[originally published on Plaintext on June 21, 2017.]

This summer, we celebrate the 20th anniversary of two developments that gave us the modern Internet as we know it. One was a court case that guaranteed online speech would flow freely, without government prior restraints or censorship threats. The other was an official White House framework for digital markets that ensured the free movement of goods and services online.

The result of these two vital policy decisions was an unprecedented explosion of speech freedoms and commercial opportunities that we continue to enjoy the benefits of twenty years later.

While it is easy to take all this for granted today, it is worth remembering that, in the long arc of human history, no technology or medium has more rapidly expanded the range of human liberties — both speech and commercial liberties — than the Internet and digital technologies. But things could have turned out much differently if not for the crucially important policy choices the United States made for the Internet two decades ago.

First, on June 26, 1997, the Supreme Court handed down its landmark decision in Reno v. ACLU, which struck down the Communications Decency Act’s provisions seeking to regulate online content under the old broadcast media standard. The Court concluded that there was “no basis for qualifying the level of First Amendment scrutiny that should be applied to this medium” and rejected the congressional effort to pigeonhole this exciting new medium into the archaic censorship regimes of the past.

The Reno decision was tremendously important in protecting online speakers from the chilling effect of government “indecency” regulations. The decision also set a strong legal precedent and was cited in countless subsequent decisions involving not only online speech, but also efforts to regulate video game content.

Second, in July 1997, the Clinton Administration released The Framework for Global Electronic Commerce, a document that outlined the US government’s new policy approach toward the Internet and the emerging digital economy. The Framework was a bold vision statement that endorsed comprehensive online freedom of exchange, saying that “the private sector should lead [and] the Internet should develop as a market driven arena not a regulated industry.” The Administration rejected a restrictive regulatory regime for commercial activities and instead recommended reliance on civil society, contractual negotiations, voluntary agreements, and industry self-regulation.

To “avoid undue restrictions on electronic commerce,” the vision statement recommended that “parties should be able to enter into legitimate agreements to buy and sell products and services across the Internet with minimal government involvement or intervention.” But, “[w]here governmental involvement is needed, its aim should be to support and enforce a predictable, minimalist, consistent and simple legal environment for commerce.”

Taken together, the Reno decision and the Clinton Administration’s Framework acted as a Magna Carta moment for the Internet and digital technologies. It signaled that “permissionless innovation” would become America’s governance stance toward online speech and commerce.

As I defined it in a book on the subject, permissionless innovation, “refers to the notion that experimentation with new technologies and business models should generally be permitted by default. Unless a compelling case can be made that a new invention will bring serious harm to society, innovation should be allowed to continue unabated and problems, if any develop, can be addressed later.” The primary advantage of permissionless innovation as a governance disposition is that it sends a clear green light to citizens telling them they are at liberty to pursue their own interests and passions, free from the suffocating grip of prior restraints on free speech and free exchange.

But the Reno decision and the Clinton Administration’s Framework are not the only critical policy decisions that helped enshrine permissionless innovation as the lodestar of online policy in the US. In the mid-1990s, the Clinton Administration made the decision to allow open commercialization of the Internet, which was previously just the domain of government agencies and university researchers. Even more crucially, when Congress passed and President Bill Clinton signed into law the Telecommunications Act of 1996, lawmakers made it clear that traditional analog-era communications and media regulatory regimes would generally not be applied to the Internet.

The Telecom Act also included an obscure provision known as “Section 230,” which immunized online intermediaries from onerous liability for the content and communications that traveled over their networks. Section 230 was hugely important in that it let online speech and commerce flourish without the constant threat of frivolous lawsuits looming overhead. Internet scholar David Post has argued that “it is impossible to imagine what the Internet ecosystem would look like today without [Section 230]. Virtually every successful online venture that emerged after 1996 — including all the usual suspects, viz. Google, Facebook, Tumblr, Twitter, Reddit, Craigslist, YouTube, Instagram, eBay, Amazon — relies in large part (or entirely) on content provided by their users, who number in the hundreds of millions, or billions,” he notes. It is unlikely that the vibrant marketplace of online speech and commerce we enjoy today could have existed without the protections afforded by Section 230.

Finally, in 1998, another important legislative development occurred when Congress passed the Internet Tax Freedom Act, which blocked all levels of government in the US from imposing discriminatory taxes on the Internet. That made it clear that the Net would not be milked as a “cash cow” the way previous communications systems had been.

So, let’s recap how policymakers generally got policy right for the Internet in the mid-1990s by enshrining permissionless innovation as the law of the land:

• The Executive Branch set the tone for online freedom by fully privatizing the underlying network and then establishing a governance vision based upon minimal government interference with online speech and exchange.
• The Legislative Branch generally endorsed the Clinton Administration’s vision for the Internet and digital technologies by ensuring that new policies would not be based upon the failed regulatory and tax policies of the past.
• The Judicial Branch upheld the centrality of the First Amendment in the Information Age and made it clear that this new medium for speech would be granted the strongest protection against government encroachments on freedom of speech and expression.

The combined effect of these wise, bipartisan policy decisions was that the Net and digital tech were “born free” instead of being born into regulatory captivity. We continue to enjoy the fruits of these freedoms today as citizens here in the US and across the world take advantage of the unprecedented ability to connect and communicate to pursue their passions and interests as they see fit.

There’s still more work to be done, however. Online platforms and digital technologies continue to come under attack from regulatory activists both here and abroad. Many governments continue to push back against these online speech and commercial freedoms, meaning we’ll need to redouble our efforts to highlight and defend the benefits of preserving these important victories.

Finally, as the underlying drivers of the Digital Revolution continue to spread into other segments of the economy, these freedoms will come into conflict with older top-down regulatory regimes for automobiles, aviation, medical technology, finance, and much more. This will create an epic conflict of governance visions between the Internet’s permissionless innovation model versus the precautionary, command-and-control regulatory regimes of the industrial age. We already see tension at work in policy deliberations over the Internet of Things, “big data,” driverless cars, commercial drones, robotics, artificial intelligence, 3D printing, virtual reality, the sharing economy, and others.

If policymakers hope to preserve and extend the benefits of the hard-fought victories of the Internet’s past twenty years, they will need to restate and reinvigorate their commitment to permissionless innovation to help spur the next great technological revolutions in these and other fields.

The idea that the world needs further dumbing down was really the last thing on my mind. Yet this is exactly what Jay Stanley argues for in a recent post on Free Future , the ACLU tech blog.

