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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For my latest column in The Hill, I explored the European Union’s (EU) endlessly expanding push to regulate all facets of the modern data economy. That now includes a new effort to regulate artificial intelligence (AI) using the same sort of top-down, heavy-handed, bureaucratic compliance regime that has stifled digital innovation on the continent over the past quarter century.

The European Commission (EC) is advancing a new Artificial Intelligence Act, which proposes banning some AI technologies while classifying many others under a heavily controlled “high-risk” category. A new bureaucracy, the European Artificial Intelligence Board, will be tasked with enforcing a wide variety of new rules, including “prior conformity assessments,” which are like permission slips for algorithmic innovators. Steep fines are also part of the plan. There’s a lengthy list of covered sectors and technologies, with many others that could be added in coming years. It’s no wonder, then, that the measure has been labelled the measure “the mother of all AI laws” and analysts have argued it will further burden innovation and investment in Europe.

As I noted in my new column, the consensus about Europe’s future on the emerging technology front is dismal to put it mildly. The International Economy journal recently asked 11 experts from Europe and the U.S. where the EU currently stood in global tech competition. Responses were nearly unanimous and bluntly summarized by the symposium’s title: “The Biggest Loser.” Respondents said Europe is “lagging behind in the global tech race,” and “unlikely to become a global hub of innovation.” “The future will not be invented in Europe,” another analyst bluntly concluded.

That’s a grim assessment, but there is no doubt that European competitiveness is suffering today and that excessive regulation plays a fairly significant role in causing it. As I noted in my column, “the EU’s risk-averse culture and preference for paperwork compliance over entrepreneurial freedom” had serious consequences for continent-wide innovation.  I note in my recent column how:

After the continent piled on layers of data restrictions beginning in the mid-1990s, innovation and investment suffered. Regulation grew more complex with the 2018 General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which further limits data collection and use. As a result of all the red tape, the EU came away from the digital revolution with “the complete absence of superstar companies.” There are no serious European versions of Microsoft, Google, Facebook, Apple or Amazon. Europe’s leading providers of digital technology services today are American-based companies.

Let’s take a look at a few numbers that illustrate what’s happened in Europe’s tech sector over the past quarter century. Here’s an old KPGM breakdown of market caps for public Internet companies over an important 20 year period, from 1995 to 2015, when the digital technology marketplace was taking shape. Besides the remarkable amount of churn over that period (with only Apple appearing on both lists), the other notable thing is the complete absence of any European companies in 2015.

Next, here’s a chart I constructed using CB Insights data for global unicorns ($billion valued companies) from 2010 up through early 2022. It shows how the U.S. dominates fully half the list with China having a 16% share, but all of the European Union’s firms equal just a 9 percent slice of the world’s share.

If you want to see a per capita breakdown of VC investment by country, here’s a handy Crunchbase News chart. While the U.S. is geographically much larger than Europe, a breakdown of VC funding on a per capita basis reveals that only Estonia ($915B) and Sweden ($700B) have startup investment on par with America ($808B). No other European country has even half as much per capita VC investment as the U.S., and most don’t even have a quarter as much.

As we enter the “age of AI,” what will the EU’s same regulatory model for mean for AI, machine learning, and robotics in Europe? We do have some early data on that, too. Here’s a breakdown of AI-related VC activity and AI unicorn in 2021 from the recent State of AI Report 2021, with European countries already trailing far behind:

Also, here’s some data on recent AI investment by region from the latest Stanford “AI Index Report 2022” which again highlights a gap that is only growing larger:

It’s important to listen to what actual AI innovators across the Atlantic have to say about the new EU regulatory efforts. Just last month, the UK-based Coalition for a Digital Economy (Coadec), an advocacy group for Britain’s technology-led startups, published a report entitled, “What do AI Startups Want from Regulation?” Coadec surveyed its members to gauge their feelings about the EU’s proposed approach to AI regulation, as well as the UK’s. 76% of those startups said that their business model would be either negatively affected or become infeasible if the UK were to echo the EU by making AI developers liable, and an equal percentage said they had varying concerns about whether it’s technically even feasible to make their datasets “free of errors,” as the EU looks set to demand. Respondents also said they feared that the new AI Act would be particularly burdensome to small and mid-size entrepreneurs because they cannot afford to deal with the costly compliance hassles like the larger competitors they face. This would end of being a replay of the burdens they faced from GDPR, which decimated small businesses. “The experience of GDPR demonstrated how unclear, complex and expensive regulations drove many startups out of business, and disproportionately impact startups that survived–GDPR compliance cost startups significantly more than it did the Tech Giants,” the Coadec report concluded.

At least those UK-based innovators might be in a slightly better position post-Brexit with the British government now looking to chart a different–and much less burdensome–governance approach for digital technologies. In fact, the UK government recently released a major policy document on “Establishing a Pro-Innovation Approach to Regulating AI,” which makes a concerted effort to distinguish its approach from the EU’s. “We will ask that regulators focus on high risk concerns rather than hypothetical or low risks associated with AI,” the report noted. “We want to encourage innovation and avoid placing unnecessary barriers in its way.” This is consistent with what the UK government has been saying on technology governance more generally. For example, in recent report advocating for Innovation Friendly Regulation, the UK government’s Regulatory Horizons Council argued that, when it comes to the regulation of emerging technologies like AI, “it is also necessary to consider the risk that the intervention itself poses.” “This would include the potential impact on benefits from a particular innovation that might be foregone; it would also include the potential creation of a ‘chilling effect’ on innovation more generally,” the Council concluded. Clearly, this approach to technology policy stands in stark contrast to the EU’s heavy-handed model. So, there is a chance that at least some innovators based in the UK can escape the EU’s regulatory hell.

What about AI innovators stuck on the European continent? What are they saying about the regulations they will soon face? The European DIGITAL SME Alliance, which is the largest network of small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs) in the European ICT sector, represents roughly 45,000 digital SMEs. In comments to the EC about the impact of the law, the Alliance highlighted how costly the AI Act’s conformity assessments and other regulations will be for smaller innovators. “This may put a burden on AI innovation” the Alliance argued, because smaller developers have limited financial and human resources of SMEs.” “[A] regulation that requires SMEs to make these significant investments, will likely push SMEs out of the market,” the group noted. “This is exactly the opposite of the intention to support a thriving and innovative AI ecosystem in Europe.” Moreover, “SMEs will not be able to pass on these costs to their customers in the final customer end pricing,” the Alliance correctly noted because, “[t[he market is global and highly competitive. Therefore, customers will choose cheaper solutions and Europe risks to be left behind in technology development and global competition.”

In March, the Alliance also hosted a forum on “The European AI Act and Digital SMEs,” which featured comments from some operators in this space. Some speakers were quite timid and you could sense that they might have feared pushing back too aggressively against the European Commission so as not to get on the bad side of regulators before the rules go into effect. But Mislav Malenica, Founder & CEO Mindsmiths didn’t pull any punches in his remarks. His company Mindsmiths is trying to build autonomous support systems in many different fields, but their ability to innovate and compete globally will be severely curtailed by the EU AI Act, he argued.

I usually don’t spend time transcribing people’s comments from events, but I went back and watched Malenica’s multiple times because his remarks are so powerful and I wanted to make sure others hear what he was saying. [Malenica’s opening comments during the event run from 42:29 to 49:34 of the video and then he has more to say during Q&A beginning at the 1:27:28 of the video.] Here’s a quick summary of a few of Malenica’s key points (listed chronologically):

• “I’m not sure we are doing everything we can do actually to create an environment that’s innovation friendly.”
• “we see a lot of uncertainty. We see fear.”
• “basically we won’t be able to get funding here.”
• while reading through the AI Act, he notes, “I don’t see start-ups being mentioned anywhere, and startups are the main vehicles of innovation.” […] “I find it very arrogant”
• if AI Act becomes law, “what we’ll do in Europe is we’ll create a new market and that’s the AI markets based on fear,” and in how to just build products that avoid the wrath of government or lawsuits.
• “we are really stifling innovation” and that means Europeans will have to import autonomous products from foreign companies instead of making them there.

