I was my pleasure to participate in this Cato Institute event today on “Who’s Leading on AI Policy? Examining EU and U.S. Policy Proposals and the Future of AI.” Cato’s Jennifer Huddleston hosted and also participating was Boniface de Champris, Policy Manager with the Computer and Communications Industry Association. Here’s a brief outline of some of the issues we discussed:

• What are the 7 leading concerns driving AI policy today?
• What is the difference between horizontal vs. vertical AI regulation?
• Which agencies are moving currently to extend their reach and regulate AI tech?
• What’s going on at the state, local, and municipal level in the US on AI policy?
• How will the so-called “Brussels Effect” influence the course of AI policy in the US?
• What have the results been of the EU’s experience with the GDPR?
• How will the EU AI Act work in practice?
• Can we make algorithmic systems perfectly transparent / “explainable”?
• Should AI innovators be treated as ‘guilty until proven innocent’ of certain risks?
• How will existing legal concepts and standards (like civil rights law and unfair and deceptive practices regulation) be applied to algorithmic technologies?
• Do we have a fear-based model of AI governance currently? What role has science fiction played in fueling that?
• What role will open source AI play going forward?
• Is AI licensing a good idea? How would it even work?
• Can AI help us identify and address societal bias and discrimination?

Again, you can watch the entire video here and, as always, here’s my “Running List of My Research on AI, ML & Robotics Policy.”

Here’s the video from a June 6th event on, “Does the US Need a New AI Regulator?” which was co-hosted by Center for Data Innovation & R Street Institute. We discuss algorithmic audits, AI licensing, an “FDA for algorithms” and other possible regulatory approaches, as well as various “soft law” self-regulatory efforts and targeted agency efforts. The event was hosted by Daniel Castro and included Lee Tiedrich, Shane Tews, Ben Shneiderman and me.

Additional Reading :

• Neil Chilson & Adam Thierer, “The Problem with AI Licensing & an ‘FDA for Algorithms,’” June 5, 2023.
• Adam Thierer, “Microsoft’s New AI Regulatory Framework & the Coming Battle over Computational Control,” Medium, May 29, 2023.
• PODCAST: Neil Chilson & Adam Thierer, “The Future of AI Regulation: Examining Risks and Rewards,” Federalist Society Regulatory Transparency Project podcast, May 26, 2023.
• Adam Thierer, “Here Come the Code Cops: Senate Hearing Opens Door to FDA for Algorithms & AI Occupational Licensing,” Medium, May16, 2023.
• Adam Thierer, “What OpenAI’s Sam Altman Should Say at the Senate AI Hearing,” R Street Institute Blog, May 15, 2023.
• PODCAST: “Should we regulate AI?” Adam Thierer and Matthew Lesh discuss artificial intelligence policy on the Institute for Economic Affairs podcast, May 6, 2023.
• Adam Thierer, “The Biden Administration’s Plan to Regulate AI without Waiting for Congress,” Medium, May 4, 2023.
• Adam Thierer, “NEPA for Al? The Problem with Mandating Algorithmic Audits & Impact Assessments,” Medium, April 23, 2023.
• Adam Thierer, “Flexible, Pro-Innovation Governance Strategies for Artificial Intelligence,” R Street Institute Policy Study No. 283 (April 2023).
• Adam Thierer, “A balanced AI governance vision for America,” The Hill, April 16, 2023.
• Adam Thierer, Brent Orrell, & Chris Meserole, “Stop the AI Pause,” AEI Ideas, April 6, 2023.
• Adam Thierer, “Getting AI Innovation Culture Right,” R Street Institute Policy Study No. 281 (March 2023).
• Adam Thierer, “Can We Predict the Jobs and Skills Needed for the AI Era?,” R Street Institute Policy Study No. 278 (March 2023).
• Adam Thierer, “U.S. Chamber AI Commission Report Offers Constructive Path Forward,” R Street Blog, March 9, 2023.
• Adam Thierer, “Statement for the Record on ‘Artificial Intelligence: Risks and Opportunities,’” U.S. Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, March 8, 2023.
• Adam Thierer, “What If Everything You’ve Heard about AI Policy is Wrong?” Medium, February 20, 2023.
• Adam Thierer, “Policy Ramifications of the ChatGPT Moment: AI Ethics Meets Evasive Entrepreneurialism,” Medium, February 14, 2023.
• Adam Thierer, “Mapping the AI Policy Landscape Circa 2023: Seven Major Fault Lines,” R Street Blog, February 9, 2023.
• Adam Thierer, “Artificial Intelligence Primer: Definitions, Benefits & Policy Challenges,” Medium, December 2, 2022.
• Neil Chilson & Adam Thierer, “The Coming Onslaught of ‘Algorithmic Fairness’ Regulations,” Regulatory Transparency Project of the Federalist Society, November 2, 2022.

I stumbled across a surprising drone policy update in the FAA’s Aeronautical Information Manual (Manual) last week. The Manual contains official guidance and best practices to US airspace users. (My friend Marc Scribner reminds me that the Manual is not formally regulatory, though it often restates or summarizes regulations.) The manual has a (apparently) new section: “Airspace Access for UAS.” In subsection “Airspace Restrictions To Flight” (11-4-6) it notes:

There can be certain local restrictions to airspace. While the FAA is designated by federal law to be the regulator of the NAS [national airspace system], some state and local authorities may also restrict access to local airspace. UAS pilots should be aware of these local rules.

Legally speaking, the FAA is recognizing there is no “field preemption” when it comes to low-altitude airspace restrictions. In sharing this provision around with aviation and drone experts, each agreed this was a new and surprising policy guidance. The drone provisions appear to have been part of updates made on April 20, 2023. In my view, it’s very welcome guidance.

Some background: In 2015, the FAA released helpful “fact sheet” to state and local officials about drone regulations, as state legislatures began regulating drone operations in earnest. The FAA noted the several drone-related areas, including aviation safety, where federal aviation rules are extensive. The agency noted:

Laws traditionally related to state and local police power – including land use, zoning, privacy,
trespass, and law enforcement operations – generally are not subject to federal regulation.

To ensure state and federal drone laws were not in conflict, the FAA recommended that state and local officials consult with the FAA before creating “operational UAS restrictions on flight altitude, flight paths; operational bans; any regulation of the navigable airspace.”

That guidance is still current and still useful. Around 2017, however, it seems some within the FAA began publicly and privately taking a rather harder line regarding state and local rules about drone operations. For instance, in July 2018, someone at the FAA posted a confusing and brief new statement on the FAA website about state and local drone rules that is hard to reconcile with the 2015 guidance.

Others noticed and reported to Congress a change at the FAA and the legal uncertainty created as companies wanted to deploy and states and cities wanted reasonable rules on operations to protect their residents. Last year the USDOT Inspector General told Congress that in 2018 a lead State participant in an FAA drone program requested a clarification as to whether particular State laws regarding drones conflicted with FAA rules. When the Inspector General asked the FAA for an update, four years had passed, and “FAA has not yet provided an opinion in response to that request.” The GAO likewise told Congress a few years ago, an unsettled question has plagued the drone industry and state lawmakers for years: Can states enforce local restrictions for surface airspace? GAO reported that the federal government had not taken a formal position regarding whether local restrictions were enforceable.

Finally the FAA makes clear: Yes, in some circumstances, state and local officials may restrict access to local airspace.

Unfortunately the drone industry and aviation regulators nationwide have lost several years (and many companies) waiting for a clear federal position.

Courts on Field Preemption

Many drone advocates, even recently, assert that states and local regulators can’t restrict surface airspace. Some incorrectly claim, among other things, that only the FAA can regulate airspace and that state and local airspace rules are subject to “field preemption.” Courts have ruled against drone advocates in the three cases I’m aware of where field preemption was raised: Singer v. City of Newton, NPPA v. McCraw, and Xizmo v. New York City. As the court said in Singer:

the FAA explicitly contemplates state or local regulation of pilotless aircraft, defeating Singer’s argument that the whole field is exclusive to the federal government.

Legal Scholarship on Drone Regulation

Likewise, it was clear to many legal scholars that some state and local airspace rules would apply to drones. Around 2016, I set out to write a policy research paper on the need for clear and uniform federal rules about low-altitude airspace that small drones use (“surface airspace”). I ran into a problem with my thesis: surface airspace policy is not a straightforward exercise of federal regulation. Analysis by legal scholars like Prof. Troy Rule (ASU Law) Prof. Laura Donohue (Georgetown Law), and Prof. Henry Smith (Harvard Law) convinced me that any federal aviation rules purporting to authorize drone flights into surface airspace (say, below 200 feet altitude or so) would run into a buzzsaw of legal challenges from state governments and landowners concerning state authority, trespass, and private property takings.

That’s because it is black-letter law that “real property” in the US has a three-dimensional aspect that includes surface airspace. Further, determinations about landowners’ property rights and entitlements are typically determined by common law and state law, not federal aviation officials. 

My original thesis scrapped, my paper went in new direction. My research about drone policy took me through the history of surface airspace propertization, back to 19th century Anglo-American legal treatises and court decisions, which I explored in a working paper published by the Mercatus Center in 2020 (and edited and republished by the Akron Law Review). To accelerate commercial drone deployments nationwide, I proposed a “cooperative federalism”–not FAA alone–approach to permitting drone operations in surface airspace.

So: courts have been clear about this, legal scholars have been clear about this, and now, finally, the FAA has been clear about this in the updated Manual: “Some state and local authorities may also restrict access to local airspace. UAS pilots should be aware of these local rules.” 

With that long-awaited clear statement in April 2023, the major stakeholders–including FAA, state aviation offices, the drone industry, and local officials–can begin the hard work of building world-class commercial drone operations nationwide while protecting the property and privacy expectations of residents.

[Originally published on Medium on 2/5/2022]

In an earlier essay, I explored “Why the Future of AI Will Not Be Invented in Europe” and argued that, “there is no doubt that European competitiveness is suffering today and that excessive regulation plays a fairly significant role in causing it.” This essay summarizes some of the major academic literature that leads to that conclusion.

Since the mid-1990s, the European Union has been layering on highly restrictive policies governing online data collection and use. The most significant of the E.U.’s recent mandates is the 2018 General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). This regulation established even more stringent rules related to the protection of personal data, the movement thereof, and limits what organizations can do with data. Data minimization is the major priority of this system, but there are many different types of restrictions and reporting requirements involved in the regulatory scheme. This policy framework also has ramifications for the future of next-generation technologies, especially artificial intelligence and machine learning systems, which rely on high-quality data sets to improve their efficacy.

Whether or not the E.U.’s complicated regulatory regime has actually resulted in truly meaningful privacy protections for European citizens relative to people in other countries remains open to debate. It is very difficult to measure and compare highly subjective values like privacy across countries and cultures. This makes benefit-cost analysis for privacy regulation extremely challenging — especially on the benefits side of the equation.

What is no longer up for debate, however, is the cost side of the equation and the question of what sort of consequences the GDPR has had on business formation, competition, investment, and so on. On these matters, standardized metrics exist and the economic evidence is abundantly clear: the GDPR has been a disaster for Europe.

Summary of Major Studies on Impact of EU Data Regulation

Consider the impact of E.U. data controls on business startups and market structure. GDPR and other regulations greatly limit the flow of data to innovative upstarts who need it most to compete, leaving only the largest companies who can afford to comply to control most of the market. Benjamin Mueller of ITIF notes that it is already the case that just “two of the world’s 30 largest technology firms by market capitalization are from the EU,” and only “5 of the 100 most promising AI startups are based in Europe,” while private funding of AI startups in Europe for 2020 ($4 billion) was dwarfed by US ($36 billion) and China ($25 billion). These issues are even more pressing as the E.U. looks to advance a new AI Act, which would layer on still more regulatory restrictions.

In concrete terms, this has meant that the E.U. came away from the digital revolution with “the complete absence of superstar companies,” argue competition policy experts Nicolas Petit and David Teece. There are no European versions of Microsoft, Google, or Apple, even though Europeans clearly demand the sort of products and services those US-based companies provide. Entrepreneurialism scholar Zoltan Acs asks: “What has been the outcome of E.U. policy in limiting entrepreneurial activity over recent decades?” His conclusion:

It is immediately clear… that the United States and China dominate the platform landscape. Based on the market value of top companies, the United States alone represents 66% of the world’s platform economy with 41 of the top 100 companies. European platform-based companies play a marginal role, with only 3% of market value.

Several recent studies have documented the costs associated with the GDPR and the E.U.’s heavy-handed approach to data flows more generally. Here is a rundown of some of the academic evidence and a summary of the major findings from these studies.

• Damien Geradin, Theano Karanikioti, and Dimitrios Katsifis, “GDPR Myopia: How a Well-intended Regulation Ended up Favouring Large Online Platforms — The Case of Ad Tech,” European Competition Journal, December 18, 2020.

“There is a growing body of economic literature and commentary showing that the costs of implementing the GDPR benefit large online platforms, and that consent-based data collection gives a competitive advantage to firms offering a range of consumer-facing products compared to smaller market actors. This in turn increases concentration in a number of digital markets where access to data is important, by creating barriers to entry or encouraging market exit.” (p. 2–3)

• Chinchih Chen, Carl Benedikt Frey, and Giorgio Presidente, “Privacy Regulation and Firm Performance: Estimating the GDPR Effect Globally,” Working Paper №2022–1.

“this paper examines how privacy regulation shaped firm performance in a large sample of companies across 61 countries and 34 industries. Controlling for firm and country-industry-year unobserved characteristics, we compare the outcomes of firms at different levels of exposure to EU markets, before and after the enforcement of the GDPR in 2018. We find that enhanced data protection had the unintended consequence of reducing the financial performance of companies targeting European consumers. Across our full sample, firms exposed to the regulation experienced a 8% decline in profits, and a 2% reduction in sales. An exception is large technology companies, which were relatively unaffected by the regulation on both performance measures. Meanwhile, we find the negative impact on profits among small technology companies to be almost double the average effect across our full sample. Following several robustness tests and placebo regressions, we conclude that the GDPR has had significant negative impacts on firm performance in general, and on small companies in particular.” (p. 1)

• Garrett Johnson, Scott Shriver, and Samuel Goldberg, “Privacy & Market Concentration: Intended & Unintended Consequences of the GDPR,” January 31, 2022.

“We show that websites’ vendor use falls after the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), but that market concentration also increases among technology vendors that provide support services to websites. We collect panel data on the web technology vendors selected by more than 27,000 top websites internationally. The week after the GDPR’s enforcement, website use of web technology vendors falls by 15% for EU residents. Websites are more likely to drop smaller vendors, which increases the relative concentration of the vendor market by 17%. Increased concentration predominantly arises among vendors that use personal data such as cookies, and from the increased relative shares of Facebook and Google-owned vendors, but not from website consent requests. Though the aggregate changes in vendor use and vendor concentration dissipate by the end of 2018, we find that the GDPR impact persists in the advertising vendor category most scrutinized by regulators. Our findings shed light on potential explanations for the sudden drop and subsequent rebound in vendor usage.” (p. 1)

• Michal Gal and Oshrit Aviv, “The Competitive Effects of the GDPR,” Journal of Competition Law and Economics, 2020.

“GDPR creates inherent tradeoffs between data protection and other dimensions of welfare, including competition and innovation. While some of these effects were acknowledged when constructing the legal data regime, many were disregarded. Furthermore, the magnitude and breadth of such effects may well constitute an unintended and unheeded welfare-reducing consequence. As this article shows, the GDPR limits competition and increases concentration in data and data-related markets, and potentially strengthens large data controllers. It also further reinforces the already existing barriers to data sharing in the EU, thereby potentially reducing data synergies that might result from combining different datasets controlled by separate entities.” (pp. 3–4)

• Rebecca Janßen, Reinhold Kesler, Michael E. Kummer and Joel Waldfogel, “GDPR and the Lost Generation of Innovative Apps,” NBER Working Paper 30028, May 2022.

“Using data on 4.1 million apps at the Google Play Store from 2016 to 2019, we document that GDPR induced the exit of about a third of available apps; and in the quarters following implementation, entry of new apps fell by half. We estimate a structural model of demand and entry in the app market. Comparing long-run equilibria with and without GDPR, we find that GDPR reduces consumer surplus and aggregate app usage by about a third. Whatever the privacy benefits of GDPR, they come at substantial costs in foregone innovation.”

