I’ve reviewed many tech policy books here over the years, but have only found myself in agreement with a couple of titles. One of my favorites is “The Laws of Disruption” by fellow TLF co-blogger Larry Downes. [My short review is here] Larry does a terrific job documenting the technological forces (or “laws” as he calls them) that our reshaping the modern economy.
The fundamental law of disruption he identifies is: ”
Technology changes exponentially, but social, economic, and legal systems change incrementally.” Downes says this law is “a simple but unavoidable principle of modern life” and that it will have profound implications for the way businesses, government, and culture evolve going forward. “As the gap between the old world and the new gets wider,” he argues, “conflicts between social, economic, political, and legal systems” will intensify and “nothing can stop the chaos that will follow.” He’s exactly right and I’ll be elaborating on that “law” in more detail in a new paper with Jerry Brito as well as in my next book, which I’m finishing up currently.
Anyway, with Larry’s “law” in mind, I couldn’t help but laugh out loud when I was reading this Reuter‘s summary of a recent editorial from the People’s Daily, the main newspaper of China’s ruling Communist Party. The commentary lambasted the Internet, social networking technologies, and online culture. It contained this gem of quote that proves the Chinese government has a firm grasp of the Law of Disruption: “We have failed to take into sufficient account just how much the Internet is a double-edged sword, and have a problem of allowing technology to advance while administration and regulation lag.” Continue reading →
Today, China renewed Google’s license to do business in the country, reports The Washington Post. The announcement means that Google will maintain its presence in the country for the foreseeable future. Google will likely meet criticism, but this is good news nonetheless for Chinese Internet users.
The rapidly unfolding Google-China saga has made headline after headline since January, when Google announced that it had suffered an intrusion originating in China. In March, after months of internal debate and heavy public criticism, Google shut down its China-based search engine Google.cn, redirecting all queries to its Hong Kong-based Google.com.hk site. Late last month, Google reactivated some of its China-based services and has continued to operate in China, albeit on a limited basis.
Operating in China has long been a headache for Google, due to the Chinese government’s notorious disregard for Internet freedom, embodied by its infamous “Great Firewall of China.” China surveils all Internet traffic that traverses its borders and attempts to block its citizens from accessing information sources which the government considers unfavorable. China also gleans data from its network to identify and retaliate against political dissidents.
Human rights advocates have long derided Google and other U.S. tech companies, such as Microsoft and Yahoo, for doing business in China. China requires all search engines operating in the country to censor a broad range of information, like photos of the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre. Critics contend that complying with the Chinese government’s oppressive demands is unethical and that facilitating censorship and suppression is morally unacceptable on its face.
Such criticisms, however principled, miss the forest for the trees. If Google were to cease its Chinese operations entirely, the result would be one less U.S. Internet firm accessible to Chinese citizens. While Google is the worldwide search leader, in the Chinese search market Google lags behind Baidu, a search company based in China. Baidu’s market share increased after Google shut down its China-based search site. If Google were to pull out of China entirely, chances are Baidu would pick up many more users.
Continue reading →
Ever since he’s been blogging, Scott Cleland’s blogging has been in overdrive. However, anyone willing to look behind the curtain of his latest post will discover that many of the attributes of Scott Cleland are attributes that are shared by the Zodiac Killer.
- First, Scott Cleland, like the Zodiac Killer, has a face. Eyes, nose, mouth—they’re all there. They are alike in this respect—Scott Cleland and the Zodiac Killer are both, unrepentantly, people with faces.
- Second, Scott Cleland, like the Zodiac Killer, speaks English. We know this from his blog posts—which are written in English—the same language the Zodiac killer used during his murderous spree in the San Francisco Bay Area between December 1968 and October 1969.
- Third, delving more deeply into the language of the Zodiac Killer and Scott Cleland, both use articles like “the”; “a”; and “an”. An equal propensity to use prepositions inhabits the writing styles of Scott Cleland and the Zodiac Killer.
- Fourth, like the top suspect in the Zodiac Killer case, DNA evidence does not implicate Scott Cleland. Diabolically, he has done nothing to indicate his participation in these crimes.
(Dropping the imitative send-up) Scott’s recent post implicating Google as similar to China is probably best described as conflation, a logical fallacy in which similarities between two distinct entities collapse them together.
Scott has many similarities to the Zodiac Killer, but lacks the one that matters: he never killed anybody.