Later, during in the Q&A period, Malenica notes how his first virtual currency startup had to use half it’s investment capital just dealing with regulatory compliance issues, and most venture capitalists wouldn’t get behind launching in Europe because of such legal hassles. He reflects upon what this mean for other innovators going forward as the EU prepares to expand their regulatory regime for AI sectors:

• “I don’t think we’re missing talent. That’s just a consequence” of all the regulation. “We are missing a sense that you have opportunities here. If you the opportunities here, then the talent will come, the funding will come, and so on because people see that they’ll be able to make money, they’ll be able to build companies, and so on.”
• “If we now take a look at the 10 biggest companies market capitalizations in the world, we’ll see that none of them comes actually from Europe” with U.S. tech companies dominating the list. “So, we missed that wave completely.” Why? “Because we didn’t inspire anyone to take action,” and that is about to happen for AI.
• “We need to decide if we are going to be a land of opportunities, or will we be just consumers of other people’s tech, the same we are right now” for digital software and services.
• “We’re already finding excuses for the loss” of the AI market, he argues.

Malenica’s comments are extraordinarily demoralizing if you care about innovation. Now, I’m an American and one way to look at this dismal situation is that, by hobbling its own startups and existing AI innovators, Europe is doing the U.S. another favor by essentially taking itself out of the running in next great global tech race. Europe’s actions may also mean that America gains many of their best and brightest if they come to the U.S. when looking to create the next great algorithmic service or application because they can’t do so in the EU. This is exactly what happened over the past few decades for Internet startups, Malenica noted.

But that’s dismal news in another sense. Europe is filled with brilliant innovators, highly-skilled talent, world-class educational institutions, and even many venture capitalists looking to invest in this arena. Unfortunately, the continent’s suffocating regulatory approach makes it nearly impossible for digital technology innovators to have a fighting chance. Through their heavy-handed policies, European officials have essentially declared their innovators “guilty until proven innocent.” And that means that Europeans and the rest of the world are being deprived of many important life-enriching and life-saving AI applications that those innovators could create. Technological innovation is not a zero-sum game that only one country can “win.” Innovation drives growth and prosperity and lifts all boats as its benefits spread throughout the world. When European innovators prosper, people all over the world prosper along with them.

Is there any chance the European Commission softens its stance toward emerging technologies and looks to adopt a more flexible governance approach that instead treats AI innovators as innocent until proven guilty? I think it is extremely unlikely that will happen because, as Malenica noted, European technology policy is too rooted in fear of disruption and extreme risk-aversion. EU officials are forgetting that the most important lesson from the history of technological innovation is there can be no progress without some risk-taking and corresponding disruption. My favorite quote about the relationship between risk-taking and human progress comes from Wilbur Wright who, along with his brother, helped pioneer human flight. “If you are looking for perfect safety,” Wright said, “you would do well to sit on a fence and watch the birds.” European policymakers are essentially forcing their best and brightest innovators to sit on the fence and watch the rest of the world fly right past them on the digital technology and AI front. The ramifications for the continent will be disastrous. Regardless, as I noted in concluding my recent Hill column, Europe’s approach to AI “shouldn’t be the model the U.S. follows if it hopes to maintain its early lead in AI and robotics. America should instead welcome European companies, workers and investors looking for a more hospitable place to launch bold new AI innovations.”

Alas, European officials appear ready to ignore the deleterious impact of their policies on innovation and competition and instead make regulation their leading export to the world. In fact, the European Commission will soon open a San Francisco office to work more closely with Silicon Valley companies affected by EU tech regulation. European leaders have basically surrendered on the idea of home-grown innovation and are now plowing all their energies into regulating the rest of the world’s largest digital technology companies, most of which are headquartered in the United States. It’s no wonder, then, that The Economist magazine concludes that, “Europe is the free-rider continent” that “has piggybacked on innovation from elsewhere, keeping up with rivals, not forging ahead.” Instead, “the cuddly form of capitalism embraced in Europe has markedly failed to create world-beating companies,” the magazine argues.

European officials want us to believe that they are somehow doing the world a favor by being its global tech regulator, when instead the are simply solidifying the power of the largest digital tech companies, who are the only ones with enough resources–mainly in the form of massive legal compliance teams–to live under the EU’s innovation-crushing regulations. Sadly, many US policymakers hate our own home-grown tech companies so much now, that they are willing to let this happen. In a better world, those American lawmakers would stand up to European officials looking to bully tech innovators and we would reject the innovation-killing recipe that the EU is cooking up for AI markets and expects the rest of the world to eat.

Additional Reading on AI & Robotics:

• Adam Thierer, “How Science Fiction Dystopianism Shapes the Debate over AI & Robotics,” Discourse, July 26, 2022.
• Adam Thierer, “Why is the US Following the EU’s Lead on Artificial Intelligence Regulation?” The Hill, July 21, 2022.
• Adam Thierer, “Algorithmic Auditing and AI Impact Assessments: The Need for Balance,” Medium, July 13, 2022.
• Adam Thierer, “What I Learned about the Power of AI at the Cleveland Clinic,” Medium, May 6, 2022.
• Adam Thierer, Governing Emerging Technology in an Age of Policy Fragmentation and Disequilibrium, American Enterprise Institute (April 2022).
• Adam Thierer, “How to Get the Future We Were Promised,” Discourse, January 18, 2022.
• Adam Thierer, “A Global Clash of Visions: The Future of AI Policy,” The Hill, May 4, 2021.
• Adam Thierer, “A Brief History of Soft Law in ICT Sectors: Four Case Studies,” Jurimetrics, Vol. 61 (Fall 2021): 79-119.
• Adam Thierer, “Artificial Intelligence Governance in the Obama–Trump Years,” IEEE Transactions on Technology and Society, Vol, 2, Issue 4 (2021).
• Adam Thierer, “The Worst Regulation Ever Proposed,” The Bridge, September 2019.
• Ryan Hagemann, Jennifer Huddleston Skees & Adam Thierer, “Soft Law for Hard Problems: The Governance of Emerging Technologies in an Uncertain Future,” Colorado Technology Law Journal, Vol. 17 (2018).
• Adam Thierer & Trace Mitchell, “No New Tech Bureaucracy,” Real Clear Policy, September 10, 2020.
• Adam Thierer, “OMB’s AI Guidance Embodies Wise Tech Governance,” Mercatus Center Public Comment, March 13, 2020.
• Adam Thierer, “Europe’s New AI Industrial Policy,” Medium, February 20, 2020.
• Adam Thierer, “Trump’s AI Framework & the Future of Emerging Tech Governance,” Medium, January 8, 2020.
• Adam Thierer, “Soft Law: The Reconciliation of Permissionless & Responsible Innovation,” Chapter 7 in Adam Thierer, Evasive Entrepreneurs & the Future of Governance (Washington, DC: Cato Institute, 2020): 183-240.
• Andrea O’Sullivan & Adam Thierer, “Counterpoint: Regulators Should Allow the Greatest Space for AI Innovation,” Communications of the ACM, Volume 61, Issue 12, (December 2018): 33-35.
• Adam Thierer, Andrea O’Sullivan & Raymond Russell, “Artificial Intelligence and Public Policy,” Mercatus Research (2017).
• Adam Thierer, “Shouldn’t the Robots Have Eaten All the Jobs at Amazon By Now?” Technology Liberation Front, July 26, 2017.
• Adam Thierer, “Are ‘Permissionless Innovation’ and ‘Responsible Innovation’ Compatible?” Technology Liberation Front, July 12, 2017.
• Adam Thierer, “The Growing AI Technopanic,” Medium, April 27, 2017.
• Adam Thierer, “The Day the Machines Took Over,” Medium, May 11, 2017.
• Adam Thierer, “When the Trial Lawyers Come for the Robot Cars,” Slate, June 10, 2016.
• Adam Thierer, “Learning by Doing,” the Process of Innovation & the Future of Employment,” Technology Liberation Front, September 25, 2015.
• Adam Thierer, “Problems with Precautionary Principle-Minded Tech Regulation & a Federal Robotics Commission,” Medium, September 22, 2014.
• Adam Thierer, “On the Line between Technology Ethics vs. Technology Policy,” Technology Liberation Front, August 1, 2013.

On December 13th, I will be participating in an Atlas Network panel on, “Big Tech, Free Speech, and Censorship: The Classical Liberal Approach.” In anticipation of that event, I have also just published a new op-ed for The Hill entitled, “Left and right take aim at Big Tech — and the First Amendment.” In this essay, I expand upon that op-ed and discuss the growing calls from both the Left and the Right for a variety of new content regulations. I then outline the classical liberal approach to concerns about free speech platforms more generally, which ultimately comes down to the proposition that innovation and competition are always superior to government regulation when it comes to content policy.

