Five years ago this month, I penned a white paper on “Fact and Fiction in the Debate over Video Game Regulation” that I have been meaning to update ever since but just never seem to get around to it. One of the myths I aimed to debunk in the paper was the belief that most video games contain intense depictions of violence or sexuality. This argument drives many of the crusades to regulate video games. In my old study, I aggregated several years worth of data about video game ratings and showed that the exact opposite was the case: the majority of games sold each year were rating “E” for everyone or “E10+” (Everyone 10 and over) by the Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB).
Thanks to this new article by Ars Technica‘s Ben Kuchera, we know that this trend continues. Kuchera reports that out of 1,638 games rated by the ESRB in 2010, only 5% were rated “M” for Mature. As a percentage of top sellers, the percentage of “M”-rated games is a bit higher, coming in at 29%. But that’s hardly surprising since there are always a few big “M”-rated titles that are the power-sellers among young adults each year. Still, most of the best sellers don’t contain extreme violence or sexuality.
Continue reading →
Few people have experienced just how oppressive “privacy” regulation can be quite so directly as Peter Fleischer, Google’s Global Privacy Counsel. Early last year, Peter was convicted by an Italian court because Italian teenagers used Google Video to host a video they shot of bullying a an autistic kid—even though he didn’t know about the video until after Google took it down.
Of course, imposing criminal liability on corporate officers for failing to take down user-generated content is just a more extreme form of the more popular concept of holding online intermediaries liable for failing to take down content that is allegedly defamatory, bullying, invasive of a user’s privacy, etc. Both have the same consequence: Given the incredible difficulty of evaluating such complaints, sites that host UGC will tend simply to take it down upon receiving complaints—thus being forced to censor their own users.
Now Peter has turned his withering analysis on the muddle that is Europe’s popular “Right to be Forgotten.” Adam noted the inherent conflict between that supposed “right” and our core values of free speech. It’s exactly the kind of thing UCLA Law Prof. Eugene Volokh had in mind when he asked what is your “right to privacy” but a right to stop me from observing you and speaking about you?” Peter hits the nail on the head:
More and more, privacy is being used to justify censorship. In a sense, privacy depends on keeping some things private, in other words, hidden, restricted, or deleted. And in a world where ever more content is coming online, and where ever more content is find-able and share-able, it’s also natural that the privacy counter-movement is gathering strength. Privacy is the new black in censorship fashions. It used to be that people would invoke libel or defamation to justify censorship about things that hurt their reputations. But invoking libel or defamation requires that the speech not be true. Privacy is far more elastic, because privacy claims can be made on speech that is true.
Continue reading →
[UPDATE Feb. 2012: This little essay eventually led to an 80-page working paper, “Technopanics, Threat Inflation, and the Danger of an Information Technology Precautionary Principle.”]
__________
In this essay, I will suggest that (1) while “moral panics” and “techno-panics” are nothing new, their cycles seem to be accelerating as new communications and information networks and platforms proliferate; (2) new panics often “crowd-out” or displace old ones; and (3) the current scare over online privacy and “tracking” is just the latest episode in this ongoing cycle.
What Counts as a “Techno-Panic”?
First, let’s step back and define our terms. Christopher Ferguson, a professor at Texas A&M’s Department of Behavioral, Applied Sciences and Criminal Justice, offers the following definition: “A moral panic occurs when a segment of society believes that the behavior or moral choices of others within that society poses a significant risk to the society as a whole.” By extension, a “techno-panic” is simply a moral panic that centers around societal fears about a specific contemporary technology (or technological activity) instead of merely the content flowing over that technology or medium. In her brilliant 2008 essay on “The MySpace Moral Panic,” Alice Marwick noted: Continue reading →
*The Washington Post’s* [Cecilia Kang](http://voices.washingtonpost.com/posttech/2011/02/ftc_chairman_to_probe_apple_ip.html) reports that the FTC will probe Apple for in-app purchases marketing practices. According to Kang,
>FTC Chairman Jon Leibowitz wrote in a letter to Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) that the practice of “in-app purchases” for certain applications on Apple iPhones, iPads and iPods raised concerns that consumers may not fully understand the ramifications of those charges. *The Washington Post* wrote about hefty charges amassed by children using Apple device games that public interest groups said should not be included in software geared for children. Some parents said their children didn’t understand the difference between real and pretend purchases for items such as $99 barrels of Smurfberries on the Capcom Interactive game Smurfs Village.
I’ll skip the question of whether it’s the proper role of the federal government to be a surrogate parent to children given iPhones by their real parents. Instead I’ll simply say that I don’t know how much easier we can expect Apple to make it for parents to supervise their children.
– **Passwords** All purchases on iOS devices require the user to enter a password before it can be completed. Don’t give your child the password and you don’t have to worry about charges.