• Julia Schmitt, Klaus M. Miller, and Bernd Skiera, “The Impact of Privacy Laws on Online User Behavior,” HEC Paris Research Paper No MKG-2021–1437, November 2022.

“this paper empirically quantifies the effects of the enforcement of the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) on online user behavior over time, analyzing data from 6,286 websites spanning 24 industries during the 10 months before and 18 months after the GDPR’s enforcement in 2018. A panel differences estimator, with a synthetic control group approach, isolates the short- and long-term effects of the GDPR on user behavior. The results show that, on average, the GDPR’s effects on user quantity and usage intensity are negative; e.g., the numbers of total visits to a website decrease by 4.9% and 10% due to GDPR in respectively the short- and long-term. These effects could translate into average revenue losses of $7 million for e-commerce websites and almost $2.5 million for ad-based websites 18 months after GDPR. The GDPR’s effects vary across websites, with some industries even benefiting from it; moreover, more-popular websites suffer less, suggesting that the GDPR increased market concentration.”

• Yu Zhao, Pinar Yildirim, and Pradeep Chintagunta, “Privacy Regulations and Online Search Friction: Evidence from GDPR,” August 2021.

“This paper investigates the impact of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR for short) on consumers’ online browsing and search behavior using consumer panels from four countries, United Kingdom, Spain, United States, and Brazil. We find that after GDPR, a panelist exposed to GDPR submits 21.6% more search terms to access information and browses 16.3% more pages to access consumer goods and services compared to a non-exposed panelist, indicating higher friction in online search. The implications of increased friction are heterogeneous across firms: Bigger e-commerce firms see an increase in consumer traffic and more online transactions. The increase in the number of transactions at large websites is about 6 times the increase experienced by smaller firms. Overall, the post-GDPR online environment may be less competitive for online retailers and may be more difficult for EU consumers to navigate through.”

• Paul C. Bauer, Frederic Gerdon, Florian Keusch, Frauke Kreuter, and David Vannette, “Did the GDPR Increase Trust in Data Collectors? Evidence from Observational and Experimental data,” May 2021.

“Privacy regulations should increase trust because they provide laws that increase transparency and allow for punishment in cases in which the trustee violates trust. […] We collected survey panel data in Germany around the implementation date and ran a survey experiment with a GDPR information treatment. Our observational and experimental evidence does not support the hypothesis that the GDPR has positively affected trust. This finding and our discussion of the underlying reasons are relevant for the wider research field of trust, privacy, and big data.”

• Christian Peukert , Stefan Bechtold, Michail Batikas, and Tobias Kretschmer, “Regulatory Spillovers and Data Governance: Evidence from the GDPR,” Marketing Science, Vol. 41, №4, July-August 2022, pp. 746–768.

“We follow more than 110,000 websites and their third-party HTTP requests for 12 months before and 6 months after the GDPR became effective and show that websites substantially reduced their interactions with web technology providers. Importantly, this also holds for websites not legally bound by the GDPR. These changes are especially pronounced among less popular websites and regarding the collection of personal data. We document an increase in market concentration in web technology services after the introduction of the GDPR: Although all firms suffer losses, the largest vendor — Google — loses relatively less and significantly increases market share in important markets such as advertising and analytics. Our findings contribute to the discussion on how regulating privacy, artificial intelligence and other areas of data governance relate to data minimization, regulatory competition, and market structure.”

William Rinehart of the Center for Growth and Opportunity has compiled and summarized many additional studies that document the costs associated with restrictions on data, including many state privacy laws imposed in the United States.

“The Biggest Loser”: Innovation Culture Gone Wrong

Taken together, this evidence makes it clear that, “Well-meaning privacy laws can have the unintended consequence of penalizing smaller companies within technology markets.” It can also have broader geopolitical ramifications for continental competitive advantage and engagement between countries. Some have argued that the United Kingdom’s so-called “Brexit” from the EU can be viewed as not only an effort to reclaim its sovereignty but more specifically “to escape its crippling regulatory structure.” The E.U.’s approach to emerging technology regulation likely had some bearing on this. Acs argues that Britain’s move was logical, “because E.U. regulations were holding back the U.K.’s strong DPE (digital platform economy).” “If the United Kingdom was to realize its economic potential,” he says, “it had to extricate itself from the European Union,” due to the growing “dysfunctional E.U. bureaucracy.”

Can Europe turn things around? Most market watchers do not believe that the E.U. will be willing to change its regulatory course in such a way that the continent would suddenly become more open to data-driven innovation. As part of a Spring 2022 journal symposium, The International Economy asked 11 experts from Europe and the U.S. to consider where the European Union currently stood in “the global tech race.” The responses were nearly unanimous and bluntly summarized in the symposium’s title: “The Biggest Loser.” Several respondents observed how “Europe is considered to be lagging behind in the global tech race,” and “is unlikely to become a global hub of innovation.” “The future will not be invented in Europe,” another respondent concluded. Europe’s risk-averse culture and preference for meticulously detailed and highly precautionary regulatory regimes were repeatedly cited as factors.

Europe has become the biggest loser on the digital technology front not because of their people but because of their policy. Europe is filled with some of the most important advanced education and engineering programs in the world, and countless brilliant minds there could be leading world-leading digital technology companies that could rival the U.S., China, and the rest of the world. But Europe’s current “innovation culture” simply will not allow it.

Innovation culture refers to “the various social and political attitudes and pronouncements towards innovation, technology, and entrepreneurial activities that, taken together, influence the innovative capacity of a culture or nation.” A positive innovation culture depends upon a dynamic, open economy that encourages new entry, entrepreneurialism, continuous investment, and the free movement of goods, ideas, and talent.

At this point in time, it is clear that — at least for data-driven sectors — the E.U. has created the equivalent of an anti-innovation culture, and the GDPR has clearly played a major rule in that outcome. This regulatory regime has also had devastating consequences for venture capital formation and investment more generally in Europe. “Public policy and attitudes explain the relative technological decline and lack of economic dynamism,” Petit and Teece argue, and it has resulted in, “weak venture capital markets, fragmented research capabilities, low worker mobility and frustrated entrepreneurs.”

Industrial Policy Won’t Save Europe

While the E.U. is aggressively regulating data-driven sectors, it is simultaneously trying to use industrial policy programs to advance new technological capabilities and innovations. European policymakers would obviously like to avoid a repeat of the past quarter century and the lack of digital technology competition and innovation they witnessed.

But past European industrial policy efforts on the digital technology front have largely failed, as Connor Haaland and I documented earlier. Zoltan Acs notes that, despite many state efforts to promote digital innovation across the continent in recent decades, the E.U.’s regulatory policies have resulted in the opposite. “The European Union protected traditional industries and hoped that existing firms would introduce new technologies. This was a policy designed to fail,” he argues. A major recent book, Questioning the Entrepreneurial State: Status-quo, Pitfalls, and the Need for Credible Innovation Policy (Springer, 2022), offers additional evidence of the failure of European industrial policy efforts. No amount of industrial policy planning and spending is going to be able to overcome a negative innovation culture that suffocates entrepreneurialism and investment out of the gates.

These findings have lessons for policymakers in the United States, too, especially with President Biden and even many Republicans now calling for heavy-handed top-down regulation of digital technology companies. Basically, “President Biden Wants America to Become Europe on Tech Regulation,” I argued in a recent R Street Institute blog post. In a letter to the Wall Street Journal, I responded to recent opeds by both President Biden and former Trump Administration Attorney General William Barr in which they both advocated regulations that would take us down the disastrous path that the European Union has already charted.

“The only thing Europe exports now on the digital-technology front is regulation,” I noted in my response, and that makes it all the more mind-boggling that Biden and Barr want to go down that same path. “Overregulation by EU bureaucrats led Europe’s best entrepreneurs and investors to flee to the U.S. or elsewhere in search of the freedom to innovate.” This is the wrong innovation culture for the United States if we hope to be a leader in the Computational Revolution that is unfolding — and match expanding efforts by the Chinese to top us at it.

In closing, policymakers should never lose sight of the most fundamental lesson of innovation policy, which can be stated quite simply: You only get as much innovation as you allow to begin with. If the public policy defaults are all set to be maximally restrictive and limit entrepreneurialism and experimentation by design, then it should be no surprise when the country or continent fails to generate meaningful innovation, investment, new companies, and global competitive advantage. The European model is no model for America.

Additional reading:

• “Self-Inflicted Technological Suicide”
• “AI Eats the World: Preparing for the Computational Revolution and the Policy Debates Ahead”
• “Artificial Intelligence Primer: Definitions, Benefits & Policy Challenges”
• “The Proper Governance Default for AI”
• “The Coming Onslaught of ‘Algorithmic Fairness’ Regulations ”
• “Why the Future of AI Will Not Be Invented in Europe”
• “Can European-Style Industrial Policies Create Tech Supremacy?”
• “Does the US Need a More Targeted Industrial Policy for AI & High-Tech?”

The Wall Street Journal has run my response to troubling recent opeds by President Biden (“Republicans and Democrats, Unite Against Big Tech Abuses“) and former Trump Administration Attorney General William Barr (“Congress Must Halt Big Tech’s Power Grab“) in which they both called for European-style regulation of U.S. digital technology markets.

“The only thing Europe exports now on the digital-technology front is regulation,” I noted in my response, and that makes it all the more mind-boggling that Biden and Barr want to go down that same path. “[T]he EU’s big-government regulatory crusade against digital tech: Stagnant markets, limited innovation and a dearth of major players. Overregulation by EU bureaucrats led Europe’s best entrepreneurs and investors to flee to the U.S. or elsewhere in search of the freedom to innovate.”

Thus, the Biden and Barr plans for importing European-style tech mandates, “would be a stake through the heart of the ‘permissionless innovation’ that made America’s info-tech economy a global powerhouse.” In a longer response to the Biden oped that I published on the R Street blog, I note that:

“It is remarkable to think that after years of everyone complaining about the lack of bipartisanship in Washington, we might get the one type of bipartisanship America absolutely does not need: the single most destructive technological suicide in U.S. history, with mandates being substituted for markets, and permission slips for entrepreneurial freedom.”

What makes all this even more remarkable is that they calls for hyper-regulation come at a time when China is challenging America’s dominance in technology and AI. Thus, “new mandates could compromise America’s lead,” I conclude. “Shackling our tech sectors with regulatory chains will hobble our nation’s ability to meet global competition and undermine innovation and consumer choice domestically.”

Jump over to the WSJ to read my entire response (“EU-Style Regulation Begets EU-Style Stagnation“) and to the R Street blog for my longer essay (“President Biden Wants America to Become Europe on Tech Regulation“).

Everywhere you look in tech policy land these days, people decry China as a threat to America’s technological supremacy or our national security. Many of these claims are well-founded, while others are somewhat overblown. Regardless, as I argue in a new piece for National Review this week, “America Won’t Beat China by Becoming China.” Many pundits and policymakers seem to think that only a massive dose of central planning and Big Government technocratic bureaucracy can counter the Chinese threat. It’s a recipe for a great deal of policy mischief.

Some of these advocates for a ‘let’s-be-more-like-China’ approach to tech policy also engage in revisionist histories about America’s recent success stories in the personal computing revolution and internet revolution. As I note in my essay, “[t]he revisionists instead prefer to believe that someone high up in government was carefully guiding this decentralized innovation. In the new telling of this story, deregulation had almost nothing to do with it.” In fact, I was asked by  National Review to write this piece in response to a recent essay by Wells King of American Compass, who has penned some rather remarkable revisionist tales of government basically being responsible for all the innovation in digital tech sectors over the past quarter century. Markets and venture capital had nothing to do with it by his reasoning. It’s what Science writer Matt Ridley correctly labels “innovation creationism,” or the notion that it basically takes a village to raise an innovator.

Perhaps the best example of this sort of twisted logic was President Barack Obama’s infamous 2012 “you didn’t build that” speech, which was widely mocked by many conservatives at the time as being completely off the mark. The conservative critics rightly lambasted Obama for underplaying the role of markets, entrepreneurs, and private investors as the primary engine of America’s remarkably innovative economy. Unfortunately, however, many of today’s “national conservatives” are borrowing Obama’s twisted revisionist vision and, worse yet, fabricating entirely new nonsensical ‘it-takes-a-village’ narratives that go well beyond it.

In my essay, I explain why innovation creationism about the internet and the Digital Revolution gets the story of the past quarter century horribly wrong. The tech revisionist misidentify and overplay the role government played in this arena and they also ignore the many mistakes our government and other governments (especially in Europe) have made when trying to technocratically plan tech systems. As I conclude in my essay,

America’s world-leading digital-technology companies and technologies were not the product of intentional design or bureaucratic initiatives. Corporatism and central planning should be rejected as the basis for U.S. technology policy. And regardless of whether they happen to be trendy right now, economically illiterate arguments like King’s should be relegated to the ash heap of history.

Jump over to  National Review to read the entire essay.  And here’s a list of some of my other recent writing on industrial policy:

• Adam Thierer & Connor Haaland, “Does the US Need a More Targeted Industrial Policy for AI & High-Tech?” Mercatus Center Research Paper, November 17, 2021.
• Adam Thierer, “Book Review: ‘Questioning the Entrepreneurial State,’” April 26, 2022.
• Adam Thierer, “Thoughts on the America COMPETES Act: The Most Corporatist & Wasteful Industrial Policy Ever,” January 26, 2022.
• Adam Thierer, “The Coming Industrial Policy Hangover,” The Hill, February 16, 2022.
• Podcast: “What’s Wrong with Industrial Policy,” Hold These Truths with Rep. Dan Crenshw, February 16, 2022.
• Tad DeHaven and Adam Thierer, “The Military-Industrial Complex Offers a Cautionary Tale for Industrial Policy Planning,” Discourse, March 25, 2022.
• Adam Thierer, “Government Planning and Spending Won’t Replicate Silicon Valley,” Discourse, August 18, 2021.
• Adam Thierer, “To Promote Tech Hubs Across the Country, Governments Should Focus on Improving the General Business Environment,” Discourse, September 9, 2021.
• Adam Thierer, “Industrial Policy as ‘Casino Economics‘,” The Hill, July 12, 2021.
• Adam Thierer, “‘Japan Inc.’ and Other Tales of Industrial Policy Apocalypse,” Discourse, June 28, 2021.
• Adam Thierer & Connor Haaland, “Should the U.S. Copy China’s Industrial Policy?” Discourse, March 11, 2021.
• Connor Haaland & Adam Thierer, “Can European-Style Industrial Policies Create Tech Supremacy?” Discourse, February 11, 2021.
• Matthew D. Mitchell and Adam Thierer, “Industrial Policy is a Very Old, New Idea,” Discourse, April 6, 2021.
• Adam Thierer, “Industrial Policy Advocates Should Learn from Don Lavoie,” Discourse, November 5, 2021.
• Adam Thierer, “On Defining ‘Industrial Policy,’” Technology Liberation Front, September 3, 2020.
• Adam Thierer, “Skeptical Takes on Expansive Industrial Policy Efforts,” Technology Liberation Front, March 15, 2021.

I have a new oped in the  Orange County Register discussing reforms that can help address the growing problem of “zombie government,” or old government policies and programs that just seem to never die even thought they have long outlived their usefulness. While there is no single solution to this sort of “set-it-and-forget-it” approach to government that locks in old policies and programs, but I note that:

sunsets and sandboxes are two policy innovations that can help liberate California from old and cumbersome government regulations and rules. Sunsets pause or end rules or programs regularly to ensure they don’t grow stale. Sandboxes are policy experiments that allow for the temporary relaxation of regulations to see what approaches might work better.

When California, other states, and the federal government fail to occasional do spring cleanings of unneeded old rules and programs, it creates chronic regulatory accumulation that has real costs and consequences for the efficient operation of markets and important government programs.

Jump over to the OCR site to read the entire oped.

I’m finishing up my next book, which is tentatively titled, “A Flexible Governance Framework for Artificial Intelligence.” I thought I’d offer a brief preview here in the hope of connecting with others who care about innovation in this space and are also interested in helping to address these policy issues going forward.

The goal of my book is to highlight the ways in which artificial intelligence (AI) machine learning (ML), robotics, and the power of computational science are set to transform the world—and the world of public policy—in profound ways. As with all my previous books and research products, my goal in this book includes both empirical and normative components. The first objective is to highlight the tensions between emerging technologies and the public policies that govern them. The second is to offer a defense of a specific governance stance toward emerging technologies intended to ensure we can enjoy the fruits of algorithmic innovation.