In the current debates, I am particularly concerned with calls by many conservatives for more comprehensive governmental controls on speech policies enforced by various private platforms, so I will zero in on those efforts in this essay. First, here’s what both the Left and the Right share in common in these debates: Many on both sides of the aisle desire more government control over the editorial decisions made by private platforms. They both advocate more political meddling with the way private firms make decisions about what types of content and communications are allowed on their platforms. In today’s hyper-partisan world,” I argue in my Hill column, “tech platforms have become just another plaything to be dominated by politics and regulation. When the ends justify the means, principles that transcend the battles of the day — like property rights, free speech and editorial independence — become disposable. These are things we take for granted until they’ve been chipped away at and lost.”

Despite a shared objective for greater politicization of media markets, the Left and the Right part ways quickly when it comes to the underlying objectives of expanded government control. As I noted in my Hill op-ed:

there is considerable confusion in the complaints both parties make about “Big Tech.” Democrats want tech companies doing more to limit content they claim is hate speech, misinformation, or that incites violence. Republicans want online operators to do less, because many conservatives believe tech platforms already take down too much of their content.

This makes life very lonely for free speech defenders and classical liberals. Usually in the past, we could count on the Left to be with us in some free speech battles (such as putting an end to “indecency” regulations for broadcast radio and television), while the Right would be with us on others (such as opposition to the “Fairness Doctrine,” or similar mandates). Today, however, it is more common for classical liberals to be fighting with both sides about free speech issues.

My focus is primarily on the Right because, with the rise of Donald Trump and “national conservatism,” there seems to be a lot of soul-searching going on among conservatives about their stance toward private media platforms, and the editorial rights of digital platforms in particular.

In my new  Hill essay and others articles (all of which are listed down below), I argue there is a principled classical liberal approach to these issues that was nicely outlined by President Ronald Reagan in his 1987 veto of Fairness Doctrine legislation, when he said:

History has shown that the dan­gers of an overly timid or biased press cannot be averted through bureaucratic regulation, but only through the freedom and compe­tition that the First Amendment sought to guarantee.

Let’s break that line down. Reagan admits that media bias can be a real thing. Of course it is! Journalists, editors, and even the companies they work for all have specific views. They all favor or disfavor certain types of content. But, at least in the United States, the editorial decisions made by these private actors are protected by the First Amendment. Section 230 is really quite secondary to this debate, even though some Trumpian conservatives wrongly suggest that it’s the real problem here. In reality, national conservatives would need to find a way to work around well-established First Amendment protections if they wanted to impose new restrictions on the editorial rights of private parties.

But why would they want to do that? Returning to the Reagan veto statement, we should remember how he noted that, even if the First Amendment did not protect the editorial discretion of private media platforms, bureaucratic regulation was not the right answer to the problem of “bias.”  Competition and choice were the superior answer. This is the heart and soul of the classical liberal perspective: more innovation is always superior to more regulation.

For the past 30 years, conservatives and classical liberals were generally aligned on that point. But the ascendancy of Donald Trump created a rift in that alliance that now threatens to grow into a chasm as more and more Right-of-center people begin advocating for comprehensive control of media platforms.

The problems with that are numerous beginning with the fact that none of the old rationales for media controls work (and most of them never did). Consider the old arguments justifying widespread regulation of private media:

• “Scarcity” was the oldest justification for media regulation, but we live in the exact opposite world today, in which the most common complaint about media is the abundance of it!
• Conversely, the supposed “pervasiveness” of some media (namely broadcasting) was used as a rationale for government censorship in the past. But that, too, no longer works because in today’s crowded media marketplace and Internet-enabled world, all forms of communications and entertainment are equally pervasive to some extent.
• State ownership and licensing of spectrum was another rationale for control that no longer works. No digital media platforms need federal licenses to operate today. So, that hook is also gone. Moreover, the answer to the problem of government ownership of media is to stop letting the government own and control media assets, including spectrum.
• “Fairness” is another old excuse for control, with some regulatory advocates suggesting that five unelected bureaucrats at the Federal Communications Commission (or some other agency) are well-suited to “balance” the airing of viewpoints on media platforms. Of course, America’s disastrous experience with the Fairness Doctrine proved just how wrong that thinking was. [I summarize all the evidence proving that here.]

That leaves a final, more amorphous rationale for media control: ” gatekeeper” concerns and assertions that private media platforms can essentially become “state actors.” In the wake of Donald Trump’s “de-platorming” from Facebook and Twitter, many of his supporters began adopting this language in defense of more aggressive government control of private media platforms, including the possibility of declaring those platforms common carriers and demanding that some sort of amorphous “neutrality” mandates be imposed on them. But as Berin Szóka and Corbin Barthold of Tech Freedom note:

Where courts have upheld imposing common carriage burdens on communications networks under the First Amendment, it has been because consumers reasonably expected them to operate conduits. Not so for social media platforms. [. . . ] When it comes to the regulation of speech on social media, however, the presumption of content neutrality does not apply. Conservatives present their criticism of content moderation as a desire for “neutrality,” but forcing platforms to carry certain content and viewpoints that they would prefer not to carry constitutes a “content preference” that would trigger strict scrutiny. Under strict scrutiny, any “gatekeeper” power exercised by social media would be just as irrelevant as the monopoly power of local newspapers was in [previous Supreme Court holdings].

Put simply, efforts to stretch extremely narrow and limited common carriage precedents to fit social media just don’t work. We’ve already seen lower courts declare that recently when blocking the enforcement of new conservative-led efforts in Florida and Texas to limit the editorial discretion of private social media platforms. If conservatives really hope to get around these legal barriers to regulation, what would be needed would be a more far-reaching strike at the First Amendment itself. That would entail a jurisprudential revolution at the Supreme Court — reversing about a century of free speech precedents — or an some sort of an effort to amend the First Amendment itself. These things are almost certainly not going to occur.

But, again, this hasn’t stopped some conservatives from pitching extreme solutions in their efforts to regulate digital media at both the state and federal level. I discuss these efforts in previous essays on, “How Conservatives Came to Favor the Fairness Doctrine & Net Neutrality,“ “Sen. Hawley’s Radical, Paternalistic Plan to Remake the Internet,“ and “The White House Social Media Summit and the Return of ‘Regulation by Raised Eyebrow’.“ Perhaps some Trump-aligned conservatives understand that these legislative efforts are unlikely to work, but they continue to push them in an attempt to make life hell for tech platforms, or perhaps just to troll the Left and “own the Libs.”

On the other hand, some conservatives seem to really believe in some of the extreme ideas they are tossing around. What is particular troubling about these efforts is the way — following Trump’s lead — some conservatives, including even more mainstream conservative groups like the Heritage Foundation, are increasingly referring to private media platforms as “the enemy of the people.” That’s the kind of extremist language typically used by totalitarian thugs and Marxist lunatics who so hate private enterprise and freedom of speech that they are willing to adopt a sort of burn-the-village-to-save-it rhetorical approach to media policy.

And speaking of Marxists, here’s what is even more incredible about these efforts by some conservatives to use such rationales in support of comprehensive media regulation: It is all based on the “media access” playbook concocted by radical Leftist scholars a generation ago. As I summarized in my essay on, “The Surprising Ideological Origins of Trump’s Communications Collectivism“:

Media access advocates look to transform the First Amendment into a tool for social change to advance specific political ends or ideological objectives. Media access theory dispenses with both the editorial discretion rights and private property rights of private speech platforms. Private platforms become subject to the political whims of policymakers who dictate “fair” terms of access. We can think of this as communications collectivism.

Media access doctrine is rooted in an arrogant, elitist, anti-property, anti-freedom ethic that suggest the State is a better position to dictate what can and cannot be said on private speech platforms. “It’s astonishing, yet nonetheless true,” I continued on in that essay, “that the ideological roots of Trump’s anti-social media campaign lie in the works of those extreme Leftists and even media Marxists. He has just given media access theory his own unique nationalistic spin and sold this snake oil to conservatives.” Yet, Trump and other national conservatives are embracing this contemptible doctrine because now more than ever the ends apparently justify the means in American politics. Nevermind that all this could come back to haunt them when the Left somehow leverages this regulatory apparatus to control Fox News or other sites and content that conservatives favor! Once media platforms are viewed as just another thing to be controlled by politics, the only question is which politics and how are those politics enforced? Certainly both the Left and the Right cannot both have their way given all that current divides them.