Specifically, Stanley is concerned by the proliferation of “smart devices,” from smart homes to smart watches, and the enigmatic algorithms that power them. Exhibit A: The Volkswagen “smart control devices” designed to deliberately mis-measure diesel emissions. Far from an isolated case, Stanley extrapolates the Volkswagen scandal into a parable about the dangers of smart devices more generally, and calls for the recognition of “the virtue of dumbness”:

When we flip a coin, its dumbness is crucial. It doesn’t know that the visiting team is the massive underdog, that the captain’s sister just died of cancer, and that the coach is at risk of losing his job. It’s the coin’s very dumbness that makes everyone turn to it as a decider. … But imagine the referee has replaced it with a computer programmed to perform a virtual coin flip. There’s a reason we recoil at that idea. If we were ever to trust a computer with such a task, it would only be after a thorough examination of the computer’s code, mainly to find out whether the computer’s decision is based on “knowledge” of some kind, or whether it is blind as it should be.

While recoiling is a bit melodramatic, it’s clear from this that “dumbness” is not even the key issue at stake. What Stanley is really concerned about is biasedness or partiality (what he dubs “neutrality anxiety”), which is not unique to “dumb” devices like coins, nor is the opacity. A physical coin can be biased, a programmed coin can be fair, and at first glance the fairness of a physical coin is not really anymore obvious.

Yet this is the argument Stanley uses to justify his proposed requirement that all smart device code be open to the public for scrutiny going forward. Based on a knee-jerk commitment to transparency, he gives zero weight to the social benefit of allowing software creators a level of trade secrecy, especially as a potential substitute to patent and copyright protections. This is all the more ironic, given that Volkswagen used existing copyright law to hide its own malfeasance.

More importantly, the idea that the only way to check a virtual coin is to look at the source code is a serious non-sequitur. After all, in-use testing was how Volkswagen was actually caught in the end. What matters, in other words, is how the coin behaves in large and varied samples . In either the virtual or physical case, the best and least intrusive way to check a coin is to simply do thousands of flips. But what takes hours with a dumb coin takes a fraction of a second with a virtual coin. So I know which I prefer.

An hour versus a second may seem like a trivial advantage, but as an object or problem becomes more complex the opacity and limitations of “dumb” things only grow. Tom Brady’s “dumb” football is a case in point. After deflategate, I have much more confidence in the unbiasedness of the virtual ball in Madden. And to eliminate any doubt, I can once again run simulations –  a standard practice among video game designers . This is what allows balance to be achieved in complex, asymmetrical video game maps, for example, while American football is stuck with a rectangle and switching ends at half-time.

In other words, despite Stanley’s repeated assertion that smart devices inevitably sacrifice equity for ruthless efficiency (like a hypothetical traffic light that turns green when it detects surgeons and corporate VPs), embedding algorithms is a demonstrably useful tool for achieving equity in the face of complexity that mirrors the real world. Think, for instance, of the algorithms that draw congressional districts to eliminate gerrymandering.

Yet even if smart devices and algorithms can improve both efficiency and equity, nonetheless they require a dose of human intention and therein lies the danger. Or does it?

Imagine a person, running late for something crucial, sitting at a seemingly interminable red light getting tense and angry. Today he may rail at his bad luck and at the universe, but in the future he will feel he’s the victim of a mind—and of whatever political entities are responsible for the shape of that signal’s logic.

In this future world of omnipresent agency, Stanley essentially imagines a pandemic of paranoid schizophrenia, where conspiracies lurk in every corner, and strings of bad luck are interpreted as punishment by the puppet masters. But this seems to get things exactly backwards. Smart devices are useful precisely because they remove agency, both in terms our personal cognitive effort (like when the lights turn on as you enter a room), and in terms of discretionary influence over our lives.

In this respect, one of Stanley’s own examples directly contradicts his thesis. He points to

an award-winning image of a Gaza City funeral procession, which was challenged due to manual adjustments the photographer made to its tone. I suspect that if the adjustments had been made automatically by his camera (being today little more than a specialized computer), the photo would not have been questioned.

Exactly! The smart focus and light balance of a modern point and click camera not only makes us all better photographers, but it removes worry of unfair and manipulative human input. Afterall, before normal traffic lights was the traffic guard, who let drivers through at his or her discretion. The move to automated lights condensed that human agency to the point of initial creation, thus dramatically reducing the potential for abuse. If smart devices mean we can automatically detect an ambulance or adjust camera aperture, it’s precisely the same sort of improvement.

The fact is that a benign rationality is already replete in the world around us, embedded not just in our technology, but also in our laws and institutions. Externalizing intelligence into rules and structures is the stuff of civilization – what’s called “ extended cognition ”. In the words of philosopher Andy Clark :

Advanced cognition depends crucially on our ability to dissipate reasoning: to diffuse achieved knowledge and practical wisdom through complex social structures, and to reduce the loads on individual brains by locating those brains in complex webs of linguistic, social, political and institutional constraints.

And yet we go through life without constantly looking over our shoulders. This is because we have adapted to the point where we are happily ignorant of the intelligence surrounding us. The hiddenness is a feature, not a bug, as it allows our attention to move on to more pressing things.

Critics of new technology always fail to appreciate this adaptability of human beings, implicitly answering 21st century thought experiments with 20th century prejudices. The enduring lesson of extended cognition is that smart devices promise to make – not just our stuff – but us , as living creatures, in a very real way more intelligent, expanding our own capabilities rather than subordinating us to the whim of invisible others.

To that end, I can’t help be reminded of the tagline at TechLiberation.com : “The problem is not whether machines think, but whether men do.”

I have always found it strange that the ACLU speaks with two voices when it comes to user empowerment as a response to government regulation of the Internet. That is, when responding to government efforts to regulate the Internet for online safety or speech purposes, the ACLU stresses personal responsibility and user empowerment as the first-order response. But as soon as the conversation switches to online advertising and data collection, the ACLU suggests that people are basically sheep who can’t possibly look out for themselves and, therefore, increased Internet regulation is essential. They’re not the only ones adopting this paradoxical position. In previous essays I’ve highlighted how both EFF and CDT do the same thing. But let me focus here on ACLU.

Writing today on the ACLU “Free Future” blog, ACLU senior policy analyst Jay Stanley cites a new paper that he says proves “the absurdity of the position that individuals who desire privacy must attempt to win a technological arms race with the multi-billion dollar internet-advertising industry.” The new study Stanley cites says that “advertisers are making it impossible to avoid online tracking” and that it isn’t paternalistic for government to intervene and regulate if the goal is to enhance user privacy choices. Stanley wholeheartedly agrees. In this and other posts, he and other ACLU analysts have endorsed greater government action to address this perceived threat on the grounds that, in essence, user empowerment cannot work when it comes to online privacy.