AI is a transformational technology that is general-purpose and dual-use. AI and ML also build on top of other important technologies—computing, microprocessors, the internet, high-speed broadband networks, and data storage/processing systems—and they will become the building blocks for a great many other innovations going forward. This means that, eventually, all policy will involve AI policy and computational considerations at some level. It will become the most important technology policy issue here and abroad going forward.

The global race for AI supremacy has important implications for competitive advantage and other geopolitical issues. This is why nations are focusing increasing attention on what they need to do to ensure they are prepared for this next major technological revolution. Public policy attitudes and defaults toward innovative activities will have an important influence on these outcomes.

In my book, I argue that, if the United States hopes to maintain a global leadership position in AI, ML, and robotics, public policy should be guided by two objectives:

1. Maximize the potential for innovation, entrepreneurialism, investment, and worker opportunities by seeking to ensure that firms and other organizations are prepared to compete at a global scale for talent and capital and that the domestic workforce is properly prepared to meet the same global challenges.
2. Develop a flexible governance framework to address various ethical concerns about AI development or use to ensure these technologies benefit humanity, but work to accomplish this goal without undermining the goals set forth in the first objective.

The book primarily addresses the second of these priorities because getting the governance framework for AI right significantly improves the chances of successfully accomplishing the first goal of ensuring that the United States remains a leading global AI innovator.

I do a deep dive into the many different governance challenges and policy proposals that are floating out there today—both domestically and internationally. The most contentious of these issues involved the so-called “socio-algorithmic” concerns that are driving calls for comprehensive regulation today. Those include the safety, security, privacy, and discrimination risks that AI/ML technologies could pose for individuals and society.

These concerns deserve serious consideration and appropriate governance steps to ensure that these systems are beneficial to society. However, there is an equally compelling public interest in ensuring that AI innovations are developed and made widely available to help improve human well-being across many dimensions.

Getting the balance right requires agile governance strategies and decentralized, polycentric approaches. There are many different values and complex trade-offs in play in these debates, all of which demand tailored responses. But this should not be done in an overly rigid way through complicated, inflexible, time-consuming regulatory mandates that preemptively curtail or completely constrain innovation opportunities. There’s no need to worry about the future if we can’t even build it first. AI innovation must not be treated as guilty until proven innocent.

The more agile and adaptive governance approach I outline in my book builds on the core principles typically recommended by those favoring precautionary principle-based regulation. That is, it is similarly focused on (1) “baking in” best practices and aligning AI design with widely-shared goals and values; and, (2) keeping humans “in the loop” at critical stages of this process to ensure that they can continue to guide and occasionally realign those values and best practices as needed. However, a decentralized governance approach to AI focuses on accomplishing these objectives in a more flexible, evolutionary fashion without the costly baggage associated with precautionary principle-based regulatory regimes.

The key to the decentralized approach is a diverse toolkit of so-called soft law governance solutions. Soft law refers to agile, adaptable governance schemes for emerging technology that create substantive expectations and best practices for innovators without regulatory mandates. Precautionary regulatory restraints will be necessary in some limited circumstances—particular for certain types of very serious existential risk—but most AI innovations should be treated as innocent until proven guilty.

When things do go wrong, many existing remedies are available, including a wide variety of common law solutions (torts, class actions, contract law, etc), recall authority possessed by many regulatory agencies, and various consumer protection policies and other existing laws. Moreover, the most effective solution to technological problems usually lies in more innovation, not less of it. It is only through constant trial and error that humanity discovers better and safer ways of satisfying important wants and needs.

The book has six chapters currently, although I am toying with adding back in two other chapters (on labor market issues and industrial policy proposals) that I finished but then cut to keep the theme of the book more tightly focused on social and ethical considerations surrounding AI and robotics.

Here are the summaries of the current six chapters in the manuscript:

• Chapter 1: Understanding AI & Its Potential Benefits – Defining the nature and scope of artificial intelligence and its many components and related subsectors is complicated and this fact creates many governance challenges. But getting AI governance right is vital because these technologies offer individuals and society meaningful improvements in living standards across multiple dimensions.

• Chapter 2: The Importance of Policy Defaults for Innovation Culture – Every technology policy debate involves a choice between two general defaults: the precautionary principle and the proactionary principle or “permissionless innovation.” Setting the initial legal default for AI technologies closer to the green light of permissionless innovation will enable greater entrepreneurialism, investment, and global competitiveness.

• Chapter 3: Decentralized Governance for AI: A Framework – The process of embedding ethics in AI design is an ongoing, iterative process influenced by many forces and factors. There will be much trial and error when devising ethical guidelines for AI and hammering out better ways of keeping these systems aligned with human values. A top-down, one-size-fits-all regulatory framework for AI is unwise. A more decentralized, polycentric governance approach is needed—nationally and globally. [This chapter is the meat of the book and several derivative articles will be spun out of it beginning with a report on algorithmic auditing and AI impact assessments.]

• Chapter 4: The US Governance Model for AI So Far – U.S. digital technology and ecommerce sectors have enjoyed a generally “permissionless” policy environment since the early days of the Internet, and this has greatly benefited our innovation and global competitiveness. While AI has thus far been governed by a similar “light-touch” approach, many academics and policymakers are now calling for aggressive regulation of AI rooted in a precautionary principle-oriented mindset, which threatens to derail a great deal of AI innovation.

• Chapter 5: The European Regulatory Model & the Costs of Precaution by Default – Over the past quarter century, the European Union has taken a more aggressive approach to digital technology and data regulation, and is now advancing several new comprehensive regulatory frameworks, including an AI Act. The E.U.’s heavy-handed regulatory regime, which is rooted in the precautionary principle, discouraged innovation and investment across the continent in the past and will continue to do so as it grows to encompass AI technologies. The U.S. should reject this model and welcome European innovators looking to escape it.

• Chapter 6: Existential Risks & Global Governance Issues around AI & Robotics – AI and robotics could give rise to certain global risks that warrant greater attention and action. But policymakers must be careful to define existential risk properly and understand how it is often the case that the most important solution to such risks is more technological innovation to overcome those problems. The greatest existential risk of all would be to block further technological innovation and scientific progress. Proposals to impose global bans or regulatory agencies are both unwise and unworkable. Other approaches, including soft law efforts, will continue to play a role in addressing global AI risks and concerns.

This book, which I hope to have out some time later this year, grows out of a large body of research I’ve done over the past decade. [Some of that work is listed down below.] AI, ML, robotics, and algorithmic policy issues will dominate my research focus and outputs over the next few years.

I look forward to doing my small part to help ensure that America builds on the track record of success it has enjoyed with the Internet, ecommerce, and digital technologies. Again, that stunning success story was built on wise policy choices that promoted a culture of creativity and innovation and rejected calls to hold on to past technological, economic, or legal status quos.

Will America rise to the challenge once again by adopting wise policies to facilitate the next great technological revolution? I’m ready for that fight. I hope you are, too, because it will be the most important technology policy battle of our lifetimes.

___________

Recent Essays & Papers on AI & Robotics Policy

• Adam Thierer, “Why is the US Following the EU’s Lead on Artificial Intelligence Regulation?” The Hill, July 21, 2022.
• Adam Thierer, “Algorithmic Auditing and AI Impact Assessments: The Need for Balance,” Medium, July 13, 2022.
• Adam Thierer, “What I Learned about the Power of AI at the Cleveland Clinic,” Medium, May 6, 2022.
• Adam Thierer, Governing Emerging Technology in an Age of Policy Fragmentation and Disequilibrium, American Enterprise Institute (April 2022).
• Adam Thierer, “A Global Clash of Visions: The Future of AI Policy,” The Hill, May 4, 2021.
• Adam Thierer, “A Brief History of Soft Law in ICT Sectors: Four Case Studies,” Jurimetrics, Vol. 61 (Fall 2021): 79-119.
• Adam Thierer, “U.S. Artificial Intelligence Governance in the Obama–Trump Years,” IEEE Transactions on Technology and Society, Vol, 2, Issue 4 (2021).
• Adam Thierer, “The Worst Regulation Ever Proposed,” The Bridge, September 2019.
• Ryan Hagemann, Jennifer Huddleston Skees & Adam Thierer, “Soft Law for Hard Problems: The Governance of Emerging Technologies in an Uncertain Future,” Colorado Technology Law Journal, Vol. 17 (2018).
• Adam Thierer & Trace Mitchell, “No New Tech Bureaucracy,” Real Clear Policy, September 10, 2020.
• Adam Thierer, “OMB’s AI Guidance Embodies Wise Tech Governance,” Mercatus Center Public Comment, March 13, 2020.
• Adam Thierer, “Europe’s New AI Industrial Policy,” Medium, February 20, 2020.
• Adam Thierer, “Trump’s AI Framework & the Future of Emerging Tech Governance,” Medium, January 8, 2020.
• Adam Thierer, “Soft Law: The Reconciliation of Permissionless & Responsible Innovation,” Chapter 7 in Adam Thierer, Evasive Entrepreneurs & the Future of Governance (Washington, DC: Cato Institute, 2020): 183-240.
• Andrea O’Sullivan & Adam Thierer, “Counterpoint: Regulators Should Allow the Greatest Space for AI Innovation,” Communications of the ACM, Volume 61, Issue 12, (December 2018): 33-35.
• Adam Thierer, Andrea O’Sullivan & Raymond Russell, “Artificial Intelligence and Public Policy,” Mercatus Research, Mercatus Center at George Mason University, Arlington, VA, (2017).
• Adam Thierer, “Are ‘Permissionless Innovation’ and ‘Responsible Innovation’ Compatible?” Technology Liberation Front, July 12, 2017.
• Adam Thierer, “The Growing AI Technopanic,” Medium, April 27, 2017.
• Adam Thierer, “The Day the Machines Took Over,” Medium, May 11, 2017.
• Adam Thierer, “When the Trial Lawyers Come for the Robot Cars,” Slate, June 10, 2016.
• Adam Thierer, “Problems with Precautionary Principle-Minded Tech Regulation & a Federal Robotics Commission,” Medium, September 22, 2014.
• Adam Thierer, “On the Line between Technology Ethics vs. Technology Policy,” Technology Liberation Front, August 1, 2013.

The Mercatus Center’s Academic & Student Programs team (ASP) are the ones that make all this happen. ASP is currently accepting applications for various fellowships running through the 2022-2023 academic year (for students) and 2023 calendar year (for our early-career scholars).  ASP recruits, trains, and supports graduate students who have gone on to pursue careers in academia, government, and public policy. Additionally, ASP supports scholars pursuing research on the cutting edge of academia. Mercatus fellows have an opportunity to learn from and interact with an impressive collection of Mercatus faculty, affiliated scholars, and visitors.

ASP offers several different fellowship programs to suit every need. Our fellows explore and discuss the foundations of political economy and public policy and pursue research on pressing issues. For graduate students who follow this blog and are generally interested in the big questions surrounding innovation, we especially encourage you to consider the Frédéric Bastiat Fellowship which will be premiering its innovation study track for the 2022-2023 academic year. I usually am an instructor at the session on tech and innovation policy. 

Here are more details on all the academic fellowships that Mercatus currently offers. Please pass along this information to any students or early-career scholars who might be interested.

For Students at Any University and in Any Discipline:

• The Adam Smith Fellowship  is a one-year, competitive fellowship program for graduate students enrolled in PhD programs at any university and in any discipline including, but not limited to, economics, philosophy, political science, and sociology. Adam Smith Fellows receive a stipend and attend colloquia on the Austrian, Virginia, and Bloomington schools of political economy. It is a total award of up to $10,000 for the year. The application deadline is March 15, 2022.
• The Frédéric Bastiat Fellowship  is a one-year, competitive fellowship program for graduate students who are enrolled in master’s, juris doctoral, and doctoral programs from any university and in any discipline including, but not limited to, economics, law, political science, and public policy. Frédéric Bastiat Fellows receive a stipend and attend colloquia on political economy and public policy. It is a total award of up to $5,000 for the year. The application deadline is March 15, 2022.
• The Oskar Morgenstern Fellowship is a one-year, competitive fellowship program for students who are enrolled in PhD programs from any university and in any discipline with training in quantitative methods. Oskar Morgenstern Fellows receive a stipend and attend colloquia on utilizing quantitative and empirical techniques to explore key questions and themes advanced by the Austrian, Virginia, and Bloomington schools of political economy. It is a total award of up to $7,000 for the year. The application deadline is March 15, 2022.

For Those Considering or in the Early Stages of Graduate School:

• The Don Lavoie Fellowship is a competitive, renewable, and online fellowship program for advanced undergraduates, recent graduates considering graduate school, and early-stage graduate students. Fellowships are open to students from any discipline who are interested in studying key ideas in political economy and learning how to utilize these ideas in academic and policy research. It is a total award of up to $1,250 for the semester. The deadline to apply for the Don Lavoie Fellowship for the Fall 2021 semester is April 15, 2022.

For Early Career Scholars:

• The Mercatus Center’s James Buchanan Fellowship is awarded to scholars in any discipline who have recently graduated from their doctoral programs. The aim of this fellowship is to encourage early-career scholars to critically engage ideas in the political economy of Adam Smith and the Austrian, Virginia, and Bloomington schools of political economy. It is a total award of up to $15,000 for the year. The application deadline is April 15, 2022.

A short presentation I do for Mercatus Center graduate students every couple of years offering advice to aspiring policy scholars looking to develop their personal brand & be more effective public policy analysts.

I don’t understand the hype surrounding Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs). As someone who has studied copyright and technology issues for years, maybe because it doesn’t seem very new to me. It’s just a remixing of some ideas and technologies that have been around for decades. Let me explain.

For at least 100 years, “ownership” of real property has been thought of as a “bundle of rights.” As a simple example, you may “own” the land your house sits on, but the city probably has a right to build and maintain a sidewalk across your yard and the general public has a right to walk across your property on that sidewalk. The gas company has the right to walk into your side yard to read your gas meter. Pilots have a right to fly over your house. Some other company or companies may have rights to any water and minerals in the ground below your house. Your homeowners association may even have a right to dictate what color you paint the exterior of your house.

This same “bundle of rights” concept also applies to copyright. Unless explicitly granted by contract, buying an original painting doesn’t mean you have the right to take a photograph of the painting and sell prints of the photograph. If you buy a DVD, you have the right to watch the DVD privately and you have the right to sell the DVD when you’re no longer interested in it. (That second right is called the “first sale doctrine” and there have been numerous Supreme Court cases and laws defining it’s exact boundaries.) But unless explicitly granted by contract, purchasing a DVD doesn’t mean you have the right to set up a projector and big screen and charge members of the public to watch it. That requires a “public performance” right.

When you buy most NFTs, you get very few of the rights that typically come with ownership. You might only get the right to privately exhibit the underlying work. And if you decide to later resell the NFT, the contract (which is embedded in digital code of the NFT) may stipulate that the original artist gets a 10% royalty on every future sale of the work.

The second thing you need to understand is the concept of “artificial scarcity.” As a simple example, in the art world, it’s common for photographers and painters to sell numbered, “limited edition” prints of their works. There’s no technological reason why they couldn’t print 1,000 copies of their work, or even register the print with a “print on demand” service that will continue making and selling prints as long as there are people who want to buy them. But limiting the number of prints made (even if each print is identical to any other print), is likely to raise the price. This is artificial scarcity. Most NFTs are an edition of one. Even if there are other exact copies of the underlying artwork sold as NFTs, each NFT is unique. This is like an artist selling numbered prints but not putting a limit on how many numbered prints they make. Each numbered print is technically unique because each has a different number. But without some artificial scarcity, the value of any one print may stay very low.

So if buying a NFT doesn’t get you any real rights and the scarcity is purely artificial, why are NFTs selling for hundreds of thousands of dollars? Here’s where all the technology really makes a difference. If you spend millions on a Picasso painting, you’re taking a lot of risks. First, you’re taking the risk that it’s a forgery, which would drop the value to near-zero. Second is the risk that the painting will be stolen from you. Insurance can help deal with both problems, but that adds more complications. If you’re buying the painting as an investment, these complications reduce the “liquidity” of the asset. Liquidity is the ease with which an asset can be converted into cash without affecting the market value of the asset. Put more simply, liquidity is how easily the asset can be sold. Cash has long been considered the most liquid asset, but NFTs are arguably much /more/ liquid than cash. NFTs don’t require anything physical to trade hands. And even electronic currency transfers take time and are subject to government oversight. NFTs are so new, they’re barely regulated. But by using blockchain technology, they can be easily and safely bought and sold anonymously. NFTs are a money launderers dream. It’s unclear if NFTs are actually being used to launder money, but it’s a concern.

