“We’re from government and we’re here to help save journalism.”
That seems to be the hot new meme in media policy circles these days. Last week, it was the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) kicking off their “Future of Media” effort with a workshop on “Serving the Public Interest in the Digital Era.” This week, it’s the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) turn as they host the second in their series of workshops on How Will Journalism Survive the Internet Age? Meanwhile, the Senate has already held hearings about “the future of journalism,” and Senator Benjamin L. Cardin (D-MD) recently introduced the “Newspaper Revitalization Act,” which would allow newspapers to become nonprofit organizations in an effort to help them stay afloat.
I have no doubt that many of the public policymakers behind these efforts have the best of intentions and really are concerned about what many believe to be a crisis in the field of journalism. But here are my three primary concerns with Washington’s sudden interest in “saving journalism”: Continue reading →
by Adam Thierer & Berin Szoka
We’re hoping that the Government Accountability Office (GAO) has made some sort of mistake, because it’s hard to believe its latest findings about the paperwork burden generated by Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulatory activity. In late January, the GAO released a report on “Information Collection and Management at the Federal Communications Commission” (GAO-10-249), which examined information collection, management, and reporting practices at the FCC. The GAO noted that the FCC gathers information through 413 collection instruments, which include things like: (1) required company filings, such as the ownership of television stations; (2) applications for FCC licenses; (3) consumer complaints; (4) company financial and accounting performance; and (5) a variety of other issues, such as an annual survey of cable operators. (Note: This does not include filings and responses done pursuant to other FCC NOIs or NPRMs.)
Regardless, the FCC told the GAO that it receives nearly
385 million responses with an estimated 57 million burden hours associated with the 413 collection instruments. A “burden hour” is defined under the Paperwork Reduction Act as “the time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, or provide information to a federal agency.” And the FCC is generating 57 million of ‘em! Even though we are frequently critical of the agency, these numbers are still hard to fathom. Perhaps the GAO has made some sort of mistake here. But here’s what really concerns us if they haven’t made a mistake. Continue reading →
Sorry to use the blog as a job board, but I wanted to let readers know that the Progress & Freedom Foundation (PFF) has a couple of positions we’d like to find good people to fill:
- Senior Economist: PFF is looking for a skilled economist (PhD-level preferred) with experience in the high-tech arena or network-related industries. Our senior economist would be responsible for assisting other PFF analysts on various projects and priorities, but would also be free to pursue other objectives.
- Vice President, Development & Outreach: PFF is looking for development director to oversee outreach to supporters and other third parties, and to help us grow the organization.
- President: Yes, you read that right! After less than 6 months on the job, I’m already tired of management and want to get back to full-time policy wonkery! If you know of someone who would make a great leader, has strong free-market credentials, and extensive experience in the field of high-tech policy and media/communications law, please let me know. I’m quite ready and willing to hand over the keys to someone else so I can spend all my time fighting the good fight to defend free minds, free markets, and free speech!
To apply, please send a resume and cover letter to Adam Thierer (athierer@pff.org). Or, if you have any ideas on good candidates, please let me know that, too.
A couple weeks ago the Google Books Settlement fairness hearing took place in New York City, where Judge Denny Chin heard dozens of oral arguments discussing the settlement’s implications for competition, copyright law, and privacy. The settlement raises a number of very challenging legal questions, and Judge Chin’s decision, expected to come down later this spring, is sure to be a page-turner no matter how he rules.
My work on the Google Books Settlement has focused on reader privacy concerns, which have been a major point of contention between Google and civil liberties groups like EFF, ACLU, and CDT. While I agree with these groups that existing legal protections for sensitive user information stored by cloud computing providers are inadequate, I do not believe that reader privacy should factor into the court’s decision on whether to approve or reject the settlement.
I elaborated on reader privacy in an amicus curiae brief I submitted to the court last September. I argued that because Google Books will likely earn a sizable portion of its revenues from advertising, placing strict limits on data collection (as EFF and others have advocated) would undercut Google’s incentive to scan books, ultimately hurting the very authors whom the settlement is supposed to benefit. While the settlement is not free from privacy risks, such concerns aren’t unique to Google Books nor are they any more serious than the risks surrounding popular Web services like Google search and Gmail. Comparing Google Book Search to brick-and-mortar libraries is inapt, and like all cloud computing providers, Google has a strong incentive to safeguard user data and use it only in ways that benefit users and advertisers.
Continue reading →
Yesterday, NetChoice joined the Center for Democracy & Technology and the Maine Civil Liberties Union (and PFF, who submitted written testimony) before the Maine legislature to oppose a bill that would restrict how health-related products can me marketed to minors under age 17.
The bill, LD 1677, is a repeal and replacement for current law passed last year that was strongly opposed by the online industry. As I previously blogged, NetChoice was a lead plaintiff in last year’s lawsuit to enjoin the law. Though well intentioned, this law was overly-broad and wrought with constitutional concerns. As a result, Attorney General Mills agreed not to enforce the statute. In October last year, NetChoice joined others in testifying before Maine Joint Standing Committee on the Judiciary regarding this law. In short, the conclusion of all parties involved was that the current legislation could not stand and that the legislature should move to quickly repeal.