Again, this represents a very different position from the one that ACLU has staked out and brilliantly defended over the past 15 years when it comes to user empowerment as the proper and practical response to government regulation of objectionable online speech and pornography. For those not familiar, beginning in the mid-1990s, lawmakers started pursuing a number of new forms of Internet regulation — direct censorship and mandatory age verification were the primary methods of control — aimed at curbing objectionable online speech. In case after case, the ACLU rose up to rightly defend our online liberties against such government encroachment. (I was proud to have worked closely with many former ACLU officials in these battles.) Most notably, the ACLU pushed back against the Communications Decency Act of 1996 (CDA) and the Child Online Protection Act of 1998 (COPA) and they won landmark decisions for us in the process.

In those and other cases, the ACLU playbook wasn’t just solely focused on a pure First Amendment defense. In other words, they didn’t just say ‘Well, First Amendment values are at stake here, and so all you parents, prudes, and policymakers should just get over your obsession with eradicating online porn.” No, what really won the day for us in these cases was the user empowerment angle. The ACLU rightly noted (and proved in court) that many “less-restrictive means” — filters, monitoring tools, ratings, labels, user education, media literacy, etc. — were available to the public and that those tools and strategies provided compelling alternatives to government regulation. Thus, paternalistic government regulation should yield to those alternatives and the public (namely, parents) should be expected to take responsibility and use those less-restrictive means to protect themselves and their kids. That is the proper approach for a society that cherishes free speech, personal responsibility, and a citizenry with diverse tastes and values.

Not only did the ACLU get courts to agree with this, but the logic of user empowerment as a trump to speech controls became so compelling to justices that in some cases they actually went beyond what free speech advocates had asked or expected, even in non-Internet related decisions. For example, in United States v. Playboy Entertainment Group  (2000), the Court struck down a law that required cable companies to “fully scramble” video signals transmitted over their networks if those signals included any sexually explicit content. Echoing its earlier holding in Reno v. ACLU , the Court found that less restrictive means were available to parents looking to block those potentially objectionable signals in the home. Specifically, the Court argued that:

[T]argeted blocking [by parents] enables the government to support parental authority without affecting the First Amendment interests of speakers and willing listeners—listeners for whom, if the speech is unpopular or indecent, the privacy of their own homes may be the optimal place of receipt. Simply put, targeted blocking is less restrictive than banning, and the Government cannot ban speech if targeted blocking is a feasible and effective means of furthering its compelling interests.

More importantly, the Court held that:

It is no response that voluntary blocking requires a consumer to take action, or may be inconvenient, or may not go perfectly every time. A court should not assume a plausible, less restrictive alternative would be ineffective; and a court should not presume parents, given full information, will fail to act.

The Court endorsed that same logic for video games in the landmark 2011 decision in Brown v. EMA, which struck down a California that prohibited the sale or rental of “violent video games” to minors.

As I noted in my old book on Parental Controls & Online Child Protection , this is an extraordinarily high bar that the Supreme Court has set for policymakers wishing to regulate modern media content or online expression. Not only is it clear that the Court is increasingly unlikely to allow the extension of analog-era content regulations to new media outlets and technologies, but it appears likely that judges will apply much stricter constitutional scrutiny to all efforts to regulate speech and media providers in the future. And we really have to thank the ACLU for getting this user empowerment revolution started because, make no doubt about it, it was that hook that ushered in this amazing jurisprudential revolution — for the Internet, for video games, for new media, for everything.

Sadly, however, the ACLU is now abandoning the user empowerment approach, at least as it pertains to digital privacy regulation.

In Stanley’s latest piece as well as many other ACLU statements on privacy issues, we hear almost nothing about the importance of keeping the Net free of unnecessary regulation or that government regulation should yield to user empowerment. Instead, we are told that citizens cannot be expected to look out for themselves in this way, or that they can’t possibly hope to “win the arms race” against online advertisers. I think that is utter nonsense. The fact of the matter is that it is far, far harder to win “the arms race” against online porn and objectionable speech using user empowerment tools than it is to defeat online advertising or “tracking.”   There exists a very broad array of privacy-enhancing user empowerment tools and strategies today that can help privacy-sensitive individuals attain greater protection. Here’s a big filing I submitted to the Federal Trade Commission documenting just some of what is on the market today. (See Sec. VI). But here’s just a short list of things users can do or install to better enhance their online privacy:

• adjust your browser’s privacy settings to clear out and block the cookies most online ad networks use and utilize private browsing or “incognito” modes to surf the Web more privately;
• download tools to help you manage cookies, blocking web scripts, and so on.  Some of the more notable ones include: Ghostery, NoScript, Cookie Monster, Better Privacy, Track Me Not, and the Targeted Advertising Cookie Opt-Out or “TACO” (all for Firefox); No More Cookies (for Internet Explorer); Disconnect (for Chrome); AdSweep (for Chrome and Opera); CCleaner (for PCs); and Flush (for Mac).
• download AdBlockPlus and block almost all online advertising on most websites, and thus the data collection performed by online cookies. (It remains the most-downloaded add-on for both the Firefox and Chrome web browsers)
• use “ad preference managers” from major search companies. Google, Microsoft and Yahoo! all offer easy to use opt-out tools and educational webpages that clearly explain to consumers how digital advertising works. Meanwhile, DuckDuckGo offers as alternative search experience that blocks data collection altogether.

Again, this list just scratches the surface. New empowerment solutions like these are are constantly turning up. And many other tools and strategies exist that users can tap. See this excellent recent article by Kashmir Hill of Forbes, “10 Incredibly Simple Things You Should Be Doing To Protect Your Privacy.”

Now, let me be clear: These solutions aren’t perfect. There are no silver bullets or simple fixes when it comes protecting our privacy online. But the exact same thing has always been true for objectionable online content. I find that by using tools and strategies such as those listed above, however, you can eliminate most online advertising and data collection from your digital life. By contrast, as good as online safety tools are, a lot more gets through. That’s because what counts as “objectionable content” is notoriously subjective and, therefore, no tool or strategy can ever work perfectly. “Good enough” seems to be the standard we have to accept here. Again, the same can be said for privacy controls, but it is my contention that, relatively speaking, they actually do a better job if you are willing to live with some inconveniences (as can be the case if you are constantly clearing out your cookies and blocking all scripts, some of which may be important for site functionality). But those are trade-offs you need to accept if you want to ensure all ads are blocked or no data is collected. (Of course, once again, the exact same thing is has always been true for objectionable online content. It can be a huge inconvenience for parents and guardians to try to deal with online porn and objectionable content using all those user empowerment tools and strategies, no matter how good they are). Regardless, my argument here is that, contrary to what many advocates of privacy regulation claim, privacy empowerment tools and strategies can be remarkably effective at screening out almost all online advertising and greatly limiting any collection of personal data.