Finally, what is utterly perplexing about all this is how much thanks national conservatives really owe to the major digital platforms they now seek to destroy. As I noted in my new Hill op-ed:

There has never been more opportunity for conservative viewpoints than right now. Each day on Facebook, the top-10 most shared links are dominated by pundits such as Ben Shapiro, Dan Bongino, Dinesh D’Souza and Sean Hannity. Right-leaning content is shared widely on Twitter each day. Websites like Dailywire.com and Foxnews.com get far more traffic than the New York Times or CNN.

Thus, conservatives might be shooting themselves in the foot if they were able to convince more legislatures to adopt the media access regulatory playbook because it could have profound unintended consequences once the Left uses those tools to somehow restrict access to “hate speech” or “misinformation” — and then define it so broadly so as to include much of the top material posted by conservatives on Facebook and Twitter ever day.

Not all conservatives have drank the media access kool-aid. In the wake of Trump’s deplatforming from a few major sites, a wave of new Right-leaning digital services are being planned or have already launched. (Axios and Forbes recently summarized some of these efforts.) I don’t know which will of these efforts will succeed, but more competition and platform-building are certainly superior to current calls by some Trump supporters for government regulation of mainstream social media services.

Again, this is the old Reagan vision at its finest! We can achieve a better media landscape, “only through the freedom and compe­tition that the First Amendment sought to guarantee,” not through bureaucratic regulation. It remains the principled path forward.

Additional Reading :

• “Left and right take aim at Big Tech — and the First Amendment“
• “When It Comes to Fighting Social Media Bias, More Regulation Is Not the Answer“
• “FCC’s O’Rielly on First Amendment & Fairness Doctrine Dangers“
• “Conservatives & Common Carriage: Contradictions & Challenges“
• “The Great Deplatforming of 2021“
• “A Good Time to Re-Read Reagan’s Fairness Doctrine Veto“
• “Sen. Hawley’s Radical, Paternalistic Plan to Remake the Internet“
• “How Conservatives Came to Favor the Fairness Doctrine & Net Neutrality“
• “Sen. Hawley’s Moral Panic Over Social Media“
• “The White House Social Media Summit and the Return of ‘Regulation by Raised Eyebrow’“
• “The Not-So-SMART Act“
• “The Surprising Ideological Origins of Trump’s Communications Collectivism“

Older essays & testimony :

• Adam Thierer, “Why Regulate Broadcasting: Toward a Consistent First Amendment Standard for the Information Age,” Catholic University Law School, 15 CommLaw Conspectus (Summer 2007): 431-482.
• Adam Thierer, Testimony at FCC’s Hearing on “Serving the Public Interest in the Digital Era”, March 3, 2010.
• Adam Thierer, “FCC v. Fox and the Future of the First Amendment in the Information Age,” Federalist Society, Engage (Feb. 2009).

Interoperability is a topic that has long been of interest to me. How networks, platforms, and devices work with each other–or sometimes fail to–is an important engineering, business, and policy issue. Back in 2012, I spilled out over 5,000 words on the topic when reviewing John Palfrey and Urs Gasser’s excellent book, Interop: The Promise and Perils of Highly Interconnected Systems.

I’ve always struggled with the interoperability issues, however, and often avoided them became of the sheer complexity of it all. Some interesting recent essays by sci-fi author and digital activist Cory Doctorow remind me that I need to get back on top of the issue. His latest essay is a call-to-arms in favor of what he calls “adversarial interoperability.” “[T]hat’s when you create a new product or service that plugs into the existing ones without the permission of the companies that make them,” he says. “Think of third-party printer ink, alternative app stores, or independent repair shops that use compatible parts from rival manufacturers to fix your car or your phone or your tractor.”

Doctorow is a vociferous defender of expanded digital access rights of many flavors and his latest essays on interoperability expand upon his previous advocacy for open access and a general freedom to tinker. He does much of this work with the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), which shares his commitment to expanded digital access and interoperability rights in various contexts.

I’m in league with Doctorow and EFF on some of these things, but also find myself thinking they go much too far in other ways. At root, their work and advocacy raise a profound question: should there be any general right to exclude on digital platforms? Although he doesn’t always come right out and say it, Doctorow’s work often seems like an outright rejection of any sort of property rights in networks or platforms. Generally speaking, he does not want the law to recognize any right for tech platforms to exclude using digital fences of any sort.

Where to Draw the Lines?

As someone who has authored a book about the importance of permissionless innovation, I need to be able to answer questions about where these lines between open versus closed systems are drawn. Definitions and framing matter, however. I use “permissionless innovation” as a descriptor for one possible policy disposition when considering where legal and regulatory defaults should be set. Another conception of permissionless innovation is more of an engineering ideal; a general freedom to connect, tinker, modify, etc. (I speak more about these conceptions in my latest book, Evasive Entrepreneurs.) Of course, someone advocating permissionless innovation as a policy default will sometimes be confronted with the question of what the law should say when someone behaves in an “evasive” fashion in the latter conception of permissionless innovation.

Doctorow would generally answer that question by saying that law should not be rigged to favor exclusion through laws like the DMCA (and specifically the law’s anti- circumvention provisions), Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, patent law, and various other rules and laws. “[T]he current crop of Big Tech companies has secured laws, regulations, and court decisions that have dramatically restricted adversarial interoperability.”

Generally speaking, I agree. I’m not a fan of technocratic laws or regulations that seek to micro-manage interoperability and which stack the deck in favor of exclusionary conduct with steep penalties for evasion. But does that mean adversarial interoperability should be permitted in all cases? Should there exist any sort of common law presumption one way or the other when a user or competitor seeks access to an existing private platform or device?

Specifics matter here and I don’t have time to get into all the case studies that Doctorow goes through. Some are no-brainers, like the infamous Lexmark case involving refillable printer ink cartridges. Other cases are far more complicated, at least for me. Does Epic, creator of Fortnite, have a right of adversarial interoperability that it can exercise against Apple and their AppStore? As Dirk Auer suggests in a new essay, this episode looks more like a straightforward pricing dispute. Epic is making it out to be much more than that, suggesting Apple is guilty of unfair and exclusionary practices that require a legal remedy.

Why not take that logic further and just say Apple’s App Store us tantamount to a natural monopoly or digital essential facility that Epic and everyone else is entitled to on whatever terms they want? For that matter, why not apply the same logic to Epic’s Fortnite platform or even its Unreal Engine? Does every other gaming developer have a right to piggyback on the juggernaut that Epic has built?

This gets to the core question about Doctorow’s concept of adversarial interoperability: Exactly what should common law and the courts say platform owners make access rights a simple pricing matter and say: “You pay or you are out.” Like Doctorow and EFF, I don’t want Apple to benefit from any special favors from laws like DMCA. Where we differ is that I would still leave the door open for Apple to exercise various other common law contractual rights or property rights in court.

I suspect Doctorow would deny any such claims by Apple or anyone else. If so, I would like to see him spell out in more precise terms exactly what Apple’s property rights and contractual rights are in this instance. Or, again, should we just treat the App Store as a digital commons with unfettered open access rights for developers? If so, would Apple be required to still manage the resource once it is a quasi-commons?

I think that would end miserably, but would like to hear Doctorow’s preferred approach before saying more. I suspect a lot rides on the distinction between “open” verses “proprietary” standards, but compared to Doctorow and EFF, I am willing to embrace a world of both open and proprietary systems, and many hybrids in between. I don’t want the law favoring one type over the other, but that means I need to endorse a generalized property right for digital operators such that they can still exclude others (even in the absence of artificial regulatory rights like DMCA creates). Again, I suspect Doctorow would reject that standard, preferring a generalized right of access, even if that means the platforms become de facto commons.

More Radical Steps

Elsewhere, Doctorow has said is that some of these questions would be better addressed through more aggressive antitrust regulation. Mere data portability or mandatory interoperability isn’t enough for him. “Data portability is important,” Doctorow says, “but it is no substitute for the ability to have ongoing access to a service that you’re in the process of migrating away from.”