The other reason I think NFTs are so popular is speculation. Because NFTs are so liquid and because there basically doesn’t even need to be an underlying work, the initial cost to “mint” (create) a NFT is near zero. And by using blockchain systems, NFTs can be resold with little overhead. (Though they can also be configured to ensure a certain overhead, e.g. that 10% of every resale goes to the original artist.) These characteristics, along with the newness of NFTs make it a popular marketplace for speculators, people who purchase assets with the intent of holding them for only a short time and then selling them for a profit.

NFTs started to enter the public consciousness in February 2021, after the 10-year old “Nyan cat” animation sold for over half a million dollars. This is also just a few weeks after the Gamestop stock short squeeze made a compelling case that average investors, working in concert, could upset the stock market and make millions. So it’s no wonder that there is rampant speculation in NFTs.

In conclusion, NFTs will be a tremendous benefit to digital artists, who did not previously have a way to easily prove the authenticity of their works (which is of tremendous importance to investors) or to provide a digital equivalent to numbered prints in the physical art world. But the hype about NFTs is just that. It’s driven by speculators and you’d be crazy to think of this as a worthy investment opportunity.

Content moderation online is a newsworthy and heated political topic. In the past year, social media companies and Internet infrastructure companies have gotten much more aggressive about banning and suspending users and organizations from their platforms. Today, Congress is holding another hearing for tech CEOs to explain and defend their content moderation standards. Relatedly, Ben Thompson at Stratechery recently had interesting interviews with Patrick Collison (Stripe), Brad Smith (Microsoft), Thomas Kurian (Google Cloud), and Matthew Prince (Cloudflare) about the difficult road ahead re: content moderation by Internet infrastructure companies.

I’m unconvinced of the need to rewrite Section 230 but like the rest of the Telecom Act—which turned 25 last month–the law is showing its age. There are legal questions about Internet content moderation that would benefit from clarifications from courts or legal scholars.

(One note: Social media common carriage, which some advocates on the left, right, and center have proposed, won’t work well, largely for the same reason ISP common carriage won’t work well—heterogeneous customer demands and a complex technical interface to regulate—a topic for another essay.)

The recent increase in content moderation and user bans raises questions–for lawmakers in both parties–about how these practices interact with existing federal laws and court precedents. Some legal issues that need industry, scholar, and court attention:

Public Officials’ Social Media and Designated Public Forums

Does Knight Institute v. Trump prevent social media companies’ censorship on public officials’ social media pages?

The 2nd Circuit, in Knight Institute v. Trump, deemed the “interactive space” beneath Pres. Trump’s tweets a “designated public forum,” which meant that “he may not selectively exclude those whose views he disagrees with.” For the 2nd Circuit and any courts that follow that decision, the “interactive space” of most public officials’ Facebook pages, Twitter feeds, and YouTube pages seem to be designated public forums.

I read the Knight Institute decision when it came out and I couldn’t shake the feeling that the decision had some unsettling implications. The reason the decision seems amiss struck me recently:

Can it be lawful for a private party (Twitter, Facebook, etc.) to censor members of the public who are using a designated public forum (like replying to President Trump’s tweets)? 

That can’t be right. We have designated public forums in the physical world, like when a city council rents out a church auditorium or Lions Club hall for a public meeting. All speech in a designated public forum is accorded the strong First Amendment rights found in traditional public forums. I’m unaware of a case on the subject but a court is unlikely to allow the private owner of a designated public forum, like a church, to censor or dictate who can speak when its facilities are used as a designated public forum.

The straightforward implication from Knight Institute v. Trump seems to be that neither politicians nor social media companies can make viewpoint-based decisions about who can comment on or access an official’s social media account.

Knight Institute creates more First Amendment problems than it solves, and could be reversed someday. [Ed. update: In April 2021, the Supreme Court vacated the 2nd Circuit decision as moot since Trump is no longer president. However, a federal district court in Florida concluded, in Attwood v. Clemons, that public officials’ “social media accounts are designated public forums.” The Knight Institute has likewise sued Texas Attorney General Paxton for blocking user and claimed that his social media feed is a designated public forum. It’s clear more courts will adopt this rule.] But to the extent Knight Institute v. Trump is good law, it seems to limit how social media companies moderate public officials’ pages and feeds.

Cloud neutrality

How should tech companies, lawmakers, and courts interpret Sec. 512?

Wired recently published a piece about “cloud neutrality,” which draws on net neutrality norms of nondiscrimination towards content and applies them to Internet infrastructure companies. I’m skeptical of the need or constitutionality of the idea but, arguably, the US has a soft version of cloud neutrality embedded in Section 512 of the DMCA.

The law conditions the copyright liability safe harbor for Internet infrastructure companies only if: 

the transmission, routing, provision of connections, or storage is carried out through an automatic technical process without selection of the material by the service provider.

17 USC § 512(a).

Perhaps a copyright lawyer can clarify, but it appears that Internet infrastructure companies may lose their copyright safe harbor if they handpick material to censor. To my knowledge, there is no scholarship or court decision on this question.

State Action

What evidence would a user-plaintiff need to show that their account or content was removed due to state action?

Most complaints of state action for social media companies’ content moderation are dubious. And while showing state action is hard to prove, in narrow circumstances it may apply. The Supreme Court test has said that when there is a “sufficiently close nexus between the State and [a] challenged action,” the action of a private company will be treated as state action. For that reason, content removals made after non-public pressure or demands from federal and state officials to social media moderators likely aren’t protected by the First Amendment or Section 230.

Most examples of federal and state officials privately jawboning social media companies will never see the light of day. However, it probably occurs. Based on Politico reporting, for instance, it appears that state officials in a few states leaned on social media companies to remove anti-lockdown protest events last April. It’s hard to know exactly what occurred in those private conversations, and Politico has updated the story a few times, but examples like that may qualify as state action.

Any public official who engages in non-public jawboning resulting in content moderation could also be liable to a Section 1983 claim–civil liability for deprivation of an affected user’s constitutional rights.

Finally, what should Congress do about foreign state action that results in tech censorship in the US? A major theme of the Stretechery interviews ist that many tech companies feel pressure to set their moderation standards based on what foreign governments censor and prohibit. Content removal from online services because of foreign influence isn’t a First Amendment problem, but it is a serious free speech problem for Americans.

Many Republicans and Democrats want to punish large tech companies for real or perceived unfairness in content moderation. That’s politics, I suppose, but it’s a damaging instinct. For one thing, the Section 230 fixation distract free-market and free-speech advocates from, among other things, alarming proposals for changes to the FEC that empower it to criminalize more political speech. The singular focus on Section 230 repeal-reform distracts from these other legal questions about content moderation. Hopefully the Biden DOJ or congressional hearings will take some of these up.

On January 7, with the Pai FCC winding down, the agency made an important rule change that gives US households more broadband options. Small, outdoor broadband antennas installed on private property will be shielded from “unreasonable” state and local restrictions and fees, much like satellite TV dishes are protected today. The practical effect is most consumers can install small broadband devices on their rooftops, on their balconies, or on short poles in their yards in order to bring broadband to their home and their neighbors’. The FCC decision was bipartisan and unanimous and will open up tens of millions of new installation sites for certain 5G small cells, WISP systems, outdoor WiFi, mesh network nodes, and other wireless devices.

Previously, satellite dish installation was protected from most fees and restrictions but most small broadband antennas were not.

The rule change involved the FCC’s 20 year-old over-the-air-reception-device (OTARD) rules, which protect consumers from unreasonable local fees and restrictions when installing satellite TV dishes. The rules came about because in the 1990s states and cities often restricted or imposed fees on homeowners installing satellite TV dishes. Congress got involved and, circa 1998, the FCC created the OTARD rules, aka the “pizza box rules,” to protect the installation of TV dishes less than 1 meter diameter.

In recent years, homeowners and tenants increasingly want to install small, outdoor broadband antennas on their property to bring new services and competition to their neighborhood. However, they face many of the same problems satellite dish installers faced in the 1990s. From my comments (pdf) to the FCC in the proceeding:

For instance, a few years ago a woman in the Charlottesville, Virginia, area switched from cable to less expensive satellite TV service in order to save money after being laid off. She had a satellite dish installed in her front yard—the only place the dish could receive an adequate signal. A city zoning official sent her and about 30 neighbors letters informing them that their (OTARD rules-covered) satellite dishes were, per local ordinance, unpermitted accessory structures. Any homeowners who did not remove their dish faced fines of $250 per day.

Fortunately for the homeowners, the woman was familiar with the OTARD rules and informed the local officials of the FCC’s authority.38 After being informed of the FCC’s OTARD regulations, the city officials declined to enforce the local ordinance and agreed to revisit the ordinance for compliance with FCC rules.

Today, WISPs and other broadband providers face similar issues when trying to install antennas on private property. It’s hard to know how much the OTARD rules helped expand satellite TV penetration but it helped. The FCC rules coincided with the installation of 20-30 million small dishes on private property.

With the rules extended to broadband antennas, operators will have millions more low-cost siting options. One provider, Starry, wrote to the FCC that today “it takes on average 100 days to complete the permitting process for a single base station, which accounts for about 80% of the time that it spends in activating a site.” Starry says that with the January 2021 rule change, they’ll likely activate 25-30% more antenna sites in the next year, bringing a broadband option to 1 million additional households. Take projections with a grain of salt, but it’s clear the new rules will improve coverage and competition.

There are some exceptions. States and cities are able to restrict antenna installation if they can show a safety hazard or a historic preservation issue. Generally, however, the rules are protective of homeowners and tenants. The changes faced some opposition from cities, counties, and homeowners associations but it’s great to see a bipartisan and unanimous decision in the final days of Chairman Pai’s broadband expansion-focused tenure to give consumers more protection for installing and self-provisioning small broadband antennas.

In a five-part series at the American Action Forum, I presented prior to the 2020 presidential election the candidates’ positions on a range of tech policy topics including: the race to 5G, Section 230, antitrust, and the sharing economy. Now that the election is over, it is time to examine what topics in tech policy will gain more attention and how the debate around various tech policy issues may change. In no particular order, here are five key tech policy issues to be aware of heading into a new administration and a new Congress. 

The  Use of Soft Law for Tech Policy 

In 2021, it is likely America will still have a divided government with Democrats controlling the White House and House of Representatives and Republicans expected to narrowly control the Senate. The result of a divided government, particularly between the two houses of Congress, will likely be that many tech policy proposals face logjams. The result will likely be that many of the questions of tech policy lack the legislation or hard law framework that might be desired. As a result, we are likely to continue to see “soft law”—regulation by various sub-regulatory means such as guidance documents, workshops, and industry consultations—rather than formal action. While it appears we will see more formal regulatory action from the administrative state as well in a Biden Administration, these actions require quite a process through comments and formal or informal rulemaking. As technology continues to accelerate, many agencies turn to soft law to avoid “pacing problems” where policy cannot react as quickly as technology and rules may be outdated by the time they go into effect. 

A soft law approach can be preferable to a hard law approach as it is often able to better adapt to rapidly changing technologies. Policymakers in this new administration, however, should work to ensure that they are using this tool in a way that enables innovation and that appropriate safeguards ensure that these actions do not become a crushing regulatory burden. 

Return of  the  Net Neutrality  Debate 

One key difference between President Trump and President-elect Biden’s stances on tech policy concerns whether the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) should categorize internet service providers (ISPs) as Title II “common carrier services,” thereby enabling regulations such as “net neutrality” that places additional requirements on how these service providers can prioritize data. President-elect Biden has been clear in the past that he favors reinstating net neutrality. 

The imposition of this classification and regulations occurred during the Obama Administration and the FCC removed both the classification under Title II and the additional regulations for “net neutrality” during the Trump Administration. Critics of these changes made many hyperbolic claims at the time such as that Netflix would be interrupted or that ISPs would use the freedom in a world without net neutrality to block abortion resources or pro-feminist groups. These concerns have proven to be misguided. If anything, the COVID-19 pandemic has shown the benefits to building a robust internet infrastructure and expanded investment that a light-touch approach has yielded. 

It is likely that net neutrality will once again be debated. Beyond just the imposition of these restrictions, a repeated change in such a key classification could create additional regulatory uncertainty and deter or delay investment and innovation in this valuable infrastructure. To overcome such concerns, congressional action could help fashion certainty in a bipartisan and balanced way to avoid a back-and-forth of such a dramatic nature. 

Debates Regarding  Sharing Economy Providers ’   Classification  as Independent Contractors 

California voters passed Proposition 22 undoing the misguided reclassification of app-based service drivers as employees rather than independent contractors under AB5; during the campaign, however, President-elect Biden stated that he supports AB5 and called for a similar approach nationwide. Such an approach would make it more difficult on new sharing economy platforms and a wide range of independent workers (such as freelance journalists) at a time when the country is trying to recover economically.  

Changing classifications to make it more difficult to consider service providers as independent contractors makes it less likely that platforms such as Fiverr or TaskRabbit could provide platforms for individuals to offer their skills. This reclassification as employees also misunderstands the ways in which many people choose to engage in gig economy work and the advantages that flexibility has. As my AAF colleague Isabel Soto notes, the national costs of a similar approach found in the Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Act “could see between $3.6 billion and $12.1 billion in additional costs to businesses” at a time when many are seeking to recover during the recession. Instead, both parties should look for solutions that continue to allow the benefits of the flexible arrangements that many seek in such work, while allowing for creative solutions and opportunities for businesses that wish to provide additional benefits to workers without risking reclassification. 

Shifting Conversations and Debates Around Section 230 

Section 230 has recently faced most of its criticism from Republicans regarding allegations of anti-conservative bias. President-elect Biden, however, has also called to revoke Section 230 and to set up a taskforce regarding “Online Harassment and Abuse.” While this may seem like a positive step to resolving concerns about online content, it could also open the door to government intervention in speech that is not widely agreed upon and chip away at the liability protection for content moderation. 

For example, even though the Stop Enabling Sex Trafficking Act was targeting the heinous crime of sex trafficking (which was already not subject to Section 230 protection) was aimed at companies such as Backpage where it was known such illegal activity was being conducted, it has resulted in legitimate speech such as Craigslist personal ads being removed  and companies such as Salesforce being subjected to lawsuits for what third parties used their product for. A carveout for hate speech or misinformation would only pose more difficulties for many businesses. These terms to do not have clearly agreed-upon meanings and often require far more nuanced understanding for content moderation decisions. To enforce changes that limit online speech even on distasteful and hateful language in the United States would dramatically change the interpretation of the First Amendment that has ruled such speech is still protected and would result in significant intrusion by the government for it to be truly enforced. For example, in the UK, an average of nine people a day were questioned or arrested over offensive or harassing “trolling” in online posts, messages, or forums under a law targeting online harassment and abuse such as what the taskforce would be expected to consider. 

Online speech has provided new ways to connect, and Section 230 keeps the barriers to entry low. It is fair to be concerned about the impact of negative behavior, but policymakers should also recognize the impact that online spaces have had on allowing marginalized communities to connect and be concerned about the unintended consequences changes to Section 230 could have. 

Continued Antitrust Scrutiny of “Big Tech” 

One part of the “techlash” that shows no sign of diminishing in the new administration or new Congress is using antitrust to go after “Big Tech.” While it remains to be seen if the Biden Department of Justice will continue the current case against Google, there are indications that they and congressional Democrats will continue to go after these successful companies with creative theories of harm that do not reflect the current standards in antitrust. 

Instead of assuming a large and popular company automatically merits competition scrutiny  or attempting to utilize antitrust to achieve policy changes for which it is an ill-fitted tool, the next administration should return to the principled approach of the consumer welfare standard. Under such an approach, antitrust is focused on consumers and not competitors. In this regard, companies would need to be shown to be dominant in their market, abusing that dominance in some ways, and harming consumers. This approach also provides an objective standard that lets companies and consumers know how actions will be considered under competition law. With what is publicly known, the proposed cases against the large tech companies fail at least one element of this test. 

There will likely be a shift in some of the claimed harms, but unfortunately scrutiny of large tech companies and calls to change antitrust laws to go after these companies are likely to continue. 