– **Allowances** If you do want to allow your child to make purchases, but what to set some limits, Apple makes it easy to create an [iTunes allowance](http://support.apple.com/kb/ht2105) account that allows a parent to specify an amount that is added to a child’s account each month. Once the child uses the amount, he can’t spend any more.
What more do we want Apple to do?
There’s a sharp piece in today’s Washington Post from Jack Goldsmith, currently with Harvard Law but formerly an assistant attorney general in the Bush administration, about “Why the U.S. Shouldn’t Try Julian Assange.” Goldsmith points to the sticky First Amendment / press freedom issues at stake should the U.S. try to go after Assange and WikiLeaks:
A conviction would also cause collateral damage to American media freedoms. It is difficult to distinguish Assange or WikiLeaks from The Washington Post. National security reporters for The Post solicit and receive classified information regularly. And The Post regularly publishes it. The Obama administration has suggested it can prosecute Assange without impinging on press freedoms by charging him not with publishing classified information but with conspiring with Bradley Manning, the alleged government leaker, to steal and share the information. News reports suggest that this theory is falling apart because the government cannot find evidence that Assange induced Bradley to leak. Even if it could, such evidence would not distinguish the many American journalists who actively aid leakers of classified information.
One reason journalists have never been prosecuted for soliciting and publishing classified information is that the First Amendment, to an uncertain degree never settled by courts, protects these activities. Convicting Assange would require courts to resolve this uncertainty in a way that narrows First Amendment protections. It would imply that the First Amendment does not prevent prosecution of American journalists who seek and publish classified information. At the very least it would render the First Amendment a less certain shield. This would – in contrast to WikiLeaks copycats outside our borders – chill the American press in its national security reporting.
Quite right, and it’s a point bolstered by another editorial that also appeared in the Post a few weeks ago by Adam Penenberg of New York University, in which he made the case for treating Assange as a journalist. Penenberg asks: “What constitutes “legitimate newsgathering activities”? How do you differentiate between what WikiLeaks does and what the New York Times does?”
Continue reading →
My essay last week for Slate.com (the title I proposed is above, but it must have been too “punny” for the editors) generated a lot of feedback, for which I’m always grateful, even when it’s hostile and ad hominem. Which much of it was.
The piece argues generally that when it comes to the Internet, a disruptive technology if ever there was one, the best course of action for traditional, terrestrial governments intent on “saving” or otherwise regulating digital life is to try as much as possible to restrain themselves. Or as they say to new interns in the operating room, “Don’t just do something. Stand there.”
This is not an argument in favor of anarchy, or even more generally for social Darwinism. I have something much more practical in mind. Disruptive technologies, by definition, do not operate within the “normal science” of those areas of life they impact. Its problems can’t be solved by reference to existing systems and institutions. In the case of the Internet, that’s pretty much all aspects of life, including regulation. Continue reading →
Back in 2007 I penned a law review article, “Why Regulate Broadcasting: Toward a Consistent First Amendment Standard for the Information Age” in which I argued that “If America is to have a consistent First Amendment in the Information Age, efforts to extend the broadcast regulatory regime must be halted and that regime must be relegated to the ash heap of history.” I made that argument based not only upon the fundamental bankruptcy of the rationales supporting the old broadcast regulatory regime, or its unfairness to broadcasters relative to other media competitors, but also because such asymmetrical regulations no longer make sense — and are increasingly impractical to enforce — in an age of technological convergence and media abundance.
The good news is that, slowly but surely, the courts are coming around to this logic, at least as it pertains to speech controls. We saw that again today with a ruling by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals that held as unconstitutional $1.2 million in fines that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) levied on ABC broadcast affiliates seven years ago for airing a brief glimpse of Charlotte Ross’ bare buttocks on the cop drama “NYPD Blue.” As the Wall Street Journal’s Amy Schatz notes, “Broadcasters have now won a series of court victories against government efforts to police airwaves and fine stations for airing risqué content. The Supreme Court could soon get a chance to review the issue. In the meantime, the FCC’s campaign to enforce indecency rules has ground to a halt.”
It remains to be seen whether the Supreme Court will throw the whole regime out, but I can’t help but think that’s where we are headed. Continue reading →
Amazon made headlines last week when it abruptly cut off service to Wikileaks, allegedly on the grounds that the site had violated Amazon’s terms of acceptable use. However, Amazon’s supposedly “voluntary” decision came less than 24 hours after Amazon received a phone call from Senate Homeland Security Committee staff (at the behest of Sen. Joe Lieberman) inquiring about the firm’s relationship with Wikileaks. According to a report in The Guardian, Amazon’s decision to terminate service to Wikileaks was a “reaction to heavy political pressure.”
That’s not all. Glenn Greenwald reported last week on Salon.com that another Internet company, Tableau Software, also decided to disable service to Wikileaks because of pressure from Joe Lieberman. Unlike Amazon, Tableau admitted that its decision was directly prompted by pressure from Lieberman. From Tableau’s statement:
Our decision to remove the data from our servers came in response to a public request by Senator Joe Lieberman, who chairs the Senate Homeland Security Committee, when he called for organizations hosting WikiLeaks to terminate their relationship with the website.