In his latest online book on “How to Destroy Surveillance Capitalism,” Doctorow suggests that it is time to “make Big Tech small again” through an “anti-monopoly ecology movement.” That “means bans on mergers between large companies, on big companies acquiring nascent competitors, and on platform companies competing directly with the companies that rely on the platforms.” And he desires a host of other remedies.

So, here we have the convergence of interoperability policy and antitrust policy, with a layer of property confiscation layered on top apparently. “Now it’s up to us to seize the means of computation, putting that electronic nervous system under democratic, accountable control,” he insists in his latest manifesto.

What’s funny about this is that Doctorow begins most of his essays by pointing out all the ways that politics is the problem when it comes to access issues, only to end by suggesting that a lot more political meddling is the required solution. He repeatedly laments how large tech players have so often been able to convince lawmakers and regulators to pass special laws or regulations that work to their favor. Yet, in his We-Can-Build-A-Better-Bureaucrat model of things, all those old problems will apparently disappear when we get the right people in power and get rid of those nefarious capitalist schemers.

Thus, what really animates Doctorow’s advocacy for adversarial interoperability is a deep suspicion of free market capitalism and property rights in particular. In this worldview, interoperability really just becomes a Trojan Horse meant to help bring down the entire capitalist order. Am I exaggerating? “As to why things are so screwed up? Capitalism.” Those are his exact words from the conclusion of his latest book.

Adversarial Innovation & Evolutionary Interop

Still, Doctorow raises many legitimate issues about interconnection and digital access rights. But we need a better approach to work though these questions than the one he suggests.

In my lengthy review of the Palfrey and Gasser Interop book, I tried to sketch out an alternative framework for thinking seriously about these issues. I referred to my preferred approach as “experimental interoperability” or “evolutionary interoperability.” I described this as the theory that ongoing marketplace experimentation with technical standards, modes of information production and dissemination, and interoperable information systems, is almost always preferable to the artificial foreclosure of this dynamic process through state action. The former allows for better learning and coping mechanisms to develop while also incentivizing the spontaneous, natural evolution of the market and market responses.

Adversarial interoperability is important, but not nearly as important as adversarial innovation and facilities-based competition. Stated differently, access rights to existing systems is an important value, but the incentives we have in place to encourage entirely new systems is what really matters most. At some point, a generalized right of access to existing systems discourages the sort of platform-building that could help give rise to the sort of creative destruction we have seen at work repeatedly in the past and that we still need today. Taken too far, adversarial interoperability threatens to undermine this goal. Why seek to build a better alternative platform if you can just endlessly free ride off someone else’s by force of law?

Thus, I prefer to work at the margins and think through how to balance these competing claims of access / interoperability rights versus contractual / property rights. My take will be too utilitarian for not only Doctorow but also for some libertarians, who want clear answers to all these questions based upon their preferred natural law-oriented constructions of rights. The problem with that approach is that it leads to all-or-nothing extremes (complete digital property rights, or virtually none) and that approach is fundamentally unworkable and destructive. We need to work harder about how to balance these rights and values in pro-competitive, pro-innovation fashion.

There is No Such Thing as Optimal Interoperability

In sum, there is no such thing as “optimal interoperablity.” Sometimes proprietary or “closed” systems will offer the public features and options that they will find preferable to “open” ones.  “There are many reasons why consumers might prefer ‘closed’ systems – even when they have to pay a premium for them,” argues Dirk Auer in a separate essay. It could be greater convenience, security, or other things. Palfrey and Gasser correctly noted in their book that, “the state is rarely in a position to call a winner among competing technologies” (p. 174). Moreover, they concluded:

“Lawmakers need to keep in view the limits of their own effectiveness when it comes to accomplishing optimal levels of interoperability. Case studies of government intervention, especially where complex information technologies are involved, show that states tend to be ill suited to determine on their own what specific technology will be the best option for the future (p. 175)

A thousand amens to that! The law should not artificially foreclose experimentation with many different types of platforms, standards, devices and the interoperability that exists among them.

In an amazing new MIT Technology Review piece, Antonio Regalado discusses how, “Some scientists are taking a DIY coronavirus vaccine, and nobody knows if it’s legal or if it works.” It is another powerful example of how “citizen-science” and medical self-experimentation (or “biohacking”) is increasingly being used to improve health outcomes, enhance human capabilities, or fight against deadly diseases like COVID. Regalado reports that:

Nearly 200 covid-19 vaccines are in development and some three dozen are at various stages of human testing. But in what appears to be the first “citizen science” vaccine initiative, Estep and at least 20 other researchers, technologists, or science enthusiasts, many connected to Harvard University and MIT, have volunteered as lab rats for a do-it-yourself inoculation against the coronavirus. They say it’s their only chance to become immune without waiting a year or more for a vaccine to be formally approved. Among those who’ve taken the DIY vaccine is George Church, the celebrity geneticist at Harvard University, who took two doses a week apart earlier this month. The doses were dropped in his mailbox and he mixed the ingredients himself.

Regalado notes that this is all happening despite legal and ethical questions:

By distributing directions and even supplies for a vaccine, though, the Radvac group is operating in a legal gray area. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) requires authorization to test novel drugs in the form of an investigational new drug approval. But the Radvac group did not ask the agency’s permission, nor did it get any ethics board to sign off on the plan.

Chapter 2 of my latest book (Evasive Entrepreneurs and the Future of Governance) features a discussion of DIY health efforts, citizen-science and biohacking. Average citizens are using new technological capabilities to address health needs, often beyond the confines of the law. Here’s the beginning of that discussion, which starts on p. 79 of the manuscript:

DIY health services and medical devices are on the rise thanks to the combined power of open-source software, 3D printers, cloud computing, and digital platforms that allow information sharing between individuals with specific health needs. Average citizens are using these new technologies to modify their bodies and abilities, often beyond the confines of the law. Welcome to the occasionally scary but oftentimes awe-inspiring world of biohacking. Biohackers are essentially “prosumers,” the term many used a decade ago to describe the way average citizens were taking advantage of new communications and computing technologies to become both producers and consumers of news, information, and entertainment. Pro-sumers evaded traditional industry norms and government regulations that had previously made it difficult for citizens to communicate freely. The same phenomenon is now shaking up the world of health and medicine as pro-sumers use new technological capabilities to take their health into their own hands and likely evade many traditional norms and regulations when doing so.

In other words, we can’t just put the genie back in the bottle with sweeping, repressive regulatory controls. Here’s an essay that Jordan Reimschisel and I wrote last year on “Biohacking, Democratized Medicine, and Health Policy” highlighting the many thorny policy issues in play here, as well as possible governance responses.

In another essay, Jordan and I argued that one of the most important and constructive policy responses would be stepped-up risk education and health literacy initiatives. We need constructive approaches to citizen-science and biohacking to make sure we address serious risks but simultaneously avoid blocking beneficial forms of health and medical innovation that our country desperately needs, especially at this time.

Margaret Talbot has written an excellent New Yorker essay entitled, “The Rogue Experimenters,” which documents the growth of the D.I.Y.-bio movement. This refers to the organic, bottom-up, citizen science movement, or “leaderless do-ocracy” of tinkerers, as she notes. I highly recommend you check it out.

As I noted in my new book on Evasive Entrepreneurs and the Future of Governance, “DIY health services and medical devices are on the rise thanks to the combined power of open-source software, 3D printers, cloud computing, and digital platforms that allow information sharing between individuals with specific health needs. Average citizens are using these new technologies to modify their bodies and abilities, often beyond the confines of the law.”

Talbot discusses many of the same examples I discuss in my book, including:

• the Four Thieves Vinegar collective, which devised instructions for building its own version of the EpiPen;
• e-nable, an international collective of thirty thousand volunteers, designs and 3-D-prints prosthetic hands and arms (and which has, more recently, distributed more than fifty thousand face shields in more than twenty-five countries.);
• GenSpace and other community biohacking labs; and
• Open Insulin and Open Artificial Pancreas System.

I like the way Talbot compares these movements to the hacker and start-up culture of the Digital Revolution:

The D.I.Y.-bio movement, which emerged in the early two-thousands, seems almost evolutionarily adapted to its historical moment,” she argues. “It echoes aspects of startup culture, especially the early days of personal computing, with its garage-based origin stories. First came the hardware, then the software; now even the wetware of life can be created in people’s homes. D.I.Y. bio reflects popular skepticism about professional authority and gatekeeping, but it is not skeptical about learning or expertise.