I can imagine that one response to what I have said here is that, regardless of how well the respective classes of user empowerment tools work, privacy “harms” are more serious and deserve greater government scrutiny and regulation than objectionable online speech/content. But that’s a subjective squabble we’ll never be able to definitively answer. Plenty of people would argue the opposite: that exposure to online porn and objectionable speech will do more harm to minors and society than any amount of online advertising or data collection ever would. Personally, I think both harms are grotesquely inflated “technopanics,” as I noted in this 80-page paper on the topic.

I can anticipate another response that goes like this: “Well, what’s wrong with the government doing a little paternalistic nudging if it’s focused on better empowering users?” First, let’s be clear that groups like ACLU, EFF, and CDT did not adopt that position for objectionable online speech/content. And with good reason. They understood that if we invite the government to come in and create and/or mandate the empowerment tools to be used to address the problem, it could serve as a Trojan Horse that policymakers could later use to expand their influence over speech and speech platforms. But why, then, would the same concern not apply to efforts by the government to mandate certain privacy tools or controls? Such a move would serve as the same sort of open-ended invite to the government to come in and meddle more with online networks.

I suspect what this all comes down to is the artificial distinction between speech rights and economic liberties that the ACLU and other groups have made through the years.  If the regulatory proposals are more about speech regulation, then the ACLU and others will say that personal responsibility and user empowerment represent the proper first-order response. But if we are talking about something perceived to be economic regulation (like advertising regulation), then the standard seems to change and all the talk of personal responsibility and user empowerment go right out the window. (Of course, this is just the classic distinction between “civil libertarians” and actual libertarians manifesting itself in a different way. While the two groups share a mutual distrust of government regulation of speech and social affairs, the civil libertarians distrust free markets and invite regulation of them there whereas the actual libertarians do not.)

But let’s ignore all these other issues and ask a different question: What about the precedent ACLU is setting here by saying user empowerment is hopeless when it comes to privacy? It goes without saying that more than a few social conservatives and regulatory-minded child safety organizations may be listening! Don’t be surprised if those folks throw the ACLU’s words back at them next time controls on speech and expression are being contemplated. They will argue that if people are sheep when it comes to protecting their privacy, then they must also be sheep when it comes to protecting themselves and their families from porn and other objectionable things online.

To me, the consistent and principled position here is this: Personal responsibility and user empowerment should be the first-order solution for all these issues. Governments should only intervene when clear harm can be demonstrated and user empowerment truly proves ineffective as a solution. Conjectural fears must not drive Internet regulation. While there are many legitimate online safety privacy concerns out there, we can find better, less-restrictive ways of dealing with them than by inviting greater government controls for cyberspace.

The ACLU of Washington (ACLU-WA) seeks a self-motivated public policy advocate to lead its work to protect civil liberties in the face of society’s increasingly advanced technologies. The ACLU-WA’s staff of 30 employees and numerous volunteers work in a fast-paced, friendly and professional office in downtown Seattle.

Using strategies of education, policy analysis, legislative advocacy, coalition building, and legal efforts, the Technology and Liberty Director advances a civil liberties perspective on such issues as data aggregation, surveillance technologies, and online free speech. The Technology and Liberty Director works closely and collaboratively with senior ACLU staff, and has significant interaction with the national ACLU Speech, Privacy and Technology Project. The position reports to the Executive Director through the Deputy Director.

Responsibilities: Regular responsibilities will include the following work:

• Engage in both technical and policy research to analyze technology-related programs and proposals by government and industry. In collaboration with senior staff, develop positions and strategies to respond to civil liberties and technology issues.
• Provide expertise to policymakers, the press, and coalition partners.
• Forge relationships with technology experts, public interest groups, government officials, community stakeholders, and academics to engage them in our work.
• In collaboration with the Legislative Director, advocate on selected technology issues before the state legislature, state or local agencies, and other policy makers.
• Engage in outreach and educational activities through written materials, speaking engagements, media, and visits with ACLU supporters.
• Maintain positive working relationships with relevant national ACLU staff, and collaborate on selected efforts.
• Recruit and supervise interns and volunteers working on technology policy.
• Assist in other activities as assigned. Help maintain a positive, respectful, welcoming, and professional work environment for employees, interns and volunteers.

Qualifications:

• A law degree or another relevant advanced degree.
• Experience in legislative advocacy and policy analysis in the areas of privacy, technology, or other related fields.
• Demonstrated skills as an articulate, effective public advocate.
• Excellent analysis, writing, and research skills. Prior experience simplifying and communicating technical issues to non-technical audiences.
• Strong project management, organization and collaboration skills with attention to detail and ability to meet deadlines.
• Strong commitment to and understanding of civil liberties and civil rights.
• Ability to work cooperatively on a variety of projects with a broad range of individuals and community organizations.
• Ability to work independently and under pressure, to attend occasional evening meetings and sometimes to work long or irregular hours.
• A commitment to diversity; a personal approach that values the individual and respects differences of race, ethnicity, age, gender identity and expression, sexual orientation, religion, ability, and socio-economic circumstance.

Compensation:

Salary is based on experience and qualifications. Benefits include three weeks of vacation to start, medical and disability insurance, matching 401(k) plan and bus pass.

Application procedure: To apply, email a letter of application and resume to Jobs@aclu-wa.org and include in the subject line of the email: your last name and Technology & Liberty Director. In your letter, please indicate where you learned of the posting. Applications will be accepted until the position is filled at which time it will be removed from our website at http://www.aclu-wa.org/jobs-internships.

The ACLU is an affirmative action/equal opportunity employer and encourages qualified individuals of every race, creed, ethnicity, disability, sexual orientation, and gender identity and expression to apply.

Deets after the jump.

The American Civil Liberties Union Foundation (ACLU), founded in 1920, is a nationwide, nonprofit, nonpartisan organization with more than 500,000 members, and is dedicated to the principles of liberty and equality embodied in the U.S. Constitution.  The Speech, Privacy and Technology Project of the ACLU’s National office in New York City is seeking applicants for the full-time position of Technologist / Senior Policy Analyst.