Conclusion 

There are many other technology and innovation issues the next administration and Congress will see. These include not only the issues mentioned above, but emerging technologies like 5G, the Internet of Things, and autonomous vehicles. Other issues such as the digital divide provide an opportunity for policymakers on both sides of the aisle to come together and have a beneficial impact and think of creative and adaptable solutions. Hopefully, the Biden Administration and the new Congress will continue a light-touch approach that allows entrepreneurs to engage with innovative ideas and continues American leadership in the technology sector. 

On July 23rd, the U.S. Department of Transportation (DoT) released Pathways to the Future of Transportation, which was billed as “a policy document that is intended to serve as a roadmap for innovators of new cross modal technologies to engage with the Department.” This guidance document was created by a new body called the Non-Traditional and Emerging Transportation Technology (NETT) Council, which was formed by U.S. Transportation Secretary Elaine L. Chao last year. The NETT Council is described as “an internal deliberative body to identify and resolve jurisdictional and regulatory gaps that may impede the deployment of new technologies.”

The creation of NETT Council and the issuance of its first major report highlight the continued growth of “soft law” as a major governance trend for emerging technology in the US. Soft law refers to informal, collaborative, and constantly evolving governance mechanisms that differ from hard law in that they lack the same degree of enforceability. A partial inventory of soft law methods includes: multistakeholder processes, industry best practices or codes of conduct, technical standards, private certifications, agency workshops and guidance documents, informal negotiations, and education and awareness efforts. But this list of soft law mechanisms is amorphous and ever-changing.

Soft law systems and processes are multiplying at every level of government today: federal, state, local, and even globally. Such mechanisms are being tapped by government bodies today to deal with fast-moving technologies that are evolving faster than the law’s ability to keep up.

The US Department of Transportation has become a leading candidate for Soft Law Central at the federal level. The agency has been tapping a variety of soft law mechanisms and approaches to deal with driverless cars and drone policy issues in particular. (See the essays listed down below for more details).

The NETT Council represents the next wave of this governance trend. We might consider it an effort to bring a greater degree of formality and coordination to the agency’s soft law efforts. The DoT’s overview of the NETT Council explains its purpose as follows:

Inventors and investors approach USDOT to obtain necessary safety authorizations, permits, and funding and often face uncertainty about how to coordinate with the Department. The NETT Council will address these challenges by ensuring that the traditional modal silos at DOT do not impede the safe deployment of new technology. Furthermore, it will give project sponsors a single point of access to discuss plans and proposals.

In its new guidance document, the NETT Council seeks to outline how it will work to develop “the principles informing the [DoT] policies in transformative technologies,” as well as “the overarching regulatory framework for non-traditional and emerging transportation technologies.” A lot of stress is placed on “how the Council will engage with innovators and entrepreneurs” to strike the balance between continued safety and increased innovation.

Although much of the document simply discusses existing agency regulatory authority, the Council also identifies how the agency and its subdivisions will seek a more flexible governance approach going forward. A premium is placed on expanding dialogue among affected parties. The section discussing environmental review requirements is indicative of this, noting: “The Department encourages innovators, project sponsors or proponents to engage in a dialogue with the NETT Council when the proponent anticipates seeking Federal financial assistance or an authorization.”

“Any innovator can approach the NETT Council with its ideas,” the document says in another section, although engagement level may vary by issue and department. It continues on to note that, “during the formation stage, the NETT Council would likely be willing to have an informational meeting and establish a point of contact to maintain a level of awareness for Department staff regarding the new project.” “Successful collaboration tends to be characterized by industry initiation and leadership with a limited and defined federal role,” it notes. Several examples are highlighted.

In addition to the importance of early dialogue between innovators and regulators, the document stresses the dangers associated with regulatory uncertainty. It also includes some discussion about the problems associated with a lack of regulatory flexibility in some instances “and the potential deterrent to innovation caused by attempting to ‘shoehorn’ a particular technology into a regulatory regime that does not fit.” There is also some discussion of how international or private sector standards might help provide governance solutions in some instances.

Again, these are all examples of soft law mechanisms. To be clear, the NETT Council is not proposing the abandonment of hard law enforcement efforts. To the contrary, the document repeatedly reiterates what those powers are and how they might be used. But it is equally clear that the DoT realizes that the old regulatory systems are being severely strained by the “pacing problem,” or the notion that technological developments are often moving considerably faster than traditional regulatory processes.

The NETT Council report is a welcome effort to broaden the dialogue about what sort of governance systems might make the more sense going forward for emerging technologies. This is a pressing problem for the DoT because of the convergence of digital and analog sectors and technologies. AI and machine-learning technologies are invading the crusty old world of transportation networks and regulations. Momentous changes are happening. Law will need to adapt. Soft law systems will increasingly be tapped to help out if for no other reason than there isn’t a better backup plan. If America hopes to be a leader in transportation innovation, new governance approaches will be essential.

Below you will find some additional essays on the growing soft law-ization of technological governance in the US. Many of them are about transportation technologies and recent developments at the federal and state levels. I also recommend this new essay by John Villasenor over at Brookings on “Soft law as a complement to AI regulation.” Finally, if you want to do a deep dive in the nature of soft law and the full range of governance issues associated with it, then you absolutely must follow the work being done by Gary Marchant and his impressive team of colleagues at Arizona State University. Begin with this essay on “Soft Law Governance Of Artificial Intelligence,” and then get your hands on this huge book on the topic that Marchant co-edited. It’s the best thing I have read on soft law and alternative governance systems for emerging technologies.

In the meantime, give the new DoT NETT Council report a glance because, for better or worse, this is what the future of technological governance looks like.

• Adam Thierer, “Soft Law in ICT Sectors: A Brief History,” forthcoming Jurimetrics, (2021).
• Ryan Hagemann, Jennifer Skees, and Adam D. Thierer, “Soft Law for Hard Problems: The Governance of Emerging Technologies in an Uncertain Future,” Colorado Technology Law Journal, (2018).
• Ryan Hagemann, Jennifer Huddleston Skees & Adam Thierer, “‘Soft Law’ Is Eating the World: Driverless Car Edition,” The Bridge, Oct 11, 2018
• Jennifer Huddleston & Trace Mitchell, “Continuing DOT’s Automated Vehicle Soft-Law Approach Will Encourage Innovation and Promote Safety,” Mercatus Center Public Comment, November 30, 2018.
• Jennifer Huddleston & Adam Thierer, “Pennsylvania’s Innovative Approach to Regulating Innovation,” The Bridge, September 5, 2018.
• Ryan Hagemann, “New Rules for New Frontiers: Regulating Emerging Technologies in an Era of Soft Law,” Washburn Law Journal, Vol. 57, No. 2 (Spring 2018).
• Adam Thierer, “The Pacing Problem and the Future of Technology Regulation,” The Bridge, August 8, 2018.

Few things unify people in America more than beer and liquor regulations. On one side you have the forces of repression, who either favor strong liquor taxes and regulations on moralistic grounds, or because they favor curtailing competition and choice for a variety of reasons. On the other side you have those of us looking to end the insanity of quasi-Prohibitionary rules that do nothing to boost public health but do plenty to annoy the living hell out of us (and cost us plenty). And the really interesting thing is that these two groups contain plenty of people of radically different political persecutions. Liquor regulations are the greatest destroyer of political partisanship ever!

For those of us who favor liberalization, as I write in my latest AIER column:

The good news is that evasive entrepreneurs and an increasingly technologically-empowered public will keep pushing back and hopefully whittle away at the continuing vestiges of Prohibition Era stupidity. Where there’s a will, there’s a way, and when people want a drink, crafty entrepreneurs will usually find a way to deliver.

I talk a walk back through history and discuss how efforts to evade ridiculous liquor controls have been a longstanding feature of the American experience. People can be remarkably creative when seeking to circumvent silly rules–both before, during, and after Prohibition. Indeed, the insanity continues today. I document several examples of how:

In the wake of the COVID lockdowns, some state and local governments relaxed liquor carryout and delivery laws to give bars, breweries, and distilleries a chance to weather the forced closings. Unfortunately, many of those laws also required those establishments to sell food as part of every transaction if they wanted to sell or serve drinks. The results were comical in many states as evasive entrepreneurs devised creative regulatory work-arounds to deal with these “gotta-eat-to-drink” edicts.

I provide examples of this happening in Pennsylvania, New York, Virginia, and DC with dumb rules like that. Finally, I also come clean about my own bootlegger past! Read on.

I was very sad to learn that James Gattuso passed away this week . James was a friend and a wonderful mentor to me. I actually took his position at the Heritage Foundation in the early 1990s, which he had vacated a few years prior to go to work in the White House. But after I left Heritage in 2000, James returned shortly thereafter to take back essentially the same position. We often joked that Heritage should just name the position after us and let us play musical chairs there forevermore! 

I learned so much from James through the years and regularly sought his advice on matters. In fact, when I first started this blog in 2004, James was one of the first three people I reached out to and asked to join. He contributed dozens of essays here. His entries read like newspaper dispatches from the frontlines of a battle. I always thought James would have made a terrific reporter, but his love of liberty made him want to fight for a cause. Hence, his life-long devotion to policy advocacy and the freedom to innovate in particular. 

But the most important thing I learned from working with James was how to properly conduct myself as an analyst and a human being. James was such a kind soul, and he always had time for everyone. Most importantly, he treated them with enormous respect, even when he violently disagreed with them. He listened carefully, digested arguments, and addressed them with a cool tenor, but also a powerful wit.

James famously developed a set of “10 Rules for Policy Analysts” that reflected much of that wisdom. His first rule: If the answer looks easy, you’ve missed something. There’s probably a reason no one has thought of it before.” His third: “Don’t assume everyone has read your paper, even if it is really, really good. Most people didn’t get past the first paragraph. Most of those only read the title.” There are many other gems like that in his Top 10 list. 

But his second rule is perhaps the most important piece of advice he ever gave me: “Don’t assume the other guy is evil. He may be, but will be on your side later.” That’s great advice because so many young people in the world of public policy (and it included me for awhile) tend to look at their opponents as nefarious-minded dimwits who are without hope or a moral compass.

As you age, you realize that’s nonsense, of course. But James taught me early on to avoid falling into this trap. I used to be pretty hot-headed in my early years as an analyst, but James would gently caution me about why I might be better off considering my intellectual opponents in a different light and granting them the same measure of respect that I hoped to garner from them myself. It’s a simple but powerful notion that is too often ignored–in all aspects of life. But James lived by that rule and everyone I know respected him enormously as a result. His advice and his example provide us with a model to live by.     

Thank you for everything you taught me, James. You will be missed, but never forgotten. 

My research focus lately has been studying and encouraging markets in airspace. Aviation airspace is valuable but has been assigned to date by regulatory mechanisms, custom, and rationing by industry agreement. This rationing was tolerable decades ago when airspace use was relatively light. Today, regulators need to consider markets in airspace–allowing the demarcation, purchase, and transfer of aerial corridors–in order to give later innovators airspace access, to avoid anticompetitive “route squatting,” and to serve as a revenue stream for governments, much like spectrum auctions and offshore oil leases.

Last month, the FAA came out in favor of “urban air mobility corridors”–point-to-point aerial highways that new eVTOL, helicopter, and passenger drones will use. It’s a great proposal, but the FAA’s plan for allocating and sharing those corridors is largely to let the industry negotiate it among themselves (the “Community Business Rules”):

Operations within UAM Corridors will also be supported by CBRs collaboratively developed by the stakeholder community based on industry standards or FAA guidelines and approved by the FAA.

This won’t end well, much like Congress and the Postmaster General letting the nascent airlines in the 1930s divvy up air routes didn’t end well–we’re still living with the effects of those anticompetitive decisions. Decades later the FAA is still refereeing industry fights over routes and airport access.

Rather, regulators should create airspace markets because otherwise, as McKinsey analysts noted last year about urban air mobility:

first movers will have an advantage by securing the most attractive sites along high-traffic routes.

Airspace today is a common-pool resource rationed via regulation and custom. But with drones, eVTOL, and urban air mobility, congestion will increase and centralized air traffic control will need to give way to a more federated and privately-managed airspace system. As happened with spectrum: a demand shock to an Ostrom-ian common pool resource should lead to enclosure and “propertization.”

Markets in airspace probably should have been created decades ago once airline routes became fixed and airports became congested. Instead, the centralized, regulatory rationing led to large economic distortions:

For example, in 1968, nearly one-third of peak-time New York City air traffic–the busiest region in the US–was general aviation (that is, small, personal) aircraft. To combat severe congestion, local authorities raised minimum landing fees by a mere $20 (1968 dollars) on sub 25-seat aircraft. General aviation traffic at peak times immediately fell over 30%—suggesting that a massive amount of pre-July 1968 air traffic in the region was low-value. The share of aircraft delayed by 30 or more minutes fell from 17% to about 8%.

This pricing of airspace and airport access was half-hearted and resisted by incumbents. Regulators fell back on rationing via the creation of “slots” at busy airports, which were given mostly to dominant airlines. Slots have the attributes of property–they can be defined, valued, sold, transferred, borrowed against. But the federal government refuses to call it property, partly because of the embarrassing implications. The GAO said in 2008:

[the] argument that slots are property proves too much—it suggests that the agency [FAA] has been improperly giving away potentially millions of dollars of federal property, for no compensation, since it created the slot system in 1968.

It may be too late to have airspace and route markets for traditional airlines–but it’s not too late for drones and urban air mobility. Demarcating aerial corridors should proceed quickly to bring the drone industry and services to the US. As Adam has pointed out, this is a global race of “innovation arbitrage”–drone firms will go where regulators are responsive and flexible. Federal and state aviation officials should not give away valuable drone routes, which will end up going to first-movers and the politically powerful. Airspace markets, in contrast, avoid anticompetitive lock-in effects and give drone innovators a chance to gain access to valuable routes in the future.

Research and Commentary on Airspace Markets

Law journal article. The North Carolina JOLT published my article, “Auctioning Airspace,” in October 2019. I argued for the FAA to demarcate and auction urban air mobility corridors (SSRN).

Mercatus white paper. In March 2020 Connor Haaland and I explained that federal and state transportation officials could demarcate and lease airspace to drone operators above public roads because many state laws allow local and state authorities to lease such airspace.

Law journal article. A student note in a 2020 Indiana Law Journal issue discusses airspace leasing for drone operations (pdf).

FAA report. The FAA’s Drone Advisory Committee in March 2018 took up the idea of auctioning or leasing airspace to drone operators as a way to finance the increased costs of drone regulations (pdf).

GAO report. The GAO reviewed the idea of auctioning or leasing airspace to drone operators in a December 2019 report (pdf).

Airbus UTM white paper. The Airbus UTM team reviewed the idea of auctioning or leasing airspace to UAM operators in a March 2020 report, “Fairness in Decentralized Strategic Deconfliction in UTM” (pdf).

Federalist Society video. I narrated a video for the Federalist Society in July 2020 about airspace design and drone federalism (YouTube).

Mercatus Center essay. Adam Thierer, Michael Koutrous, and Connor Haaland wrote about drone industry red tape how the US can’t have “innovation by regulatory waiver,” and how to accelerate widespread drone services.

I’ve discussed the idea in several outlets and events, including:

• Wall Street Journal op-ed
• 2019 Global Air Traffic Management Conference panel
• A Harvard Law School drone policy event
• Air Traffic Management magazine essay

Podcast Episodes about Drones and Airspace Markets

• In a Federalist Society podcast episode, Adam Thierer and I discussed airspace markets and drone regulation with US Sen. Mike Lee. (Sen. Lee has introduced a bill to draw a line in the sky at 200 feet in order to clarify and formalize federal, state, and local powers over low-altitude airspace.)
• Tech Policy Institute podcast episode with Sarah Oh, Eli Dourado, and Tom Lenard.
• Macro Musings podcast episode with David Beckworth.
• Drone Radio Show podcast episode with Randy Goers.
• Drones in America podcast episode with Grant Guillot.
• Uncommon Knowledge podcast episode with Juliette Sellgren.
• Building Tomorrow podcast episode with Paul Matzko and Matthew Feeney.
• sUAS News podcast episode and interview.

America’s small towns are underpopulated, while big cities of plague, protests, and panic are overpopulated, overpriced, and overpopularized. We could start by ensuring rural spaces high-speed internet (still unavailable as I can attest in the rural center of supposedly high-tech California)…. Victor Davis Hanson

A proposal by Congressman G.K. Butterfield of North Carolina could be a big step in the right direction of opening up rural spaces to full participation in the modern economy.  