So we all arrived in Augusta, ready for the next round – after all, this bill is #9 on the NetChoice iAWFUL list! But when we arrived, we were treated to a surprise amendment from the bill sponsor and this became the focus for discussion and testimony. Here’s the amended prohibition:
A person may not knowingly collect and use personal information collected on the Internet from a minor residing in this State for the purposes of pharmaceutical marketing prescription drugs to that minor, unless the minor specifically requests that information about the prescription drug be provided to them
John Morris at CDT gave great testimony and generally welcomed the amendment. However, he cautioned the committee that it should make sure that website intermediaries would not have liability for merely displaying ads. Continue reading →
I’m quoted briefly in a story today in E-Commerce Times (see “Apple’s Patent Attack: This Too May be Overhyped” by Erika Morphy) about the patent lawsuit filed this week by Apple against rival mobile device maker HTC.
Apple, of course, produces the iPhone, while HTC makes Google’s Nexus One and other devices that run on Google’s Android operating system.
So right from the start this case looks less like a simple patent dispute and more like a warning shot over Google’s bow. The two companies are increasingly becoming rivals. In August of last year, Google CEO Eric Schmidt resigned from Apple’s board. Apple CEO Steve Jobs wrote at the time, “Unfortunately, as Google enters more of Apple’s core businesses, with Android and now Chrome OS, Eric’s effectiveness as an Apple Board member will be significantly diminished….” Continue reading →
In interviews last week and this week (see KUOW’s “The Conversation”), I argue that the convictions of three Google executives by an Italian court for “illegal handling of personal data” threaten the future of all hosted content. More than that, I said that the convictions had a disturbing subtext: the on-going effort of the Italian government to intimidate the remaining media outlets in that country it doesn’t already control. (See “Larger Threat is Seen in Google Case” by the New York Times’ Rachel Donadio for the details.)
In Italy and other countries (think of the Twitter revolt following dubious elections in Iran), TCP/IP is quickly becoming the last bastion of a truly free press. In that sense, the objectionable nature of the video in question made Google an easy target for a prosecutor who wanted to give the appearance of defending human dignity rather than threatening a free press.
In a post that was picked up on Saturday by TechMeme, I explained my position in detail:
The case involved a video uploaded to Google Videos (before the acquisition of YouTube) that showed the bullying of a person with disabilities.
Internet commentators were up-in-arms about the conviction, which can’t possibly be reconciled with European law or common sense. The convictions won’t survive appeals, and the government knows that as well as anyone. They neither want to or intend to win this case. If they did, it would mean the end of the Internet in Italy, if nothing else. Still, the case is worth worrying about, for reasons I’ll make clear in a moment.
But let’s consider the merits of the prosecution. Prosecutors bring criminal actions because they want to change behavior—behavior of the defendant and, more important given the limited resources of the government, others like him. What behavior did the government want to change here? Continue reading →
But I Don't Love You, Elmo
I have decided what my swan song moment in the field of public policy will be. For some time now I’ve been considering retiring from the public policy world since I am really quite sick of political BS in Washington, but I’ve always wanted to go out in style. So, here’s what I plan to do to end my career next week. FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski has just announced that he will be delivering a major policy speech outlining how the agency’s new National Broadband Plan will benefit children and families next Friday at 10:30. According to the press release, the Chairman will be joined by Sesame Street’s Elmo when making the announcement.
So, here’s my plan… I will go to the event , rush the stage as Genachowski goes up with Elmo, grab Elmo, pull out a fake gun, put it to Elmo’s head, and then shout: “Stop regulating the Net and free speech rights now or the Muppet gets it!”
An ugly scene will no doubt follow in which several of my old friends at Common Sense Media, who are co-hosting the event, will try to talk me down from the cliff by asking me hand over the gun and to “think of the children.” But I’ll rush out the back door of the auditorium with Elmo in tow and escape in my getaway car. (I plan to live in mountains in rural Idaho and skim money off of the FCC universal service fund & the E-Rate program since I know how to rig the system from reading years of GAO reports on fraud and abuse of both!)
OK, so you get that this is all sarcasm, right? I don’t want to Secret Service showing up at my door on the grounds that I am threatening a Muppet. And I certainly don’t want to live in Idaho. But, seriously, what is the deal with politicians appearing with puppets? That’s always freaked me out a bit. I will never forget attending a congressional hearing about children’s television issues back in 1993 and watching a surreal exchange between Rep. Ed Markey and Lamb Chop, the sock puppet. Really, a woman with a sock on her hand (Shari Lewis) delivered testimony to Congress. No, seriously, it really happened. Check it out: Continue reading →
The Technology Liberation Front is the tech policy blog dedicated to keeping politicians' hands off the 'net and everything else related to technology.