She also quotes others on this point, like John Wilbanks, a health technologist at the research nonprofit Sage Bionetworks:

when new biotech companies fail, they tend to sell off their equipment for a discount, and community labs and biohackers scoop it up. Wilbanks told me, “D.I.Y. bio is very similar to the home-brew, hacker-club culture of the late seventies in Silicon Valley. If you’ve not gone on eBay to shop for a DNA sequencer that they can ship to you in twenty-four hours, check it out—there’s a massive secondary market.”

Perhaps the most interesting thing about this bottom-up citizen-science movement is that it run the political gamut. It includes “anarcho-libertarians” to those “steeped in social-justice activism,” Talbot says. But they are all generally unified by a commitment to the widespread dissemination of scientific knowledge and transparency in health-related matters. “D.I.Y. biologists often have a greater commitment than their professional counterparts do to making their work open to scrutiny—and available for free on the Internet,” Talbot notes.

“The D.I.Y.-bio ecosystem includes a lot of do-gooders, and many of them have been galvanized by the covid-19 crisis,” she also observes. Quite right. I discussed that fact in the launch essay for my book, “Evasive Entrepreneurialism and Technological Civil Disobedience in the Midst of a Pandemic.” I documented dozens of examples of various individuals and organizations rising up to meet the challenges posed by the pandemic. “Eventually, people take notice of how regulators and their rules encumber entrepreneurial activities, and they act to evade them when public welfare is undermined,” I argued. “Working around the system becomes inevitable when the permission society becomes so completely dysfunctional and counterproductive.” DIY health innovation has gone mainstream out of necessity.

Importantly, Talbot notes that when it comes to what counts as success for DIY health and biohacking, sometimes good enough is, well, good enough. On this point, she quotes Jon Schull, an e-nable (non-commercial 3D-printed prosthetics) co-founder, who says, “it doesn’t matter that e-nable hands aren’t state-of-the-art. The job of professional prostheses-makers, he said, is “to produce something really good, and if it’s merely better than nothing it’s not good enough”—but, in some circumstances, something is better than nothing.”

That is a crucial point understanding why this movement is so important: Working together in a spontaneous, bottom-up fashion, citizen scientists and tinkerers can act quickly to fill pressing public health needs. Of course, that is exactly what makes these same innovations potentially risky and has some people wondering about the wisdom of such efforts—and the potential need for more regulation.

I wish Talbott would have spent a bit more time diving into these ethical and legal questions. I really struggled with them when writing about all this stuff in my new book on evasive entrepreneurialism and technological civil disobedience. She does briefly discuss how some FDA regs might affect DIY bio movement, including efforts like Open Insulin.  “Even if Open Insulin begins producing a consistent product, it will have to overcome all kinds of regulatory obstacles to demonstrate safety and purity before taking it to market,” she notes. “Manufacturers of pharmacy-grade medications must provide the F.D.A. with reams of evidence that they can produce the substances with complete consistency, in sterile environments. Proving this level of proficiency can cost millions of dollars.” But Talbot does not spend much more time exploring what might happen next on this front if DIY efforts continue to expand.

“But what should the law say about people… who are creating their own specialized medical devices in an open-source, noncommercial fashion?” I ask in my new book.

I outlined three potential future scenarios for the movement:

1. DIY technologies go mainstream and become more commercialized.
2. biohacking remains decentralized but becomes more mainstream and professional without becoming fully commercial.
3. biohacking turn even more rogue or underground in nature as a form of guerrilla innovation that sometimes borders on neo-anarchism.

Regardless of the outcome, the ethical and regulatory issues will persist and grow as technological capabilities continue to grow more sophisticated, decentralized, and inexpensive. I argue in the book that it would be foolish for policymakers to think they can (or should) bottle up this movement altogether:

biohacking and decentralized medicine will expand for a simple reason: People care deeply about improving their health and abilities. They will take advantage of new technological capabilities that let them do so—especially when those capabilities are significantly cheaper than other options. To reiterate, that does not make these technologies safe or smart, but it does mean we will need a new approach to governance as evasive entrepreneurialism expands in this arena.

And then I continue on to note how improved risk education and awareness efforts might be one solution to the growing DIY bio movement.

Anyway, for more discussion on this, see pages 79-87 of my new book. I’ve also listed a few other essays down below that you might find interesting, including several penned by my former colleague Jordan Reimschisel.

Additional Reading:

• Andrea O’Sullivan & Adam Thierer, “3D Printers, Evasive Entrepreneurs and the Future of Tech Regulation,” The Bridge, August 1, 2018, https://www.mercatus.org/bridge/commentary/3d-printers-evasive-entrepreneurs-and-future-tech-regulation
• Jordan Reimschisel, “Biohackerspaces,” Medium, June 29, 2017, https://medium.com/@jordanreimschisel/biohackerspaces-b0cbde63c492
• Jordan Reimschisel, “Technology Could Enable Personal Medicine Whether We Like It Or Not,” Medium, August 10, 2017, https://medium.com/@jordanreimschisel/technology-could-enable-personal-medicine-whether-we-like-it-or-not-ce6e19b826fe
• Jordan Reimschisel, “Evolving Oversight of Digital Health,” Medium, June 21, 2018, https://medium.com/@jordanreimschisel/evolving-oversight-of-digital-health-d65199913503
• Adam D. Thierer and Adam Marcus, “Guns, Limbs, and Toys: What Future for 3D Printing?” Minnesota Journal of Law, Science & Technology, Vol. 17, No. 2, (2016), p. 805-854, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2795562

[Originally published on the Cato Institute blog.]

Examples were everywhere. Distilleries started producing hand sanitizers to address shortages while average folks began sharing do‐​it‐​yourself sanitizer recipes online. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) looked to modify hand sanitizer guidelines quickly to allow for it, but few really cared because those rules weren’t going to stop them. Gray markets in face masks, medical face shields, and respirators developed. Some people and organizations worked together to make medical devices using off‐​the‐​shelf hardware and open source software. More simply, others just fired up sewing machines to make masks—and then, faced with an emerging public health consensus, the guidance from the federal government shifted dramatically: where formerly ordinary people were instructed not to buy or use masks, within a matter of days, the policy reversed, and all were encouraged to make and use cloth protective masks.

Meanwhile, doctors and nurses started “writing the playbook for treating coronavirus patients on the fly” by improvising treatments and then sharing them on social media. A few doctors even converted breathing machines to ventilators themselves using 3-D printed parts to address shortages for their patients even though the FDA had not yet authorized it.

Social media sites were also suddenly filled with discussions about how average people might come together to build tools or share information to assist with virus testing or treatments. A 17‐​year‐​old used his coding skills to build one of the most popular coronavirus‐​tracking websites in the world (ncov2019.live) after noticing how hard it was to use government sites. And two high school science teachers in Tennessee set up testing operations in their school lab to help reduce testing time in their area.

Meanwhile, journalists and columnists like the  Wall Street Journal’s Andy Kessler cheered on such activity, encouraging the public to “innovate from your couch.” Modern digital technologies and platforms that had been pariahs and the target of a regulatory‐​minded “techlash” just a few months earlier suddenly became essential public services that were showered with praise for helping people cope with social distancing and the solitude associated with shelter‐​in‐​place requirements. Headlines in major media outlets explained how “Facebook Is More Trustworthy than the President” and “Twitter Is Making the Coronavirus World a Better Place.”

Philanthropists like Bill Gates were also funding their own solutions. The former Microsoft founder and CEO pointed out that, in an effort to find testing solutions and vaccines, private groups like his Gates Foundation could likely mobilize faster than governments. Gates likely had grown frustrated with government responses after a Seattle‐​based lab that the Gates Foundation funded figured out an effective way to test for coronavirus, only to be blocked from expanding it by over‐​cautious federal bureaucrats. Frustrated by federal intransigence, that Seattle lab started testing for COVID-19 anyway to prove they indeed had an effective test. Commenting on the case study, the New York Times  expressed exasperation about “how existing regulations and red tape—sometimes designed to protect privacy and health—have impeded the rapid rollout of testing nationally.”