His proposal would expand the eligibility of who can receive Federal support for building infrastructure in unserved areas, making it easier for cable operators, satellite providers and others to complete with traditional telecommunications carriers. 

The Butterfield vision is gaining bipartisan support and may possibly be included in a stimulus package.  It certainly should be.  

The proposal would simply eliminate the requirement that a competitor must receive designation as an Eligible Telecommunications Carrier (ETC) from a state public utility/service commission as a prerequisite for receiving Federal support.

This requirement harkens back to a bygone era when cable, wireless and satellite services were not substitutes for landline telephone service.  At that time, small rural telephone providers worried that a competitor would “cherry pick” or “cream skim” their most lucrative (enterprise) customers—such as the local hospital—and strand the small rural telco in a potential death spiral serving only the barely profitable (or even unprofitable) consumer segment.

Now that cable, satellite and wireless services are a substitute for many consumers, the requirement for ETC designation does nothing to protect small rural telcos from competition.  It is an anachronism.  However, it does create an unnecessary hurdle for cable, wireless and satellite providers to qualify for Federal support to help close the digital divide—which is an urgent priority.

Originally intended to prevent the loss of telecommunications services in rural areas, the requirement now serves to prevent the necessary expansion of those services to keep up with the modern world economy.  

As awful as this horrible pandemic is, at least we are driving less and spending more time with our families.  Many have learned that a daily commute may not be necessary.  Broadband seems to be boosting productivity and reducing air pollution at the same time.  Hopefully broadband can also help facilitate a revival of rural America.  

By Brent Skorup & Connor Haaland

We think drones are exciting technology with the potential to improve medical logistics, agriculture, transportation, and other industries. But drones fly at low altitudes and, to many Americans, drones represent a nuisance, trespasser, or privacy invasion when they fly over private property. This is why we think the FAA and states should work together to lease airspace above public roads—it would free up millions of miles of low-altitude airspace for operations while avoiding many lawsuits from public and private landowners.

In the meantime, states and landowners are pushing back on certain drone activities. Per Prof. Stephen Migala, about 10 states have created “no-fly zones” for drones, prohibiting flights over government property, state forests, or sensitive areas. Most state airspace rules prohibit drones at low-altitudes over “critical infrastructure” like nuclear, gas and electric facilities, bridges, dams, and communication networks. Some states prohibit drones over jails, prisons, and schools.

In Texas, in fact, there is litigation over a state ban on photography drones above critical infrastructure, sports venues, and prisons. One of the legal issues is whether state police powers over trespass, nuisance, and privacy allow states to exclude drones from low-altitude airspace. As we’ve pointed out in a GovTech piece, this is a festering issue in drone regulation—no one knows at what altitude private property (and state police powers) begins.

For private property owners who don’t want drones flying over their property, they might be able to bring a trespass lawsuit under existing state law. Around 20 states expressly vest air rights with landowners. However, many states also recognize a privilege of non-disruptive flight, so it’s unclear if a landowner would win a lawsuit in those states. We’re unaware of the issue being litigated.

Unfortunately, many landowners and annoyed neighbors are taking matters into their own hands and shooting drones out of the sky. We’ve identified over a dozen such encounters in the past eight years, though there are likely some near-misses and unreported cases out there.  (Don’t shoot a drone–it’s dangerous and, as the cases below show, you risk being arrested and convicted for criminal mischief or some other crime.)

1. In November of 2012, unknown shooters in Bucks County, Pennsylvania shot down a drone that was flying over their hunt club. The drone was flown by an animal rights group to bring scrutiny to pigeon shooting and this was the fourth time the activists’ drone had been shot down. No criminal charges appear to have been filed.
2. In October of 2014, a man shot down a drone in Lower Township, New Jersey. It’s unclear if the drone was hovering over his property or a neighbor’s. The man plead guilty to criminal mischief. 
3. In November 2014 in Modesto, California, a man allegedly instructed his minor son to shoot his neighbor’s drone out of the sky, and the drone was destroyed. The neighbor claims the drone was not over the man’s property and won $850 in small claims court from the man for damages and costs.
4. In July of 2015 in Bullitt County, Kentucky, William Meredith,  annoyed at a drone flying over his backyard while grilling with friends, shot the drone when it flew over his property. The drone’s owner, a neighbor, called the police upon discovering his destroyed drone. Meredith was arrested and charged under local law for firing a gun in a populated area. At the highly publicized trial in state court, the judge dismissed the charges with a brief statement that Meredith was justified in shooting because of the invasion of privacy.
5. In April of 2016, an unnamed woman shot down a drone in Edmond, Oklahoma. The drone was flown by a construction company employee who was inspecting gutters in the neighborhood. It’s unclear if the drone was flying over the woman’s property. The case was investigated by the police, who said that they did not expect to file charges
6. An unknown shooter in Aspen, Colorado shot down a drone during 4^th of July fireworks in 2016. It’s unclear if the drone was over the shooter’s property. The pilot of the fallen drone filed a report with local police and the FAA but the shooter remains a mystery.
7. In August of 2016, a woman allegedly shot down a drone in The Plains, Virginia with her 20-gauge shotgun. The woman alleged that the drone hovered 25 to 30 feet above her property and she believed it was being used to spy on her movie-star neighbor, Robert Duvall. The two men flying the drone left the scene when she told them she was calling the police. No charges were filed. 
8. In April of 2017, an unknown person in Morgan County, Georgia shot down a drone with a .22 rifle. It’s unclear whose property the drone was flying over. The drone owner filed a report but a suspect was never identified.
9. In October of 2017, a man allegedly shot down a drone in Jackson County, Oregon with his pellet rifle and later turned himself in for arrest. The photography drone was flying over a state recreation area. The local prosecutor charged the shooter with first degree criminal mischief, a felony in Oregon. (The drone’s owner feels that a felony charge is excessive. With a Google search, it’s unclear whether the man was convicted.)
10. In May of 2018, a man allegedly attempted to shoot down a drone with his handgun in Bradenton, Florida. It was a neighbor’s drone and the man claims it was on his property, hovering a few feet above the ground. Police were called and warned the man about the danger and legal risk of shooting drones. No charges were filed.
11. In February of 2019, a man allegedly shot down a drone in Long Island, New York with a shotgun. The drone was being used by an animal rescue group to find a lost dog. It’s unclear if the drone was flying over the man’s property. He was charged with third-degree criminal mischief and prohibited use of a weapon.
12. In May of 2020, a man allegedly shot down a drone flying over a chicken processing plant in Watonwan County, Minnesota. The drone operator was apparently taking video of the plant as a citizen-journalist. The man was charged with two felonies: criminal damage to property and reckless discharge of a firearm in city limits. 
13. In June 2020, someone shot a drone flying somewhere in western Pennsylvania at 390 feet above the ground. Despite being grazed and damaged, the drone managed to safely operate and land. It’s unclear if the drone was over the shooter’s property. The shooter is unknown and the drone operator contacted state police but has not filed a complaint.

As you can see, the legal penalties for shooting a drone vary based on the circumstances and the prosecutor. Some got off with warnings but a few were charged with a felony under state law. Arguably, someone shooting a drone violates federal law, which imposes penalties on anyone who

willfully . . . damages, destroys, disables, or wrecks . . . any civil aircraft used . . . in interstate . . . commerce.

Federal penalties for willfully damaging an aircraft are stiff—fines and up to 20 years’ imprisonment. We’re unaware of federal prosecutors bringing a case against someone for shooting a drone. Perhaps federal prosecutors feel it’s excessive to use this statute, which was written with passenger planes in mind. Further, it’s unclear when drones are used in interstate commerce. As one federal judge said in a 2016 drone regulation case, Huerta v. Haughwout:

the FAA believes it has regulatory sovereignty over every cubic inch of outdoor air in the United States. . . . [I]t is far from clear that Congress intends—or could constitutionally intend—to regulate all that is airborne on one’s own property and that poses no plausible threat to or substantial effect on air transport or interstate commerce in general.

Hopefully lawmakers will clear up the ambiguity and demarcate where property rights end. As we pointed out in our recent 50-state drone report card, creating drone highways would prevent many issues. Congress should also consider drawing a federal-state dividing line in the sky, much like it drew a dividing line in the ocean in the Submerged Lands Act for energy development. For now, landowners, drone operators, the FAA, and state governments are all trying to determine the limits of their authority.

Section 230 is in trouble. Both presidential candidates have made its elimination a priority. In January, Joe Biden told the New York Times that the liability protections for social media companies should be revoked “immediately.” This week, President Trump called for revoking Section 230 as well. Most notably, after a few years of threatening action, the President issued an Executive Order about Section 230, its liability protections, and free speech online. (My article with Jennifer Huddleston about Section 230, its free speech benefits, and the common law precedents for Section 230 was published in the Oklahoma Law Review earlier this year.) 

There have been thousands of reactions to and news stories about the Executive Order and a lot of hyperbole. No, the Order doesn’t eliminate tech companies’ Section 230 protection and make it easier for conservatives to sue. No, the Order isn’t “plainly illegal.”

It’s fairly modest in reach actually. The Executive Order can’t change the deregulatory posture and specific protections of Section 230 but the President has broad authority to interpret the unclear meanings of statutes. Some of the thoughtful responses that stuck out are from Adam Thierer, Jennifer Huddleston, Patrick Hedger, and Adam White. I won’t reiterate what they’ve said but will focus on what the Order does and what the FCC can do.

Election Year Jawboning

The Order is a political document. For the baseball fans, it’s the political equivalent of a brushback pitch to tech companies–the pitcher throws an inside fastball intended to scare the batter without hitting him. (Enjoy 4 minutes of brushback pitches on YouTube.) Most of the time, a pitcher won’t get ejected by the umpire for throwing a brushback pitch. Likewise, here, I don’t see much chance of the Order being struck down by judges. The Order was wordsmithed, even in the last 24 hours before release, in a way to avoid legal troubles.

As Jesse Blumenthal points out in Slate, the Order is just the latest example of the long tradition of politicians using informal means and publicity to pressure media outlets. The political threats to TV and radio broadcasters during the Nixon, LBJ, and Kennedy years were extreme examples and are pretty well-documented.

More recently, there was a huge amount of jawboning of media companies in the runup to the 2004 election. Newspaper condemnation and legal threats forced a documentary critical of John Kerry off the air nationwide. Stations either pulled the documentary or only ran a few minutes of it because activists’ threatened to challenge TV station licenses for years at the FCC if stations ran the documentary. Many people remember the Citizens United case, which derived from the FEC’s censorship of an anti-John Kerry documentary in 2004 and an anti-Hillary Clinton documentary in 2008. Less remembered is that the conservative group started creating political documentaries only after the FEC rejected its complaint to get a Michael Moore’s anti-Bush documentary, Fahrenheit 9/11, off the air before the 2004 election.

The Title II net neutrality regulations were, per advocates close to the Obama White House, imposed largely to rally the base after Democrats’ 2014 midterm losses.

Implementation of the Executive Order

The timing of the Order–a few months before the election–seems intended to accomplish two things:

1. Rally the Trump base by publicly threatening tech companies’ liability protections and provoking tech companies’ ire.
2. Focus public and media scrutiny on tech companies so they think twice before suspending, demonetizing, or banning conservatives online.

The legal effect in the short term is negligible. Unless the relevant agencies (DOJ, FTC, NTIA, FCC) patched something together hastily, the Order won’t have an effect on tech companies and their susceptibility to lawsuits in the near term. The most immediate practical effect of the Order is the instructions to the NTIA. The agency is directed to petition the FCC to clarify what some unclear provisions of Sec. 230 mean, particularly the “good faith” requirement and how (c)(2) in the statute interacts with (c)(1).

It’s not clear why the Order makes this roundabout instruction to the NTIA and FCC. (The FCC is an independent agency and can refuse instructions from the White House.) “Good faith” is a term of art in contract law. It seems to me that referring this to the DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel, not the FCC, would be the natural place for an administration to turn to to interpret legal terms of art and how provisions in federal statutes interact with each other. 

One reason the White House might use the roundabout method is because the administration knows the downsides of weakening Section 230 and isn’t actually intending to make material changes to existing interpretations of Sec. 230. The roundabout request to the FCC allows the White House to do something on the issue without upsetting established interpretations. And if the FCC refuses to take it up, the White House can tell supporters they tried but it was out of their hands.

Alternatively it could be that this was referred to the FCC because Section 230 is within the Communications Act and the FCC has more expertise and jurisdiction in communications law. The FCC has interpreted Section 230 before and has also interpreted what “good faith” means because Congress requires good faith negotiations between cable TV and broadcast TV operators.

If they took it up, I suspect FCC review would be perfunctory. The NTIA petition need not even get decided at the commission level. The FCC can delegate issues to bureau chiefs or other FCC staff. Bureaus can respond to a petition with an enforcement advisory or, after notice-and-comment, a declaratory ruling regarding the interpretative issues. It would take months to complete, but the full commission could also consider and rule on the NTIA petition.

But I suspect the commissioners don’t want to get dragged into election-year controversies. (As I mentioned above, White House staff may have even sent this to the FCC in order to let the issue die quietly.) The FCC is busy with pressing issues like spectrum auctions and rural broadband. Further, the NTIA-FCC relationship, while cordial, is not particularly good at the moment. Finally, the commissioners know the agency’s history of mission creep and media regulation. The Republican majority has consistently tried to untangle itself from legacy media regulations. An FCC inquiry into what “good faith” means in the statute and how (c)(2) in the statute interacts with (c)(1)–while an intriguing academic and legal interpretation exercise–would be a small but significant step towards FCC oversight of Internet services.

Section 230 is in Trouble

The fact is, Section 230 is in trouble. Courts have applied it reluctantly since its inception because of its broad protections. As Prof. Eric Goldman has meticulously documented, in recent years, courts have undermined Section 230 precedent and protection.

At some level the President and his advisors know that opening the door to regulation of the Internet will end badly for right-of-center and free speech. This was the foundation of the President’s opposition to Title II net neutrality rules. As he’s stated on Twitter:

Obama’s attack  on the internet is another top down power grab. Net neutrality is the Fairness Doctrine. Will target conservative media.

The Executive Order, while it doesn’t allow the FCC to regulate online media like Title II net neutrality did, is the Administration playing with fire. It’s essentially a bet that the Trump administration can get a short-term political win without unleashing long-term problems for conservatives and free speech online.

The Trump team may be right. But the Order, by inviting FCC involvement, represents a small step to regulation of Internet services. More significantly, there’s a reason prominent Democrats are calling for the elimination of Section 230. The trial bar, law school clinics, and advocacy nonprofits would like nothing more than to make it expensive for tech companies to defend their hosting and disseminating conservative publications and provocateurs.

Prominent Democrats are calling for the elimination of Sec. 230 and replacing it with a Fairness Doctrine for the Internet. If things go Democrats’ way, the Executive Order could give regulators, much of the legal establishment, and the left a foothold they’ve sought for years to regulate Internet services and online speech. Be careful what you wish for.

Here’s a webinar video of a discussion I had recently with Kevin Gomez and his colleague at the Institute for Economic Inquiry at Creighton University’s School of Business.  We discussed my new book, Evasive Entrepreneurs and the Future of Governance: How Innovation Improves Economies and Governments and the future of “permissionless innovation” more generally. My thanks to Kevin and his team at Creighton for inviting me to join them for a fun discussion. Topics include:

• why evasive entrepreneurialism is expanding
• the growth of innovation arbitrage
• the difference between technologies that are “born free” versus “born in captivity”
• the nature of “the pacing problem” and what it means for policy
• the problem with “set-it-and-forget-it” & “build-and-freeze” regulations
• technological risk and the potential for “soft law” governance
• sensible legislative reforms to advance permissionless innovation (such as “the innovator’s presumption” and “the sunsetting imperative”)
• how the COVID crisis potentially opens the Overton Window to much-needed policy change

Last week the Federalist Society’s Regulatory Transparency Project released a podcast Adam and I recorded with FCC Chairman Pai:

Tech Roundup 9 – COVID-19 and the Internet: A Conversation with Ajit Pai

A few highlights: Chairman Pai’s legacy is still being written, but I suspect one of his lasting marks on the agency will be his integrating more economics and engineering in the FCC’s work.

He points out that that in recent decades, the FCC’s work has focused on the legal and policy aspects of telecommunications. My take: much of the dysfunctional legalism and regulatory arcana that’s built up in communications law is because Congress refuses to give the FCC a clean slate. Instead, communications laws have piled on to communications laws for 80 years. The regulatory thicket gives attorneys and insiders undue power in telecom policy. With the creation of the Office of Economics and Analytics and Engineering Honors program, Chairman Pai is creating institutions within the FCC to shift some expertise and resources to the economists and engineers.