Likewise, Google has many similarities with the Chinese government—all organizations do—but it lacks the one that matters: Google makes no claim to exclusive power to initiate force. That is the hallmark of government which is what makes government so dangerous. Related: Unlike China, Google never killed anybody.
In the struggle between Google and China, there is no moral equivalency. China oppresses a billion people. Google enlightens.
Just a heads up that on my weekly tech policy podcast, Surprisingly Free Conversations, we’ve just posted an interview with Ethan Zuckerman of Harvard’s Berkman Center for Internet & Society. He recently published an excellent blog post on the limits to internet censorship circumvention technologies, and that’s the topic of our discussion. Ethan writes,
So here’s a provocation: We can’t circumvent our way around internet censorship.
I don’t mean that internet censorship circumvention systems don’t work. They do – our research tested several popular circumvention tools in censored nations and discovered that most can retrieve blocked content from behind the Chinese firewall or a similar system. (There are problems with privacy, data leakage, the rendering of certain types of content, and particularly with usability and performance, but the systems can circumvent censorship.) What I mean is this – we couldn’t afford to scale today’s existing circumvention tools to “liberate” all of China’s internet users even if they all wanted to be liberated.
You can listed to this episode here, and you can subscribe to the show on iTunes or RSS.
“With a few notable exceptions, the tech industry seems unwilling to regulate itself. I will introduce legislation that will require Internet companies to take reasonable steps to protect human rights, or face civil and criminal liability.” – Senator Dick Durbin, as reported by the Washington Post. 
We hear you, Sen. Durbin. The practices of many nations toward free speech and political dissidents are terribly wrong. But we respectfully and strongly disagree with your statements at yesterday’s Senate Judiciary hearing on global Internet freedom and the rule of law.
The growth of IT companies throughout the world has been an enormous boon to free speech and human rights. Although these technologies present new challenges, particularly when taken together with widely varying laws, they are doing far more good than harm, everywhere that they are deployed.
But if you attended the hearing and knew nothing about the Internet, you’d think that American online companies doing business in China and elsewhere were pure evil – as if they were the ones with the power to not comply with – or change — the criminal laws of other nations.
In particular, Facebook and Twitter were called out for not joining the Global Network Initiative (GNI). The product of more than two years of study and development by companies and public interest groups, the Initiative offers a set of guiding principles for global IT companies doing business in an increasingly global environment.
But while the GNI exposes online companies to new scrutiny, it doesn’t provide any protection from aggressive governments. And at a price tag of $200,000, the GNI isn’t cheap. How effective will it be, really, at changing the practices of totalitarian nations? Continue reading →
“Schools in Beijing are quietly removing the Green Dam filter, which was required for all school computers in July, due to complaints over problems with the software,” notes this Reuters report. Even though China backed down on their earlier requirement to have the Green Dam filter installed on all computers, according to Reuters “schools were still ordered by the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology to install the web filter, which Chinese officials said would block pornography and other unhealthy content.” The Reuters article mentions a notice carried on the home page of one Beijing high school that reads: “We will remove all Green Dam software from computers in the school as it has strong conflicts with teaching software we need for normal work.” The article also cites a school technology director, who confirmed that the software had been taken off most computers, as saying “It has seriously influenced our normal work.”
Ironically, many educators and librarians in the United States can sympathize since they currently live under similar requirements. Under the Children’s Internet Protection Act (CIPA) of 2000, publicly funded schools and libraries must implement a mandatory filtering scheme or run the risk of losing their funding. As the Federal Communications Commission summarizes:
[CIPA] imposes certain types of requirements on any school or library that receives funding for Internet access or internal connections from the E-rate program… Schools and libraries subject to CIPA may not receive the discounts offered by the E-rate program unless they certify that they have an Internet safety policy and technology protection measures in place. An Internet safety policy must include technology protection measures to block or filter Internet access to pictures that are: (a) are obscene, (b) child pornography, or (c) harmful to minors (for computers that are accessed by minors).
Of course, nobody wants kids viewing porn in schools, but CIPA has been know the block far more than that and has become a real pain for many educators, librarians, and school administrators who have to occasionally get around these filters to teach their students about legitimate subjects. Anyway, I just find it ironic that some American lawmakers have been making a beef about mandatory Internet filtering by the Chinese when we have our own mandatory filtering regime right here in the states. For example, Continue reading →
What Unites Advocates of Speech Controls & Privacy Regulation? [pdf]
by Adam Thierer & Berin Szoka
The Progress & Freedom Foundation,
Progress on Point No. 16.19
Anyone who has spent time following debates about speech and privacy regulation comes to recognize the striking parallels between these two policy arenas. In this paper we will highlight the common rhetoric, proposals, and tactics that unite these regulatory movements. Moreover, we will argue that, at root, what often animates calls for regulation of both speech and privacy are two remarkably elitist beliefs:
- People are too ignorant (or simply too busy) to be trusted to make wise decisions for themselves (or their children); and/or,
- All or most people share essentially the same values or concerns and, therefore, “community standards” should trump household (or individual) standards.