Wait, Isn’t All This Illegal?

What is interesting about all these examples of bottom‐​up innovation and evasive entrepreneurialism is that they are remarkably inspiring, but also mostly illegal. Almost all these activities butted up against longstanding regulations governing medical devices, practices, or therapies. Some of those rules are enforced by large and powerful federal bureaucracies like the FDA and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

Others take the form of state‐​based occupational licensing limitations or certificate‐​of‐​need laws, which require healthcare providers to first obtain permission before they open or expand their facilities or services. This crazy quilt of medical laws and regulations accumulated steadily over time, creating what constitutional scholar Timothy Sandefur calls a “permission society,” which values proceduralism and conformity over practicality and common sense.

Eventually, however, the mountains of red tape that the permission society is built upon start to collapse under their own weight. Laws and agencies that previously commanded obedience are now viewed as an opaque, ossified, and confusing morass of one‐​size‐​fits‐​all mandates, prohibitions, and penalties that actually undermine the very health goals they were put in place to achieve. Suddenly, headlines in every major newspaper screamed of how, as it pertained to virus testing procedures, “The Government Failed” (Wall Street Journal) because of “Flawed Tests, Red Tape and Resistance” (Washington Post) and this resulted in “The Lost Month” (New York Times) in the United States.

Eventually, people take notice of how regulators and their rules encumber entrepreneurial activities, and they act to evade them when public welfare is undermined. Working around the system becomes inevitable when the permission society becomes so completely dysfunctional and counterproductive.

Technological Empowerment vs. the Status Quo

What’s going on here, and what lessons can we derive from it?

In a new Cato Institute book, Evasive Entrepreneurs and the Future of Governance, I document how the sort of behavior we have recently witnessed was growing rapidly even before the COVID-19 crisis. In many different contexts, evasive entrepreneurs—innovators who don’t always conform to social or legal norms—are using new technological capabilities to circumvent traditional regulatory systems. They at least want to put pressure on public policymakers to reform or selectively enforce laws and regulations that are outmoded, inefficient, or counterproductive.

Evasive entrepreneurs rely on a strategy of permissionless innovation in both the business world and the political arena. They push back against the permission society by creating exciting new products and services without always receiving the blessing of public officials before doing so. While evasive entrepreneurialism has always been with us to some extent, many of the responses to the pandemic would not have been possible even just a few decades ago. Recent advancements have supercharged in a more technologically empowered world of information abundance and decentralized, inexpensive tools.

As I show in the book, evasive entrepreneurs are taking advantage of the growth of what we might think of as technologies of freedom or resistance. These are devices and platforms that let citizens circumvent (or perhaps just ignore) public policies that limit their liberty or freedom to innovate or to enjoy the fruits of innovation. These can include common tools like smartphones, computers, and various new interactive platforms, as well as more specialized technologies like cryptocurrencies, private drones, immersive technologies (like virtual reality), 3D printers, the “Internet of Things,” and sharing economy platforms and services. But that list just scratches the surface. When the public uses tools such as these to explicitly evade public policies on moral grounds because they find then offensive, illogical, or perhaps just annoying, we can think of that as technological civil disobedience.

Common Sense Prevails

Evasive entrepreneurialism and technological civil disobedience accelerated during the pandemic because both the practicality and morality of government policies came into question in stark fashion. The first month of the crisis witnessed “a torrent of governmental incompetence that is breathtaking in scale,” my Mercatus colleague Scott Sumner argues. “There are regulations so bizarre that if put in a novel no one would believe them,” he notes. “In contrast, the private sector has reacted fairly well, and has been far ahead of the government in most areas.”

Indeed, the pandemic has been a stress test for our institutions, and many of them have failed it. Confusing rules and inflexible agencies that should have been reformed years ago were suddenly exposed and judged harshly. Philip K. Howard, founder of Common Good, says that “Covid‐​19 is the canary in the bureaucratic mine.” Bloated bureaucracies and overbearing regulatory systems, he argues, have created a “toxic atmosphere that silenced common sense” and managed to “institutionalize failure.” Cato’s Paul Matzko has documented how the FDA has been particularly guilty of blocking sensible forms of progress on simple things like face mask production or distribution.

While countless others lambasted the practical failures of our institutions, the morality of government policies was also coming into focus. Why should citizens have their innovative efforts to help others stifled at seemingly every juncture? Must we really follow the law when it undercuts the basic human need to care for others and ourselves?

These are the issues addressed in my new book, which explains the practical reasons why evasive entrepreneurialism is on the rise and then provides a moral defense of it. When innovators and average citizens use tools and technological capabilities to pursue a living, enjoy new experiences, or improve the human condition, they often disrupt legal or social norms in the process. That is not necessarily a bad thing. In fact, evasive entrepreneurialism can transform our society for the better because it can help expand the range of life‐​enriching (and often life‐​saving) innovations. Evasive entrepreneurialism can help citizens pursue lives of their own choosing—both as creators looking for the freedom to earn a living and as individuals looking to discover and enjoy important new goods and services.

Defending evasive entrepreneurialism is easy  after it occurs, but few defend it before or as it is happening. I argue in the book that the freedom to innovate is essential to human betterment—for each of us individually and for civilization as a whole—and that freedom deserves to be taken more seriously today. The COVID-19 pandemic has made this more apparent than ever before.

There are few things more human than acts of invention. At its root, innovation involves efforts to discover new and better ways of solving practical human needs and wants. People have a right to innovate and create technologies because they possess a more general right to take steps to improve their lot in life and the lives of others around them. When misguided or archaic government programs and policies blocked that potential during the pandemic, people began ignoring or evading them. That was both practically sensible and morally justifiable.

Innovation as the New Checks and Balances

By extension, the response to the pandemic has proven the second thesis set forth in my book: Evasive entrepreneurialism and technologically enabled civil disobedience can actually help us improve government by keeping public policies fresh, sensible, and in line with common sense and the consent of the governed. Evasiveness and technological disruption can act as a sort of relief valve or circuit breaker to counteract negative pressures in the system before things break down completely. By challenging legislators and regulators to reevaluate the wisdom of their policies, evasive entrepreneurs can help us break political logjams and force governments to become more adaptive and accountable.

The proof is in the pudding. As the crisis unfolded, agencies at the federal, state, and local levels were forced to suspend hundreds of regulations that were clearly undermining helpful responses. These “rule departures” would not have been necessary if governments had engaged in periodic spring cleanings earlier. When COVID-19 hit, it became essential to suspend or repeal hundreds of misguided old rules that clearly undermined public health. The only question now is whether those inefficient, counterproductive policies will be put back on the books to do harm again in the next crisis.

But even before the current crisis, rule departures by government actors were becoming more common because  even government officials could no longer understand their own rules. Just as private citizens have increasingly resorted to evasive techniques to get things done, many regulatory agencies have given up trying to “go by the book” themselves because endless regulatory accumulation has made it impossible to understand what the law means.

My book documents many cases of public officials essentially ignoring their own policies and making up governance solutions as they go along. This is another sign of profound institutional failure, yet it should also give us some hope that even policymakers themselves now realize that government cannot just grow forever without breaking down at some point. The need for comprehensive reform is now abundantly clear, and the pandemic has moved the so‐​called “Overton Window” (i.e., the acceptable range of possible policy reforms) on many fronts.

A New Approach to Governance

Policymakers need a new approach for technological governance that is more in line with modern realities. Flexibility and humility will be essential. Regulators do not need to throw out the old rulebooks altogether, though. Some precautionary rules still make sense, particularly in cases involving extreme risk. But why not embrace the entrepreneurial spirit of the citizenry and allow more experimental trials, flexible testing procedures, and perhaps even prizes for particularly innovative ideas?

When enforcing the rules that remain on the books, policymakers should also consider targeted waivers and ex post regulatory reviews as opposed to ex ante regulatory prohibitions on any and all evasive innovations. Liability rules can also be tweaked so innovators do not have to live in constant fear of getting sued for trying to make the world a better place. Finally, post‐​market monitoring and recall notices can also be used to ensure flexible experiments have some regulatory guardrails.

But shutting down creative solutions and unique thinking simply because they run counter to some crusty old rulebook is never the right response. We should view evasive entrepreneurialism as an important part of a broader discovery process that incorporates the profound importance of ongoing, decentralized, trial‐​and‐​error experimentation to the process of societal learning and improvement. Lawmakers should find a way to accommodate a little more outside‐​the‐​box thinking and innovating—and not just when our lives are on the line.