We also discussed Marc Andreessen’s It’s Time to Build essay. A thought-provoking polemic (Adam has a response) that offers a challenge:

[T]o everyone around us, we should be asking the question, what are you building? What are you building directly, or helping other people to build, or teaching other people to build, or taking care of people who are building? If the work you’re doing isn’t either leading to something being built or taking care of people directly, we’ve failed you, and we need to get you into a position, an occupation, a career where you can contribute to building.

As we discuss in the podcast, the FCC has outperformed most public institutions on this front. The FCC in the past few years has untangled itself from the nonstop legal trench warfare of net neutrality regulation–an immense waste of time–to focus on making it faster and easier to build networks. As a result, the US is seeing impressive increases in network investment, coverage, and capacity relative to peer countries.

The COVID-19 crisis has been a stress test for the FCC and the broadband industry, and we’re grateful the Chairman took the time to discuss the agency, industry trends, and more with us.

The recently-passed CARES Act included $500 million for the CDC to develop a new “surveillance and data-collection system” to monitor the spread of COVID-19.

There’s a fierce debate about how to use technology for health surveillance for the COVID-19 crisis. Unfortunately this debate is happening in realtime as governments and tech companies try to reduce infection and death while complying with national laws and norms related to privacy.

Technology has helped during the crisis and saved lives. Social media, chat apps, and online forums allow doctors, public health officials, manufacturers, entrepreneurs, and regulators around the world to compare notes and share best practices. Broadband networks, Zoom, streaming media, and gaming make stay-at-home order much more pleasant and keeps millions of Americans at work, remotely. Telehealth apps allow doctors to safely view patients with symptoms. Finally, grocery and parcel delivery from Amazon, Grubhub, and other app companies keep pantries full and serve as a lifeline to many restaurants.

The great tech successes here, however, will be harder to replicate for contact tracing and public health surveillance. Even the countries that had the tech infrastructure somewhat in place for contact tracing and public health surveillance are finding it hard to scale. Privacy issues are also significant obstacles. (On the Truth on the Market blog, FTC Commissioner Christine Wilson provides a great survey of how other countries are using technology for public health and analysis of privacy considerations. Bronwyn Howell also has a good post on the topic.) Let’s examine some of the strengths and weaknesses of the technologies.

Cell tower location information

Personal smartphones typically connect to the nearest cell tower, so a cell networks record (roughly) where a smartphone is at a particular time. Mobile carriers are sharing aggregated cell tower data with public health officials in Austria, Germany, and Italy for mobility information.

This data is better than nothing for estimating district- or region-wide stay-at-home compliance but the geolocation is imprecise (to the half-mile or so). 

Cell tower data could be used to enforce a virtual geofence on quarantined people. This data is, for instance, used in Taiwan to enforce quarantines. If you leave a geofenced area, public health officials receive an automated notification of your leaving home.

Assessment: Ubiquitous, scalable. But: rarely useful and virtually useless for contact tracing.

GPS-based apps and bracelets

Many smartphone apps passively transmit precise GPS location to app companies at all hours of the day. Google and Apple have anonymized and aggregated this kind of information in order to assess stay-at-home order effects on mobility. Facebook reportedly is also sharing similar location data with public health officials.

As Trace Mitchell and I pointed out in Mercatus and National Review publications, this information is imperfect but could be combined with infection data to categorize neighborhoods or counties as high-risk or low-risk. 

GPS data, before it’s aggregated by the app companies for public view, reveals precisely where people are (within meters). Individual data is a goldmine for governments, but public health officials will have a hard time convincing Americans, tech companies, and judges they can be trusted with the data.

It’s an easier lift in other countries where trust in government is higher and central governments are more powerful. Precise geolocation could be used to enforce quarantines.

Hong Kong, for instance, has used GPS wristbands to enforce some quarantines. Tens of thousands of Polish residents in quarantines must download a geolocation-based app and check in, which allows authorities to enforce quarantine restrictions. It appears the most people support the initiative.

Finally, in Iceland, one third of citizens have voluntarily downloaded a geolocation app to assist public officials in contact tracing. Public health officials call or message people when geolocation records indicate previous proximity with an infected person. WSJ journalists reported on April 9 that:

If there is no response, they send a police squad car to the person’s house. The potentially infected person must remain in quarantine for 14 days and risk a fine of up to 250,000 Icelandic kronur ($1,750) if they break it.

That said, there are probably scattered examples of US officials using GPS for quarantines. Local officials in Louisville, Kentucky, for example, are requiring some COVID-19-positive or exposed people to wear GPS ankle monitors to enforce quarantine.

Assessment: Aggregated geolocation information is possibly useful for assessing regional stay-at-home norms. Individual geolocation information is not precise enough for effective contact tracing. It’s probably precise and effective for quarantine enforcement. But: individual geolocation is invasive and, if not volunteered by app companies or users, raises significant constitutional issues in the US.

Bluetooth apps

Many researchers and nations are working on or have released some type of Bluetooth app for contact tracing. This includes Singapore, the Czech Republic, Britain, Germany, Italy and New Zealand.  

For people who use these apps, Bluetooth runs in the background, recording other Bluetooth users nearby. Since Bluetooth is a low-power wireless technology, it really only can “see” other users within a few meters. If you use the app for awhile and later test positive for infection, you can register your diagnosis. The app will then notify (anonymously) everyone else using the app, and public health officials in some countries, who you came in contact with in the past several days. My colleague Andrea O’Sullivan wrote a great piece in Reason about contact tracing using Bluetooth.

These apps have benefits over other forms of public health tech surveillance: they are more precise than geolocation information and they are voluntary.

The problem is that, unlike geolocation apps, which have nearly 100% penetration with smartphone users, Bluetooth contact tracing apps have about 0% penetration in the US today. Further, these app creators, even governments, don’t seem to have the PR machine to gain meaningful public adoption. In Singapore, for instance, adoption is reportedly only 12% of the population, which is way too low to be very helpful.

A handful of institutions in the world could get appreciable use of Bluetooth contact tracing: telecom and tech companies have big ad budgets and they own the digital real estate on our smartphones.

Which is why the news that Google and Apple are working on a contact tracing app is noteworthy. They have the budget and ability to make their hundreds of millions of Android and iOS users aware of the contact tracing app. They could even go so far as push a notification to the home screen to all users encouraging them to use it.

However, I suspect they won’t push it hard. It would raise alarm bells with many users. Further, as Dan Grover stated a few weeks ago about why US tech companies haven’t been as active as Chinese tech companies in using apps to improve public education and norms related to COVID-19:

Since the post-2016 “techlash”, tech companies in Silicon Valley have acted with a sometimes suffocating sense of caution and unease about their power in the world. They are extremely careful to not do anything that would set off either party or anyone with ideas about regulation. And they seldom use their pixel real estate towards affecting political change.

[Ed.: their puzzling advocacy of Title II “net neutrality” regulation a big exception].

Techlash aside, presumably US companies also aren’t receiving the government pressure Chinese companies are receiving to push public health surveillance apps and information. [Ed.: Bloomberg reports that France and EU officials want the Google-Apple app to relay contact tracing notices to public health officials, not merely to affected users. HT Eli Dourado]

Like most people, I have mixed feelings about how coercive the state and how pushy tech companies should be during this pandemic. A big problem is that we still have only an inkling about how deadly COVID-19 is, how quickly it spreads, and how damaging stay-at-home rules and norms are for the economy. Further, contact-tracing apps still need extensive, laborious home visits and follow-up from public health officials to be effective–something the US has shown little ability to do.

There are other social costs to widespread tech-enabled tracing. Tyler Cowen points out in Bloomberg that contact tracing tech is likely inevitable, but that would leave behind those without smartphones. That’s true, and a major problem for the over-70 crowd, who lack smartphones as a group and are most vulnerable to COVID-19.

Because I predict that Apple and Google won’t push the app hard and I doubt there will be mandates from federal or state officials, I think there’s only a small chance (less than 15%) a contact tracing wireless technology will gain ubiquitous adoption this year (60% penetration, more than 200 million US smartphone users). 

Assessment: A Bluetooth app could protect privacy while, if volunteered, giving public health officials useful information for contact tracing. However, absent aggressive pushes from governments or tech companies, it’s unlikely there will be enough users to significantly help.

Health Passport

The chances of mass Bluetooth app use would increase if the underlying tech or API is used to create a “health passport” or “immunity passport”–a near-realtime medical certification that someone will not infect others. Politico reported on April 10 that Dr. Anthony Fauci, the White House point man on the pandemic, said the immunity passport idea “has merit.”

It’s not clear what limits Apple and Google will put on their API but most APIs can be customized by other businesses and users. The Bluetooth app and API could feed into a health passport app, showing at a glance whether you are infected or you’d been near someone infected recently.

For the venues like churches and gyms and operators like airlines and cruise ships that need high trust from participants and customers, on the spot testing via blood test or temperature taking or Bluetooth app will likely gain traction. 

There are the beginnings of a health passport in China with QR codes and individual risk classifications from public health officials. Particularly for airlines, which is a favored industry in most nations, there could be public pressure and widespread adoption of a digital health passport. Emirates Airlines and the Dubai Health Authority, for instance, last week required all passengers on a flight to Tunisia to take a COVID-19 blood test before boarding. Results came in 10 minutes.

Assessment: A health passport integrates several types of data into a single interface. The complexity makes widespread use unlikely but it could gain voluntary adoption by certain industries and populations (business travelers, tourists, nursing home residents).

Conclusion

In short, tech could help with quarantine enforcement and contact tracing, but there are thorny questions of privacy norms and it’s not clear US health officials have the ability to do the home visits and phone calls to detect spread and enforce quarantines. All of these technologies have issues (privacy or penetration or testing) and there are many unknowns about transmission and risk. The question is how far tech companies, federal and state law officials, the American public, and judges are prepared to go.

Building broadband takes time. There’s permitting, environmental reviews, engineering, negotiations with city officials and pole owners, and other considerations.

That said, temporary wireless broadband systems can be set up quickly, sometimes in days and weeks, not months or years like wireline networks. Setting up outdoor WiFi, as some schools have done (HT Billy Easley II), is a good step but WiFi has its limits and more can be done.

The FCC has done a great job freeing up more spectrum on a temporary basis for the COVID-19 crisis, like allowing carriers to use Dish’s unused cellular spectrum. Wireless systems need more than spectrum, however. Operators need real estate, electricity, backhaul, and permission. This is where cities, counties, and states can help.

Waive or simplify permitting

States, counties, and cities should consider waiving or simplifying their permitting for temporary wireless systems, particularly in rural or low-income areas where adoption lags.

Cellular providers set up Distributed Antenna Systems (DAS) and Cells on Wheels (COWs) for events like football games, parades, festivals, and emergency response after hurricanes. These provide good coverage and capacity in a pinch.

There are other ad hoc wireless systems that can be set up quickly in local areas, like WISP transmitters, cellular or WISP backhaul, outdoor WiFi, and mesh networks.

Allow rent-free access to municipal property

Public agencies own real estate and buildings that would lend themselves to temporary wireless facilities. Not only do they have power, taller public buildings and water towers allow wireless systems to have greater coverage. Cities should consider leasing out temporary space rent free for the duration of the crisis.

Many cities and counties also have a dark fiber and lit fiber networks that serve public facilities like police, fire, and hospitals. If there’s available capacity, state and local public agencies should consider providing cheap or free access to the municipal fiber network.

Now, these temporary measures won’t work miracles. Operators are looking at months of cash constraints and probably don’t have many field technicians available. But the temporary waiver of permitting and the easy access to public property could provide quick, needed broadband capacity in rural and hard-to-reach areas.

I saw a Bloomberg News report that officials in Austria and Italy are seeking (aggregated, anonymized) users’ location data from cellphone companies to see if local and national lockdowns are effective.

It’s an interesting idea that raises some possibilities for US officials and tech companies to consider to combat the crisis in the US. Caveat: these are very preliminary thoughts.

Cellphone location data from a phone company is OK but imprecise about your movements. It can show where you are typically in a mile or half-mile area. 

But smartphone app location is much more precise since it uses GPS, not cell towers to show movements. Apps with location services can show people’s movements within meters, not half-mile, like cell towers.I suspect 90%+ of smartphone users have GPS location services on (Google Maps, Facebook, Yelp, etc.). App companies have rich datasets of daily movements of people.

Step 1 – App companies isolate and share location trends with health officials

This would need to be aggregated and anonymized of course. Tech companies with health officials should, as Balaji Srinivasan says, identify red and green zones. The point is not to identify individuals but make generalizations about whether a neighborhood or town is practicing good distancing practices.

Step 2 – In green zones, where infection/hospitalization are low and app data says people are strictly distancing, COVID-19 tests.

If people are spending 22 hours not moving except for brief visits to the grocery store and parks, that’s a good neighborhood. We need tests distributed daily in non-infected areas, perhaps at grocery stores and via USPS and Amazon deliveries. As soon as the tests production ramps up, tests need to flood into the areas that are healthy. This achieves two things:

• Asymptomatic people who might spread can stay home.
• Non-infected people can start returning to work and a life of semi-normalcy of movement with confidence that others who are out are non-contagious.

Step 3 – In red zones, where infection/hospitalization is high and people aren’t strictly distancing, public education and restrictions.

At least in Virginia, there is county-level data about where the hotspots are. I expect other states know the counties and neighborhoods that are hit hard. Where there’s overlap of these areas not distancing, step up distancing and restrictions.

That still leaves open what to do about yellow zones that are adjacent to red zones, but the main priority should be to identify the green and red. The longer health officials and the public are flying blind with no end in sight, people get frustrated, lose jobs, shutter businesses, and violate distancing rules.

To help slow the spread of the coronavirus, the GMU campus is moving to remote instruction and Mercatus is moving to remote work for employees until the risk subsides. GMU and Mercatus employees join thousands of other universities and businesses this week. Millions of people will be working from home and it will be a major test of American broadband and cellular networks. 

There will likely be a loss of productivity nationwide–some things just can’t be done well remotely. But hopefully broadband access is not a major issue. What is the state of US networks? How many people lack the ability to do remote work and remote homework?

The FCC and Pew research keep pretty good track of broadband buildout and adoption. There are many bright spots but some areas of concern as well.

Who lacks service?

The top question: How many people want broadband but lack adequate service or have no service?

The good news is that around 94% of Americans have access to 25 Mbps landline broadband. (Millions more have access if you include broadband from cellular and WISP providers.) It’s not much consolation to rural customers and remote workers who have limited or no options, but these are good numbers.

According to Pew’s 2019 report, about 2% of Americans cite inadequate or no options as the main reason they don’t have broadband. What is concerning is that this 2% number hasn’t budged in years. In 2015, about the same number of Americans cited inadequate or no options as the main reason they didn’t have home broadband. This resembles what I’ve called “the 2% problem“–about 2% of the most rural American households are extremely costly to serve with landline broadband. Satellite, cellular, or WISP service will likely be the best option.

Mobile broadband trends

Mobile broadband is increasingly an option for home broadband. About 24% of Americans with home Internet are mobile only, according to Pew, up from ~16% in 2015.

The ubiquity of high-speed mobile broadband has been the big story in recent years. Per FCC data, from 2009 to 2017 (the most recent year we have data), the average number of new mobile connections increased about 30 million annually. In Dec. 2017 (the most recent data), there were about 313 million mobile subscriptions.

Coverage is very good in the US. OpenSignal uses crowdsourced data and software to determine how frequently users’ phones have a 4G LTE network available (a proxy for coverage and network quality) around the world. The US ranked fourth the world (86%) in 2017, beating out every European country, save Norway.

There was also a big improvement was in mobile speeds. In 2009, a 3G world, almost all connections were below 3 Mbps. In 2017, a world of 4G LTE, almost all connections were above 3 Mbps.

Landline broadband trends

Landline broadband also increased significantly. From 2009 to 2017, there were about 3.5 million new connections per year, about 108 million connections in 2017. In Dec. 2009, about half of landline connections were below 3 Mbps.

There were some notable jumps in high-speed and rural broadband deployment. There was a big jump in fiber-to-the-premises (FTTP) connections, like FiOS and Google Fiber. From 2012 to 2017, the number of FTTP connections more than doubled, to 12.6 million. Relatedly, sub-25 Mbps connections have been falling rapidly while 100 Mbps+ connections have been shooting up. In 2017, there were more connections with 100 Mbps+ (39 million) than there were connections below 25 Mbps (29 million).