OVERVIEW

The Speech, Privacy and Technology Project is part of the ACLU’s Center for Democracy, which works to strengthen democratic institutions and values, including the values of government transparency and accountability, and to reinforce the United States’ commitment to human rights and the rule of law.  The Center for Democracy includes, in addition to the Speech, Privacy and Technology Project, the Human Rights Project and the National Security Project.

The Speech, Privacy and Technology Project is dedicated to protecting and expanding the First Amendment freedoms of expression, association, and inquiry; expanding the right to privacy and increasing the control that individuals have over their personal information; and ensuring that civil liberties are enhanced rather than compromised by new advances in science and technology.  The project is currently litigating cases and conducting other advocacy efforts on a variety of issues, including political protest, freedom of expression online, privacy of electronic information, journalists’ rights, scientific freedom, and openness in the courts.

The Technologist will be responsible for staying abreast of technological developments that have potential consequences for civil liberties, identifying new and emerging civil liberties concerns, and advising ACLU staff on technological matters.  The Technologist will also communicate with the public, in writing and through media interviews, about issues relating to new technology.

ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

·         Monitor technologies and technological developments that have potential consequences for civil liberties.

·         Collaborate to devise organizational strategies and responses to issues relating to technology and civil liberties.

·         Build and maintain links between the ACLU and technology communities.  Connect ACLU staff with outside experts when necessary.

·         Advise ACLU litigators, policy and legislative staff, and others on technological matters.

·         Educate the public about technology and civil liberties issues through blog posts, social media, and white papers.

·         Serve as a spokesperson for the ACLU to the public and the media regarding technological issues relating to civil liberties.

EXPERIENCE AND QUALIFICATIONS

A Bachelor’s degree in computer science or another relevant technical field required.  Advanced degree preferred. The ability to identify, follow and understand technical issues relating to the Internet, computers, and surveillance and other technologies with implications for civil liberties. Significant expertise in one or more specific areas such as Internet architecture, network protocols, cybersecurity, system administrations, etc. The ability to delve into and master the relevant operations of technological systems outside one’s area of expertise. Strong communications skills, especially the ability to communicate complex technical issues to ACLU staff and the general public. A proven record of publication in policy and/or academic publications is preferred. Ability to work independently as well as within a team. Strong analytic skills. A commitment to the mission and goals of the ACLU.

COMPENSATION

The ACLU offers a generous and comprehensive compensation and benefits package, commensurate with experience and within parameters of the ACLU compensation scale.

HOW TO APPLY

Applicants should submit a letter of interest, resume, writing sample, and the names and contact information of two references by email to hrjobs@aclu.org – reference [SPT-04/ACLU-W] in the subject line or mail to:

Human Resources American Civil Liberties Union Foundation

RE: [SPT-04/ACLU-W] 125 Broad Street, 18th Floor New York, NY 10004

Please indicate in your cover letter where you learned of this career opportunity.

Applications will be accepted until the position is filled, which will not be before July 24, 2011.

The ACLU is an equal opportunity/affirmative action employer and encourages applications from all qualified individuals including women, people of color, persons with disabilities, and lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender individuals.

The ACLU comprises two separate corporate entities, the American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU Foundation. Both the American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU Foundation are national organizations with the same overall mission, and share office space and employees. The ACLU has two separate corporate entities in order to do a broad range of work to protect civil liberties. This job posting refers collectively to the two organizations under the name “ACLU.”

As a cyber-libertarian, I’ve been lucky enough to work with people of all ideological stripes in pursuit of various public policy objectives.  I’ve made selective alliances with people on the Right on economic policy issues (like opposing Net Neutrality regulation, Internet taxes, etc) and also worked closely with folks on the Left on speech and culture issues (content controls, anonymity, online safety concerns, etc).

While engaging with with people on both sides of the political fence, I’m often struck by some of their internal inconsistencies.  Conservatives, for example, talk about a big game about personal responsibility on some issues, but quickly abandon that notion when they claim media content or online speech should be regulated by the State (typically “for the children.”)  In this essay, I’d like to discuss interesting inconsistencies on the political Left, especially among advocates of strong privacy regulation (most of whom tend to be Left-leaning in their worldview).  In particular, here are the two things I find most interesting about modern privacy advocates:

(1) Most privacy advocates are vociferous First Amendment supporters, yet they abandon their free speech values and corresponding constitutional tests when it comes to privacy regulation.  When it comes to proposals to regulate media content or online speech, most folks on the Left have a very principled, clear-cut position: people (or parents) should take responsibility for unwanted information flows in their lives (or the lives of their children). In particular, they rightly argue that the many user empowerment tools on the market (filters, monitoring software, other parental control technologies) constitute a so-called “less-restrictive means” of controlling content when compared to government regulation.

Advocacy groups that I have a great deal of respect for and work with quite closely on these issues–such as EFF, CDT and ACLU—all take this position.  Generally speaking, they argue that, when it comes to speech regulation, “household standards” (user-level controls) should trump “community standards” (government regulation). And in Court—where I frequently file joint amicus briefs with them—they repeatedly employ the “less-restrictive means” test to counter government efforts to regulate information flows.

But when it comes to privacy, they throw all this out the window!  For some reason, when the topic of debate shifts from concerns about potentially objectionable content to the free movement of personal information, personal responsibility and self-regulation become the last option, not the first.  What’s most troubling about this is the way these advocates of privacy regulation are unwittingly undermining the power of the “less-restrictive means” test, which is a vitally important barrier to greatly enhanced government control of cyberspace.  That is, when privacy advocates ignore, downplay, or denigrate user-empowerment tools, they are essentially saying self-help is the right answer in one context, but not the other.

That’s a shame because self-help tool work well in both contexts.  Indeed, I’ve spent years documenting the wide variety of user-empowerment tools on the child safety front, and more recently I have worked with colleagues at PFF to provide a similar inventory of “privacy solutions” that can help users control personal information flows.  Can privacy tools be confusing at times or difficult to set up? Yes, they can. But no more so that parental control tools.  Are privacy tools as effective as parental control tools?  I think they are actually more effective because in the case of parental controls, the person you are trying to “protect” (namely, kids) often have a stronger incentive to evade / defeat those tools.  Moreover, privacy-enhancing controls can be very effective—perhaps even too effective—at shutting down unwanted information flows.  Whether it’s ad-blocking tools, cookie controls, or encryption techniques, these tools can actually be far more effective blocks on information flows than, say, Internet filters meant to block porn or hate speech, which is also more subjective by nature.