While our use of the term “elitism” may unduly offend some understandably sensitive to populist demagoguery, our aim here is not to launch a broadside against elitism as
Time magazine culture critic William H. Henry once defined it: “The willingness to assert unyieldingly that one idea, contribution or attainment is better than another.”[1] Rather, our aim here is to critique that elitism which rises to the level of political condescension and legal sanction. We attack not so much the beliefs of some leaders, activists, or intellectuals that they have a better idea of what it in the public’s best interest than the public itself does, but rather the imposition of those beliefs through coercive, top-down mandates.
That sort of elitism—elitism enforced by law—is often the objective of speech and privacy regulatory advocates. Our goal is to identify the common themes that unite these regulatory movements, explain why such political elitism is unwarranted, and make it clear how it threatens individual liberty as well as the future of free and open Internet. As an alternative to this elitist vision, we advocate an empowerment agenda: fostering an environment in which users have the tools and information they need to make decisions for themselves and their families. Continue reading →
Rebecca MacKinnon has an important piece in the Wall Street Journal today about China’s “Green Dam Youth Escort” filtering mandate and the danger of this model catching on with other governments. “More and more governments — including democracies like Britain, Australia and Germany — are trying to control public behavior online, especially by exerting pressure on Internet service providers,” she notes. “Green Dam has only exposed the next frontier in these efforts: the personal computer.”
She’s right, and that’s cause for serious concern. Moreover, there’s the question of how corporations doing business in China should respond to demands and threats related to installing such filters. She notes:
In a world that includes child pornographers and violent hate groups, it is probably not reasonable to oppose all censorship in all situations. But if technical censorship systems are to be put in place, they must be sufficiently transparent and accountable so that they do not become opaque extensions of incumbent power — or get hijacked by politically influential interest groups without the public knowing exactly what is going on.
Which brings us back to companies: the ones that build and run Internet and telecoms networks, host and publish speech, and that now make devices via which citizens can go online and create more speech. Companies have a duty as global citizens to do all they can to protect users’ universally recognized right to free expression, and to avoid becoming opaque extensions of incumbent power — be it in China or Britain.
I generally agree with all that but this is a difficult issue and one that I have struggled with personally. (See this “Friendly Conversation about Corporate High-Tech Engagement with China” that Jim Harper and I had three years ago). But I do hope that more companies take a hard line with the Chinese as well as there own governemnts when it comes to filtering mandates or even restricitve parental control defaults and settings [an issue I wrote more about in this paper: “The Perils of Mandatory Parental Controls and Restrictive Defaults.”] On that note, kudos to the business groups that already signed on to a joint letter oppossing China’s new filtering mandate.
My piece about the U.S. Chamber of Commerce event last Friday on U.S. intellectual property attachés giving a report, and taking a hard line, on the enforcement of U.S. intellectual property, overseas, is now live on ip-watch.org.
Here’s the first couple of paragraphs:
WASHINGTON, DC – Nations ranging from Brazil to Brunei to Russia are failing to properly protect the intellectual property assets of US companies and others, and international organisations are not doing enough to stop it, seven IP attachés to the US Foreign and Commercial Service lamented recently.
Meanwhile, an industry group issued detailed recommendations for the incoming Obama administration’s changes to the US Patent and Trademark Office.
The problems in other nations extend from Brazil’s failure to issue patents for commercially significant inventions by US inventors, to an almost-complete piracy-based economy in Brunei, to an only-modest drop in the rate of Russian piracy from 65 percent to 58 percent.
The attachés, speaking at an event organised by the US Chamber of Commerce and its recently beefed-up Global Intellectual Property Center (GIPC), blasted the record of familiar intellectual property trouble zones like Brunei, Thailand and Russia.
But the problems extend to the attitudes and omissions of major trading partners like Brazil, India and even well-developed European nations, said the attachés.
[more at http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/index.php?p=1387….]
The Technology Liberation Front is the tech policy blog dedicated to keeping politicians' hands off the 'net and everything else related to technology.