In the most recent 5 years for which we have data, the number of rural subscribers (not households) with 25 Mbps increased 18 million (from 29 million to 47 million).

More Work

We only have good data for the first year of the Trump FCC, so it’s hard to evaluate but signs are promising. One of Chairman Pai’s first actions was creating an advisory committee to advise the FCC on broadband deployment (I’m a member). Anecdotally, it’s been fruitful to regularly have industry, academics, advocates, and local officials in the same room to discuss consensus policies. The FCC has acted on many of those.

The rollback of common carrier regulations for the Internet, the pro-5G deployment initiatives, and limiting unreasonable local fees for cellular equipment have all helped increase deployment and service quality.

An effective communications regulator largely stays of the way and removes hindrances to private sector investment. But the FCC does manage some broadband subsidy programs. The Trump FCC has made some improvements to the $4.5 billion annual rural broadband programs. The 17 or so rural broadband subprograms have metastasized over the years, making for a kludgey and expensive subsidy system.

The recent RDOF reforms are a big improvement since they fund a reverse auction program to shift money away from the wasteful legacy subsidy programs. Increasingly, rural households get broadband from WISP, satellite, and rural cable companies–the RDOF reforms recognize that reality.

Hopefully one day reforms will go even further and fund broadband vouchers. It’s been longstanding FCC policy to fund rural broadband providers (typically phone companies serving rural areas) rather than subsidizing rural households. The FCC should consider a voucher model for rural broadband, $5 or $10 or $40 per household per month, depending on the geography. Essentially the FCC should do for rural households what the FCC does for low-income households–provide a monthly subsidy to make broadband costs more affordable.

Many of these good deployment trends began in the Obama years but the Trump FCC has made it a national priority to improve broadband deployment and services. It appears to be be working. With the coronavirus and a huge increase in remote work, US networks will be put to a unique test.

Michael Kotrous and I submitted a comment to the FAA about their Remote ID proposals. While we agree with the need for a “digital license plate” for drones, we’re skeptical that requiring an Internet connection is necessary and that an interoperable, national drone traffic management system will work well.

The FAA deserves credit for rigorously estimating the costs of their requirements, which they set at around $450 million to $600 million over 10 years. These costs largely fall on drone operators and on drone manufacturers for network (say, LTE) subscriptions and equipment.

The FAA’s proposed requirements aren’t completely hashed out, but we raised two points of caution.

One, many many drone flights won’t stray from a pre-programmed route or leave private property. For instance, roof inspections, medical supply deliveries across a hospital campus, train track inspections, and crop spraying via drone all remain on private property. They all pose a de minimis safety concern to manned aircraft and requiring networking equipment and subscriptions seems excessive.

Two, we’re not keen on the FAA and NASA plans for an interoperable, national drone traffic management system. A simple wireless broadcast from a drone should be enough in most circumstances. The FAA proposal would require drone operators to contract with UAS Service Suppliers (USSs) who would be contractors of the FAA. Technical standards would come later. This convoluted system of making virtually all drone operations known to the FAA is likely run aground with technical complexity, technical stagnation, FAA-blessed oligopoly in USS or all of the above.

The FAA instead should consider allowing states, cities, and landowners to make rules for drone operations when operations are solely on their property. States are ready to step in. The North Dakota legislature, for instance, authorized $28 million a few months ago for a statewide drone management system. Other states will follow suit and a federated, geographically-separated drone management system could develop, if the FAA allows. That would reduce the need for complex, interoperable USS and national drone traffic management systems.

Further reading:

Refine the FAA’s Remote ID Rules to Ensure Aviation Safety and Public Confidence, comment to the FAA (March 2020), https://www.mercatus.org/publications/technology-and-innovation/refine-faa%E2%80%99s-remote-id-rules-ensure-aviation-safety-and

Auctioning Airspace, North Carolina Journal of Law & Technology (October 2019), https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3284704

Below is a link to my submission for tomorrow’s Department of Justice workshop, “Section 230 – Nurturing Innovation or Fostering Unaccountability?“. I will be on panel three, “Imagining the Alternative.” From my opening:

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act is a crucial part of the U.S.’s regulatory environment. The principles of individual responsibility embodied in Section 230 freed U.S. entrepreneurs to become the world’s best at developing innovative user-to-user platforms. Some people, including some people in industries disrupted by this innovation, are now calling to change Section 230. But there is little evidence that changing Section 230 would improve competition or innovation to the benefit of consumers. And there are good reasons to believe that increasing liability would hinder future competition and innovation and could ultimately harm consumers on balance. Thus, any proposed changes to Section 230 must be evaluated against seven important principles to ensure that the U.S. maintains a regulatory environment best suited to generate widespread human prosperity.

Congress has become a less important player in the field of technology policy. Why did that happen, and what are the ramifications for technological governance efforts going forward?

I’ve spent almost 30 years covering technology policy. There was a time in my life when I spent almost all my time as a policy analyst preoccupied with developments in the federal legislative arena. I lived in the trenches of Capitol Hill and interacted with lawmakers and their staff morning, noon, and night.

In recent years, however, I have spent very little time focused on the Legislative Branch because it has effectively become a non-actor on technology policy. It is not that congressional lawmakers stopped caring about tech policy. Interest actually remains quite high—perhaps higher than ever before. Congress also continues to introduce lots of bills, host plenty of hearings, and issue mountains of press releases related to tech policy issues.

Nonetheless, all that interest and activity has not really translated into much important legislation. While it is hard to track tech-oriented legislative trends statistically because of the complication of defining “technology policy” over time, judged by substantive output, Congress has largely checked out of technological policymaking.

Think about digital privacy. How many years now have people been predicting a comprehensive “baseline” privacy bill would pass in each legislative session? It never happens. Perhaps it will this year, but if you would like to place a wager on it, I will take that bet.

Speaking of bets, for several years now, I have been wagering with friends that Congress will not pass federal legislation creating a national autonomous vehicles framework. Each session I win that bet. Keep in mind, a framework for driverless cars is far less controversial than privacy policy. Still, nothing substantive ever gets done in Congress.

Same goes for cybersecurity with lots of calls for big measures, but no final action. Folks are now also telling me to expect a big artificial intelligence bill one day soon. I sincerely doubt it. Again, I’ll bet on it if you’d like to lose some money!

Let me be clear, there may actually be some very good reasons why Congress should implement a national framework for privacy, driverless cars, and some AI policy issues. But all the wishful thinking in the world will not magically make it happen.

We need to entertain the possibility that Congress has largely checked out of the world of substantive tech policymaking and isn’t coming back. We may get a few big surprise measures here and there, as we did with clumsily-drafted FOSTA-SESTA. If anything, it is more likely that we instead see misguided legislative riders attached to non-germane measures during late night negotiations. But even haphazard efforts like those will be extremely rare. The days of Congress passing big bills like the Telecom Act of 1996 or the Cable Act of 1992 appear mostly over.

Why Congress Is No Longer the Major Player It Once Was

I think there are probably many obvious explanations for why Congress has checked out of tech policymaking, but let me try to boil it down to a couple of interrelated trends:

The “pacing problem” has intensified: The pacing problem refers to the inability of legal or regulatory regimes to keep adjust to the intensifying pace of technological change. There are just more emerging technologies than ever, and they are evolving faster than ever, too. “New technologies that used to have two-year cycle times now can become obsolete in six months, and the pace of change is not slowing,” says consulting firm Deloitte.

A growing multiplicity of technologies means more tech policy issues to cover. And those issues grow more complicated each year. As soon as lawmakers wrap their heads around one technology (if they do at all), another innovation pops up that complicates things further or crowds out their attention.

Technological convergence and blurring governance boundaries: Technology policymaking increasingly involves metaphysical questions about the underlying nature of things. For example, what is a “phone,” a “medical device,” or an “aerial vehicle”? These things used to be relatively easy to define and had well-understood meanings in federal statutes and regulations. But those concepts evolved rapidly in an age of widespread technological convergence and rapid-fire “combinatorial innovation,” with new technologies multiplying and building on top of one another in the symbiotic fashion. Basically, almost as soon as new tech laws or regulations are enacted, they are confronted with new marketplace realities and technological changes that call into question legal classifications or regulatory distinctions.

For example, today’s smartphones combine dozens of different functions that were previously quite distinct, including health tracking capabilities, mobile payment systems, and video distribution, all of which remain heavily regulated by an assortment of federal laws and agencies. But the convergence of all these capabilities in a single device that we can carry in our pockets creates massive governance challenges, not only for archaic legislative frameworks, but even for newer semantic distinctions that may seem current one moment only to be obliterated the next. These factors also make it harder to figure out who in Congress should be driving policy because technological convergence blurs previously distinct governance categories among legislative committees and the laws they have crafted.

Legislative dysfunctionalism: Policymaking processes move slowly by design. Constitutional constraints and other legal requirements demand it. But things move even slower today because of what Jonathan Rauch calls “demosclerosis,” or the “government’s progressive loss of the ability to adapt.” “[A]s layer is dropped upon layer,” he argued, “the accumulated mass becomes gradually less rational and less flexible.”

Inadequate resources are also part of the problem with Congress facing a complex, rapidly-evolving set of issues but devoting only limited resources to technical staff or studies to better understand these developments. This combined with the factors cited above has led to a never-ending “competency trap,” with lawmakers and their staffs seemingly always one step behind technological developments and societal demands or expectations.

Meanwhile, partisanship increases and the work load on many other fronts grows alongside it. There’s just a lot more on Congress’s plate than ever before. Plus, tech policy matters seemingly always take a back seat to tax, budget, entitlements, defense, and other issues.

Many people hope that boosting technology assessment efforts might help correct these problems. Perhaps better technical advice could help lawmakers ask less ignorant questions at tech-oriented congressional hearings, which have become showcases for the staggering lack of congressional understanding of modern technologies. But just adding new technology assessment capacity, such as in the form of a revived Office of Technology Assessment, won’t likely move the needle much in terms of actual legislative output. More serious structural reforms will be required.

Globalization: Many modern technologies “are truly global and call out for policy approaches that do not respect traditional national borders,” note former NITA officials Lawrence E. Strickling and Jonah Force Hill. Congress only has so much control over technologies that defy national boundaries, further complicating tech governance questions.

Yet, one would think that when America’s global competitive advantage was on the line, Congress would have greater reason to assert itself and craft frameworks to ensure US firms are not disadvantaged by a lack of policy clarity. That has not proven to be the case, however. Congressional lawmakers do plenty of huffing and puffing about the tech governance choices made by Europe, China, and other governments, but they then leave the field wide open to them (as well as lower levels of government) to craft policies that govern national markets throughout the United States.

Endless delegation: Speaking of passing the buck, Congress has been doing it for decades on tech policy by delegating massive and quite amorphous authority to technocratic administrative agencies. Over the past half century, scholars from various disciplines—economics, law, political science, history, and others—have explored the growth of what has been alternatively called the “interest group society,”  “receivership by regulation,”  “iron triangles,” and “client politics.” This literature identifies the way Congress has increasingly abdicated its constitutional role as lawmaker by shifting hard policy questions to regulatory agencies and then hoping that bureaucrats could figure out all the answers.

Delegation is even more common for the most technical policy matters, and that trend has only accelerated in recent years as the complexity increases and overwhelms lawmakers and their staff.

Ramifications for Tech Governance Going Forward

If Congress remains largely incapable of ever getting the ball over the goal line on important tech policy matters, what are some of the ramifications? There are many, but I will identify just a few of the most obvious ones:

• More tech-oriented legislative activity will shift to the states: In fact, it already has. For each of the tech policy issues I identified earlier (privacy, driverless cars, cybersecurity, and even some AI-related issues like facial recognition), states are—for better or worse—picking up the slack. We should expect that trend to accelerate. This will create an increasingly confusing patchwork of policies that will potentially raise serious barriers to entry and innovation. Nonetheless, I can’t see this trend reversing anytime soon. Perhaps Congress will finally act on privacy or driverless cars legislation if for no other reason than to preempt a crazy-quilt of contradictory policies. Of course, that’s what people have been predicting for years, and it never happens.
• “Soft law” becomes the dominate governance force for tech: Again, it already has. Soft law refers to informal, collaborative, and constantly evolving governance mechanisms that differ from hard law in that they lack the same degree of enforceability. Soft law can include things like multi-stakeholder processes, industry best practices and standards, agency workshops and guidance documents, and educational efforts. But that just scratches the surface of soft law mechanisms. For better or worse, soft law is becoming the dominant modus operandi for most modern technological governance. We can expect that trend to accelerate to fill the governance gap left by Congressional inaction. For example, we don’t have any formal “rules of the road” for driverless cars, but we do now have four iterations of Department of Transportation guidance on driverless cars. Version 4.0of the DoT guidance for automated vehicles was just released this month. Expect the “soft law-ization” of technological governance to expand considerably in coming years because it is really the only way for agencies to cope with the pacing problem and those metaphysical issues identified earlier. Because soft law is not boxed in by rigid preconceptions of what a particular technology or technological process is or entails, it is often better able to address new marketplace realities. Soft law can adapt as technologies do. With Congress out of the picture, it will have to.
• The congressional tech policy death spiral accelerates. Some may think (or at least hope) that the situation described here can’t get any worse. To the contrary, it can get radically worse. With our politics increasingly infected with bitter partisanship and rancor, what are the chances that lawmakers can work together to craft comprehensive tech policy measures? I’d say the odds are approaching zero. The Cable Act, the Telecom Act (and Sec. 230), and the Internet Tax Freedom Act all enjoyed broad, bipartisan support when they passed in the 1990s. People reached across the aisle to get things done. It didn’t always work, and sometimes it resulted in misguided policies (like the Communications Decency Act’s provisions trying to censor internet “indecency”). But bipartisan lawmaking scenarios like those seem almost unthinkable now. To the extent many lawmakers even show up at tech-oriented congressional hearings anymore, it is mostly to score points in front of the cameras for Team Red or Team Blue back home. Serious legislative oversight and policymaking is dead; it’s mostly just show-trials and media circuses at this point.

Should I Care about Congress Anymore?

If you believe this miserable thesis is correct but continue to focus on the Legislative Branch for a living, you may be asking yourself: Am I wasting all my time here? Not necessarily. Congress is still actively interested in tech policy matters. For those who hope to limit that damage Congress might do by hastily passing ham-handed, crisis-driven policy measures, your efforts in the trenches will continue to be important in curbing the worst instincts of some lawmakers. In many instances, preserving a perpetual stalemate may go down as a tremendous victory.

For example, as the debate over Section 230 intensifies—with politicians of all stripes looking to gut the most important of all Internet freedom policies—it is vital that smart people work with lawmakers and their staff to beat back misguided and destructive measures. Hopefully this becomes another instance of legislative gridlock winning out! And I think it will.

More realistically, your role will not be to stop Congress from doing insanely destructive things, it will be to just stop them from saying those things. In fact, that seems to be what a lot of people who work with Congress already do today. When I chat with various inside-the-Beltway policy advocates and industry reps today, they usually acknowledge that the prospects for actual legislation on any given issue are quite slim. They will, of course, continue to try to work with lawmakers, their committees, and their staff to either advance or stop legislative measures. Yet, they all seem to accept the utter futility of it all.

Why do they persist? Most obviously, they want to at least preserve the legislative stalemate and not cede the ground to their enemies who might succeed in getting lawmakers to do something if only one side was communicating with Congress.

But the other thing these policy advocates are hoping to achieve is better messaging. Regulatory advocates want lawmakers to use the power of the bully pulpit to put pressure on various people or groups to change behavior, even in the absence of any legislative action. By contrast, many in industry want to make sure that their technologies are understood and not endlessly demonized. Bad press isn’t good for business, even if all the congressional threats never result in final legislation. Also, those defending innovation more generally will want to make sure that even if lawmakers aren’t making any actual laws, they still better understand and appreciate the importance of new technological capabilities for improving human welfare.

Those are all good reasons not to give up your legislative advocacy. For some of us, however, the personal cost-benefit analysis just doesn’t add up. Our focus has shifted to where the real action is at: federal administrative agencies, statehouses and state administrative agencies, the courts, and the growing world of multi-stakeholder governance and other soft law efforts. Congress has checked out, but technological governance lives on in many other forms and venues.