Of course, no tool is perfect. But as the Supreme Court held in United States v. Playboy, empowerment tools need not be perfect to be preferable to government regulation. “Government cannot ban speech if targeted blocking is a feasible and effective means of furthering its compelling interests,” the Court held.  Moreover, “It is no response that voluntary blocking requires a consumer to take action, or may be inconvenient, or may not go perfectly every time.  A court should not assume a plausible, less restrictive alternative would be ineffective; and a court should not presume parents, given full information, will fail to act.”

So, then, why doesn’t the exact same principle hold for privacy regulation?  I believe it should, and because of that I get in some pretty heated fights with friends at EFF, CDT and ACLU when they abandon the user-empowerment regime on the privacy front and instead invite the government to come in and establish an information control regime.  Which leads to the second thing I find interesting about advocates or privacy regulation…

(2) Most privacy advocates bash copyright and claim it is an information control regime, yet privacy regulation would constitute a stronger information control regime by creating the equivalent of copyright law for personal information (which would, in turn, conflict mightily with the First Amendment).

While many libertarians oppose any form of copyright protection, I still find much worth praising in America’s copyright system.  Nonetheless, I do admit to my libertarian friends, as well as anti-copyright advocates on the Left, that copyright places limits on the flow of certain types of information.  After all, quite literally, copy-right deals with rights to copy information.  Of course, that’s the nature of all property rights—they foreclose and constrain alternative uses. But there’s typically a good reason for that: In the case of intangible property, it’s because we want to promote the creation of content/information in the first place.

For many copyright critics, however, this is an intolerable trade-off. Any limits on reproduction/reuse—even if those rights incentivize artistic/scientific creativity—are regarded as an unjust form of information control.  But if they believe that to be the case for copyright, why do they not feel the same of privacy rights?  After all, there are some striking similarities between the regimes.

In his new book, Skating on Stilts, Stewart Baker reminds us that the famous 1890 Brandeis and Warren Harvard Law Review essay on “The Right to Privacy“–which is like a sacred text to many modern privacy advocates–was heavily influenced by copyright law.  As Baker explains:

Brandeis wanted to extend common law copyright until it covered everything that can be recorded about an individual. The purpose was to protect the individual from all the new technologies and businesses that had suddenly made it easy to gather and disseminate personal information: “the too enterprising press, the photographer, or the possessor of any other modern device for rewording or reproducing scenes or sounds.”  […] Brandeis thought that the way to ensure the strength of his new right to privacy was to enforce it just like state copyright law. If you don’t like the way “your” private information is distributed, you can sue  everyone who publishes it.

Incidentally, it’s important to recall that the Brandeis and Warren’s call for such a regime was essentially driven by their desire to control the press. In their article, they argued that:

The press is overstepping in every direction the obvious bounds of propriety and of decency. Gossip is no longer the resource of the idle and of the vicious, but has become a trade, which is pursued with industry as well as effrontery. To satisfy a prurient taste the details of sexual relations are spread broadcast in the columns of the daily papers. To occupy the indolent, column upon column is filled with idle gossip, which can only be procured by intrusion upon the domestic circle.

So angered were Brandeis and Warren by reports in daily papers of specifics from their own lives that they were led to conclude that:

man, under the refining influence of culture, has become more sensitive to publicity, so that solitude and privacy have become more essential to the individual; but modern enterprise and invention have, through invasions upon his privacy, subjected him to mental pain and distress, far greater than could be inflicted by mere bodily injury.

Let’s ignore their hyperbolic claim that invasions of privacy could cause more harm than “mere bodily injury.”  No, wait, let’s not!  Seriously, can you believe men of this stature could utter such nonsense?  I’d love to hear a modern privacy advocate defend this notion and explain how, exactly, one could have greater “pain and distress” inflicted by words than “by mere bodily injury.”  That’s a doozy of a claim.  Nonetheless, they said it—in the law review article that quite literally gave birth to American privacy law.  And it only follows, then, that they would want fairly draconian controls on free speech / press rights if they felt this strongly.

Taken to the extreme, however, giving such a notion the force of law would put privacy “rights” on a direct collision course with the First Amendment and freedom of speech/communication.  As Eugene Volokh argued in a 2000 law review article entitled, “Freedom of Speech, Information Privacy, and the Troubling Implications of a Right to Stop People from Speaking About You“:

The difficulty is that the right to information privacy — the right to control other people’s communication of personally identifiable information about you — is a right to have the government stop people from speaking about you. And the First Amendment (which is already our basic code of “fair information practices”) generally bars the government from “control[ling the communication] of information,” either by direct regulation or through the authorization of private lawsuits.

Indeed, how could a journalist even conduct their business in such a world? By their very nature, good reporters are nosy and disregard the privacy rights of the people and institutions they report on. But in a world where privacy “rights” trump other rights, free speech would be forced to take a back seat.

To be clear, I’m not opposed to all privacy “rights.” But as I noted in my lengthy review of Daniel Solove’s Understanding Privacy, we need to begin with a theory of rights and then figure out what privacy “harms” we are trying address/rectify.  Generally speaking, I am skeptical of most claims about harms coming from people talking about us or knowing more about us and I believe that freedom of speech / communications should trump such rights claims. But that’s because I subscribe to a libertarian theory of rights/justice that–as the name implies–places human liberty at the core of that theory of rights.  If liberty isn’t your cup of tea, I can see how “privacy” might be viewed as co-equal in your theory of rights.  Nonetheless, I would hope such people would acknowledge that, at the end of the day, such a theory requires trade-offs and that, much like making an allowance for copyright in a libertarian system, information flows might be limited by these assertion of privacy rights.   What I’m asserting here, however, is that privacy regulation would entail far greater restrictions on liberty–especially freedom of speech/communication–than copyright law. After all, as Volokh notes, we are talking about “a right to have the government stop people from speaking about you.”

Addendum: I failed to mention that my fellow TLF blogger Tom Bell has said all of this much more elloquently in his 2001 Cato white paper, “Internet Privacy and Self-Regulation: Lessons from the Porn Wars.”

Today’s Online Safety Technical Working Group (OSTWG) meeting included some heated debate about whether online intermediaries should be doing more to assist law enforcement to help track down child predators and those producing and distributing child pornography. (It’s not clear whether or when NTIA will actually put the archived video or a transcript online at this point).

