing a computer chip. According to the Times, “Data on the chip will include not just the citizen’s name and address but also work history, educational background, religion, ethnicity, police record, medical insurance status and landlord’s phone number. Even personal reproductive history will be included, for enforcement of China’s controversial “one child” policy. Plans are being studied to add credit histories, subway travel payments and small purchases charged to the card.”
Wow. George Orwell had nothing on these guys.
The Technology Liberation Front is the tech policy blog dedicated to keeping politicians' hands off the 'net and everything else related to technology.