It’s difficult to see Joe Lieberman’s “public request” as anything but a thinly-veiled threat. Case in point: In addition to his staffers’ phone calls, Lieberman went on MSNBC last week, stating bluntly, “we’ve got to put pressure on any companies … which provide access to the Internet to Wikileaks.”
As Chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, Lieberman is in a uniquely powerful position to push for legislation that might harm private firms like Amazon. He can also hold Congressional hearings, which frequently turn into public spectacles and garner massive media coverage. A company’s CEO enduring a congressional grilling on Capitol Hill can significantly impact that firm’s public image — and, in some cases, its stock price as well. While no individual Senator has the power to enact laws, promulgate rules, or enforce regulations, a single crusading politician can arguably cause cognizable harm to any U.S. company that pushes back against “requests” to suppress unfavorable content.
How does this implicate the First Amendment? As EFF’s Rainey Reitman and Marcia Hofmann pointed out on the DeepLinks blog, “The First Amendment to the Constitution guarantees freedom of expression against government encroachment — but that doesn’t help if the censorship doesn’t come from the government.”
Continue reading →
It’s been surprising to me that none of my TLF colleagues has yet ventured a post about this latest WikiLeaks controversy. But perhaps it shouldn’t be so surprising because the Cablegate case presents some very hard questions to which there are no easy answers. I’m not sure that I know myself exactly how I feel about every issue related to leaks. But to try to get some conversation going, and to try to pin down my own feelings, I thought I’d take a stab at writing down some thoughts.
Is it legitimate for states to keep secrets from their citizens? It’s a good question, but not one I’m interested in addressing here. The fact is that they do keep secrets.
Should the disclosure of classified information be a criminal offense? Given state secrets, this is a bit of a moot question because a state’s ability to keep a secret depends on it’s ability to punish disclosure by anyone entrusted with secrets. If nothing else, someone so entrusted has likely made a promise not to disclose. (There should, of course, be whistleblower protections in place that make exceptions to the rule.)
Therefore, the interesting question is this: Should there be liability for third parties who publish disclosed information? Continue reading →
As part of what Politico’s Tony Romm calls this week’s “all-out online privacy blitzkrieg,” Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass) announced he would be proposing legislation aimed at better protecting kids from the supposed evils of online “tracking” and marketing. Apparently, Rep. Markey’s effort will build on the “Do Not Track” proposal that is garnering so much attention this week.
Lost in the smoke surrounding that privacy blitzkrieg is an important distinction between these two proposals: There is a very big difference between re-engineering browsers and websites to comply with a “Do Not Track” mandate and a new regulatory scheme aimed at identifying the ages or identities of individuals using certain online sites or services. Namely, the latter likely necessitates some sort of mandatory age verification or online authentication regime for the Internet.
Let’s take a step back for some context. Markey helped author the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) of 1998, which dealt with the collection of information for kids under 13 online. But COPPA wasn’t a strict age verification or online authentication regime for the Internet. Instead, COPPA mandated a “verifiable parental consent” regime which the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) later enforced using a so-called “sliding scale” approach. Essentially, sites that are “directed at” kids under 13 are supposed to get parental consent using a variety of mechanisms (credit cards, sign and fax forms, phone calls, etc) before any collection of information takes place. Of course, there are some devilish details here regarding what counts as “directed at” or “collection,” but the crucial point here is that COPPA does not require the formal authentication of web surfer identities or ages — whether they kids or parents.
So, the really tricky question here is how one goes about expanding the COPPA regulatory regime without stumbling into the legal thicket that tied up the Child Online Protection Act (COPA) of 1998, a law which did mandate such an authentication regime and, as a result, witnessed a grueling decade-long legal battle over its constitutionality. Ultimately, the courts rejected COPA as inconsistent with America’s tradition of anonymous speech, something central to our evolution as a democracy, pre-dating even the First Amendment that protects it from government interference. Thus, we have, at least for now, closed the book on COPA. But are we about to re-open it with COPPA expansion a la the forthcoming Markey bill? Continue reading →
Five years ago this month, I penned a white paper on “Fact and Fiction in the Debate over Video Game Regulation” that I have been meaning to update ever since but just never seem to get around to it. One of the myths I aimed to debunk in the paper was the belief that most video games contain intense depictions of violence or sexuality. This argument drives many of the crusades to regulate video games. In my old study, I aggregated several years worth of data about video game ratings and showed that the exact opposite was the case: the majority of games sold each year were rating “E” for everyone or “E10+” (Everyone 10 and over) by the Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB).
The Technology Liberation Front is the tech policy blog dedicated to keeping politicians' hands off the 'net and everything else related to technology.