Most interesting was the third panel of the day (agenda), which devolved into a shouting match as Dr. Frank Kardasz (resume) of the Arizona Internet Crimes Against Children (ICAC) Task Force basically accused Internet intermediaries of being willing accomplices in crimes of sexual abuse against children—and suggested that they could be charged as co-defendants in child porn prosecutions. A few industry folks in the room expressed their outrage at such slander. A retired law enforcement officer perhaps put it best when he said that he had never dealt with an ISP that didn’t sincerely want to help law enforcement stop this monstrous crime.

Apart from those pyrotechnics, and a superb morning presentation by the Pew Internet Project’s Amanda Lenhart about “Social Media & Young Adults,” the most interesting part of the day concerned data retention mandates. Even as a debate rages in Washington about how much collection and use of online data should be permitted, Dr. Kardasz suggested online service providers should be required to hold user data for 5 years. A number of attendees noted the staggering costs of such a mandate given the sheer volume of information shared every day by use, especially for startups for whom building monitoring and compliance infrastructure can be a significant barrier to entry. Of course, practical objections are always answered with practical counter-solutions—in this case, several attendees asked why we couldn’t just provide tax incentives or stimulus money to defray such costs. One attendee joked that we’d have to devote the entire state of Montana just to house all the necessary server farms.

But the strongest objection came from John Morris of the Center for Democracy & Technology, who rightly noted that no amount of government subsidies for data retention could prevent leakage of sensitive private data. For this reason and because of the basic civil liberties at stake whenever the government has access to large pools of data about its citizens, Morris argued that we need to strike a balance between how we protect children & the values of free society. Dave McClure of the US Internet Industry Association (USIIA) seconded this point powerfully: If such vast data is retained, it will be abused.

Then the riposte from advocates of data retention mandates: Aren’t online intermediaries already retaining huge amounts of consumer information? If they can do that, why can’t they retain the data we need to track down child predators and child porn distributors?

John Morris and the ACLU’s Chris Calabrese patiently explained just how different these two kinds of data retention really are. Advertisers don’t care who you are—just what you’re likely to be interested in. So it simply isn’t worth the cost for them to retain the massive logs of data tracking every site a user has been to and when, or even tying that information to an IP address. All the advertiser wants is to be able to correlate information about likely interests with a cookie that uniquely identifies a computer (which likely, but not necessarily, corresponds to a user). I couldn’t have explained this difference better myself!

They didn’t specifically get into this example, but even a company like Phorm, which offers behavioral advertising based on inspecting packets sent back and forth by an Internet user doesn’t actually retain the kind of “digital dossier” of a user’s browsing activity that some advocates of increased data regulation fear–or that law enforcement wants. Instead, Phorm examines certain kinds of pages visited by users (e.g., no HTTPS or email) and looks for keywords (excluding sensitive things like phone numbers, social security numbers and credit card numbers) that suggest the user might be interested in a particular marketing category. The data about where the user has visited is then discarded, leaving only the marketing categories matched to that user’s unique ID (e.g., dog-owner, fly-fisher).

So even when it comes to the much-feared “Deep Packet Inspection,”what advertisers want is profoundly different from the kind of data retention mandates proposed by Kardasz and others in law enforcement. Moreover, given the costs entailed in data storage and processing, the mere fact that something is theoretically possible doesn’t mean advertisers are willing to pay for it just to try to tell you about their product! That critical point has been missing from most of the ongoing conversation about regulating “targeted” advertising, which tend to focus on the theoretical possibility of a particular data collection/use/aggregation practice rather than whether it’s actually being done or even whether it would make economic sense to do so. So I’m glad to see John Morris and Chris Calabrese making these vital points.

I don’t mean to pull a “gotcha!” on them as representatives of two organizations that have also been outspoken in calling for restrictions on the private use of data (especially since I can’t do justice them by quoting them precisely here without a transcript of the event or the ability to go back and listen to this fascinating exchange again). I’m sure they would respond that the potential for abuse still exists when private companies collect data about users for advertising purposes: Some companies might collect so much data that it could be tied back to a particular user and cause actual harm if released, which is always a possibility. That would be a fair response, but it would at least place us in a constructive debate between reasonable people about the costs and benefits of data sharing and whether government regulation is really the best way to address privacy concerns.

The important point is that they recognize the difference in kind between the collection of limited amounts of data for advertising purposes and the kind of comprehensive data mandates proposed by Kardasz and others. If nothing else, that difference means that one can take a principled stance—as I do—against data retention mandates as a governmental invasion of our privacy but also in favor of reliance on user empowerment, education, targeted enforcement of existing laws, etc. as less restrictive alternatives to government regulation of private data use, just as with parental control and empowerment over parentalist censorship.  As Adam Thierer and I have argued, because there are significant costs to regulation for consumers, free speech and culture, any government mandates should be narrowly tailored to addressing real, demonstrable harms rather than vague, unsubstantiated fears or amorphous concepts like “dignity interests.”

The other critical part of our “layered approach” to privacy concerns is building a higher “Wall of Separation Between Web and State.” Concretely, that means opposing such onerous data retention mandates and reforming ECPA—a subject mentioned only at the end of today’s meeting. In the comments I filed recently on the Notice written by CDT for the FCC, I praised CDT’s work in this area and look forward to working with them (and the ACLU and groups like EFF) on that cause in the future, despite our differences on private data use regulation.

As I noted here a few days ago, the Federal Communications Commission held a workshop on Tuesday about “Speech, Democratic Engagement, and the Open Internet.”  It was a shockingly one-sided affair with the deck being stacked almost entirely in favor of advocates of Net neutrality regulation. Worse yet, those advocates shamelessly made up spooky stories about a future of “private censorship” that could only be remedied by using the First Amendment as a club to beat private players into submission. The token opposition at this Chicken Little circus was Robert Corn-Revere, a Partner at the law firm of Davis Wright Tremaine LLP in Washington, D.C.   Bob set the record straight–both in terms of baseless accusations that were flying that day as well as the revisionist histories of the First Amendment that were being put forward. I’m happy to report that Bob allowed PFF to reprint his remarks as a new white paper entitled, “The First Amendment, the Internet & Net Neutrality: Be Careful What You Wish For.”

In his essay, Corn-Revere discusses the relationship between the First Amendment and regulatory policy, particularly the treatment of new communications technologies, and he warns that government regulation of broadband networks could “provide the vehicle for advancing new First Amendment theories for media regulation” and online speech and expression more generally.  “It should not be forgotten,” he argues, “that the federal government’s initial impulse was to censor the Internet and to subject it to a far lower level of First Amendment protection. It pursued this agenda for more than a decade but was blocked by a series of First Amendment rulings.”  The Communications Decency Act and the Child Online Protection Act are just two notable examples. Luckily, the courts determined that “the open Internet would be at great risk if the government is allowed to exercise such power,” he notes, and they struck down such laws.

But we must be vigilant in defending our free speech rights, Corn-Revere warns. He notes that, “the constitutional ramifications of the network neutrality debate extend far beyond the question of whether the FCC should or should not adopt a given set of rules. On a doctrinal level the question is whether technological convergence should also lead to regulatory convergence, where the least common denominator of First Amendment protection becomes the governing rule.”

“The First Amendment, the Internet & Net Neutrality: Be Careful What You Wish For” is available on the PFF website and can also be viewed down below in a Scribd document reader. I want to also recommend that everyone take a look at the brief remarks that FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell delivered at the opening of that FCC event that Corn-Revere spoke at. “Efforts to advance ‘First Amendment values’ through additional government regulation risks turning over two hundred years of First Amendment jurisprudence on its head,” McDowell rightly argued. And that’s also consistent with the outstanding address delivered last week by Kyle McSlarrow, President & CEO of the National Cable & Telecommunications Association, on the same issue, in which he correctly noted that, “the First Amendment is framed as a shield for citizens, not a sword for government.” “By its plain terms and history, the First Amendment is a limitation on government power, not an empowerment of government,” McSlarrow said.

Thank God a few people in this town are still taking a stand for the real First Amendment.

Robert Corn-Revere Remarks at FCC Workshop on Speech and Democracy http://d1.scribdassets.com/ScribdViewer.swf?document_id=24208240&access_key=key-2h2o9rho7g9qr414utqi&page=1&version=1&viewMode=list

Adam Thierer & I have just released a detailed examination (PDF) of brewing efforts to expand the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act of 1998 to cover adolescents and potentially all social networking sites—an approach we call “COPPA 2.0.”

As Adam explained on Larry Magid’s CNET podcast, COPPA mandates certain online privacy protections for children under 13, most importantly that websites obtain the “verifiable consent” of a child’s parent before collecting personal information about that child or giving that child access to interactive functionality that might allow the child to share their personal information with others. The law was intended primarily to “enhance parental involvement in a child’s online activities” as a means of protecting the online privacy and safety of children.

Yet advocates of expanding COPPA—or “COPPA 2.0″—see COPPA’s verifiable parental consent framework as a means for imposing broad regulatory mandates in the name of online child safety and concerns about social networking, cyber-harassment, etc. Two COPPA 2.0 bills are currently pending in New Jersey and Illinois. The accelerated review of COPPA to be conducted by the FTC next year (five years ahead of schedule) is likely to bring to Washington serious talk of expanding COPPA—even though Congress clearly rejected covering adolescents age 13-16 when COPPA was first proposed back in 1998.

We’ll discuss some of the key points of our paper in a series of blog posts, but here are the top nine reasons for rejecting COPPA 2.0, in that such an approach would:

• Burden the free speech rights of adults by imposing age verification mandates on many sites used by adults, thus restricting anonymous speech and essentially converging—in terms of practical consequences—with the unconstitutional Children’s Online Protection Act (COPA), another 1998 law sometimes confused with COPPA;
• Burden the free speech rights of adolescents to speak freely on—or gather information from—legal and socially beneficial websites;
• Hamper routine and socially beneficial communication between adolescents and adults;
• Reduce, rather than enhance, the privacy of adolescents, parents and other adults because of the massive volume of personal information that would have to be collected about users for authentication purposes (likely including credit card data);

• Would likely be the subject of massive fraud or evasion since it is not always possible to definitively verify the parent-child relationship, or because the system could be “gamed” in other ways by determined adolescents;
• Do nothing to prevent offshore sites and services from operating outside these rules;
• Present major practical challenges for law enforcement officials in the face of such evasion by both domestic users and offshore sites;
• Could destroy opportunities for new or smaller website operators to break into the market and offer competing services and innovations, thus contributing to consolidation of online content and services by erecting barriers to entry; and
• Violate the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution, since Internet activity clearly represents interstate commerce that states have no authority to regulate.

This week I was pleased to join a diverse collection of think tanks and public interest groups in submitting joint comments to the FCC opposing the proposed content filtering mandate that would be part of a future AWS-3 auction. That’s the proposed auction that would create a “free” nationwide wireless broadband service. As part of the deal, the company would need to need to take steps to provide a “clean” Internet connection by filtering content. This joint filing points out why that is a bad idea:

• the reach of the filtering mandate is extraordinarily broad, and would attempt to censor content far beyond any content regulation regime that has been previously upheld in the face of constitutional challenge.
• even if the scope of the filtering mandate were more narrowly focused, it would conflict with the First Amendment analysis that the Supreme Court applied to Internet access in the seminal Reno v. ACLU decision.
• even if the Commission were to require filtering on an “opt out” or “opt in” basis, the Constitutional problems would not be avoided. Opt-out filtering would impose an unconstitutional burden on listeners and recipients of Internet communications, and both opt-out and opt-in filtering would violate the First Amendment rights of speakers and other content providers on the Internet. Simply put, the First Amendment does not allow a government mandated “blacklist” of websites to be blocked.
• would also violate the terms and intent of two federal statutes – 47 U.S.C. § 326 (which prohibits the Commission from “interfer[ing] with the right of free speech”) and 47 U.S.C. § 230 (which promotes user control over content and limits burdens on service providers).
• would also limit what people could do online using the free AWS-3 service so dramatically that the usefulness of the service would be radically reduced.
• would also certainly lead to legal challenges that would delay the implementation of the proposed access service. The reason I believe this fight is so important is because, ultimately, it represents an effort by the FCC to begin treating wireless broadband more like broadcast spectrum. That is, regulators want to create the classic regulatory quid pro quo: We’ll rig the wireless allocation process to make it easy for you to get spectrum, and you’ll be a good little boy and clean up the Net for us! This is the game the FCC has been playing for 70 years in the broadcast television and radio licensing space. And not they want to extend that nonsense to wireless broadband. As Commander Jean-Luc Picard would say: “The line must be drawn here!” We don’t want the Internet regulated like broadcasting.

Many thanks to John Morris of CDT for coordinating this filing and asking me to sign on. The comments can be found on the CDT website, and I have also embedded them down below as a Scribd file. Also, Leslie Harris of CDT has a short editorial about the issue over at ABC News.com.