Additional Reading 

• read the opening chapter of the book
• watch the event launch video
• 10 Highlights from the Book
• 13 Key Terms from the Book
• 5 innovation policy scholars who inspired this book
• “Innovation & the Precautionary Principle” (AIER essay)
• “Congress as a Non-Actor in Tech Policy” (Medium essay)

That’s all nice-sounding rhetoric but it sure doesn’t seem to match up with Hawley’s recent essays and policy proposals, which are straight out of the old era’s elitist and highly paternalistic Washington-Knows-Best playbook. Specifically, Hawley has called for a top-down, technocratic regulatory regime for the Internet and the digital economy more generally. Hawley has repeatedly made claims that digital technology companies have gotten a sweetheart deal from government and they they have censored conservative voices. That’s utter nonsense, but those arguments have driven his increasingly fanatic rhetoric and command-and-control policy proposals. If he succeeds in his plan to empower unelected bureaucrats inside the Beltway to reshape the Internet, it will destroy one of the greatest American success stories in recent memory. It’s hard to understand how that could be labelled “conservative” in any sense of the word.

I’ve been tracking Sen. Hawley’s increasingly radical plans for the digital economy in a series of essays, including:

• “Sen. Hawley’s Moral Panic Over Social Media“
• “How Conservatives Came to Favor the Fairness Doctrine & Net Neutrality“
• “The White House Social Media Summit and the Return of ‘Regulation by Raised Eyebrow’“
• “The Not-So-SMART Act“

In these articles, I have documented how Sen. Hawley has been whipping up a panic about digital technology companies and social media platforms to soften to ground for massive intervention by DC elites. Consider his hotly-worded USA Today op-ed from May in which he argued that, “social media wastes our time and resources,” and is “a field of little productive value” that have only “given us an addiction economy.” Sen. Hawley refers to sites like Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter as “parasites” and blames them for a litany of social problems (including an unproven link to increased suicide). He has even suggested that, “we’d be better off if Facebook disappeared” and seems to hope the same for other sites.

More insultingly, he has argued that the entire digital economy was basically one giant mistake. He says that America’s recent focus on growing the Internet and information technology sectors has “encouraged a generation of our brightest engineers to enter a field of little productive value,” which he regards as “an opportunity missed for the nation.” “What marvels might these bright minds have produced,” Hawley asks, “had they been oriented toward the common good?”

Again, this isn’t the sort of rhetoric that conservatives are usually known for. This is elitist, paternalistic tripe that we usually hear from market-hating neo-Marxists. It takes a lot of hubris for Sen. Hawley to suggest that he knows best which professions or sectors are in “the common good.” As I responded in one of my essays:

Had some benevolent philosopher kings in Washington stopped the digital economy from developing over the past quarter century, would all those tech workers really have chosen more noble-minded and worthwhile professions? Could he or others in Congress really have had the foresight to steer us in a better direction?

Why would Sen. Hawley think DC elites could do a better job centrally planning the economy? He doesn’t really tell us, instead preferring to fall back on conspiratorial rhetoric about evil “Big Tech” companies “censoring” conservatives voices. That’s the same card he played when he joined President Trump at the White House for the surreal, rambling “Social Media Summit” that took place last month. Trump used the same approach that Sen. Hawley and Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) have been using during recently Senate Judiciary Committee hearings: brow-beat witnesses and make wild claims about the whole digital world being out to muzzle conservative voices. As Andrea O’Sullivan and I noted in our essay about the Social Media Summit:

The President and other conservatives are tapping another approach: indirect censorship through both subtle and direct threats. This is an old playbook that goes by many different names: “jawboning,” “administrative arm-twisting,” “agency threats,” and “regulation by raised eyebrow.” These were the names given to broadcast-era efforts to pressure old radio and TV outlets to bring their programming choices in line with the desires of politicians and bureaucrats.

This is an old DC playbook that elites have used for decades to “work the refs” and try to extract promises from various parties under threat of more far-reaching regulation if they fail to comply with the demands of politicians. Again, there’s nothing remotely “conservative” about it.

Brushing aside such concerns, Sen. Hawley has started sketching out what a comprehensive regulatory regime for the Internet and social media might look like. He does so in two new bills, the “Ending Support for Internet Censorship Act” (co-sponsored by Sen. Cruz) and the “Social Media Addiction Reduction Technology (SMART) Act.” These two measures, if implemented, would radically remake the digital economy and lead to a remarkably intrusive regulatory regime for online speech and commerce.

The ridiculously named “Ending Support for Internet Censorship Act” would actually encourage the exact opposite result than its title suggests. The proposal would mandate that regulators at the Federal Trade Commission evaluate whether platforms have engaged in “politically biased moderation,” which is defined as moderation practices that are supposedly, “designed to negatively affect” or those that “disproportionately [restrict] or promote access to … a political party, political candidate, or political viewpoint.” Social media providers would need to petition the FTC for “immunity certifications” to then get regular audits to ensure they are moderating content in a government-approved manner. If they didn’t, they would lose their platform liability protections, which could effectively run them out of business.

This is permission slip-based regulation and it makes the old Federal Communications Commission licensing regime for broadcast radio and television look like child’s play by comparison. Hawley’s “Mother, May I?” licensing scheme for the Net would have unelected FTC bureaucrats make speech decisions for the entire Internet. It’s a massive First Amendment violation, and it would almost certainly face constitutional challenge if implemented.

What makes this all the more shocking, as I noted in response, this measure combines core elements of the old Fairness Doctrine as well as “net neutrality” mandates that conservatives have traditionally decried. The bill would also empower insider-the-Beltway lawyers, lobbyists, and consultants, who would be needed to navigate the maze of red tape this measure would give rise to. Worst of all, the measure is a massive gift to the trial lawyers Republicans love to hate because Hawley’s new regulatory regime would empower them to file an endless string of frivolous suits aimed at simply shaking down companies through early settlements. Again, how is this “conservative”?

Then there’s Hawley’s new “SMART Act,” which as Andrea O’Sullivan and I argue in our latest essay is really quite stupid. The highly technocratic measure lists a variety of business practices that would be automatically verboten. As Andrea and I summarize:

On the chopping block are infinite scrolling, video autoplay, and “gamification” features like offering badges or streaks for accomplishing certain feats. The bill would also require that social media companies build default time limits and pop-up notifications telling users how long they’ve been on a platform within six months of the bill passing. Weirdly, the bill specifies a time limit of 30 minutes on all social media platforms on all devices per day, after which point they will be locked out. The user would be able to raise that limit through platform settings, but it would reset to 30 minutes at the beginning of each month.

Who would have ever thought we now be living in a world where conservatives are calling for paternalistic, Washington-knows-best nannyism that lets agency bureaucrats forcibly shut down your social media access each day after just 30 minutes of use? Hell, why stop there? Perhaps Sen. Hawley could next impose daily limits how many Netflix shows we stream, how many podcasts we listen to, or how much time we spend playing video games. After all, he clearly thinks he knows what is in our own best interest.

No matter how much Sen. Hawley rails against elites and big government, what he has been saying and proposing represent elitism and regulatory paternalism of the very highest order. He may say that “the old era is ending and the old ways will not do” in his speeches, but through his actions he has whole-hardheartedly embraced the old order. And while he can mouth lines about how “it’s time that we stood up to big government, to the people in government who think they know better,” and while he might claim that he is “for free competition [and] the free market,” in reality, Sen. Hawley has become the most aggressive Republican booster of Big Government and managed markets that I have seen in my 30 years covering technology policy.

Hopefully, the real conservatives left out there will make a stand against Sen. Hawley’s abominable corruption of their movement and ideals.

We hear a lot today about the importance of “disruptive innovation,” “deep technologies,”  “moonshots,” and even “technological miracles.” What do these terms mean and how are they related? Are they just silly clichés used to hype techno-exuberant books, articles, and speeches? Or do these terms have real meaning and importance?

This article explores those questions and argues that, while these terms are confronted with definitional challenges and occasional overuse, they retain real importance to human flourishing, economic growth, and societal progress.

Basic Concepts

Don Boudreaux defines moonshots as, “radical but feasible solutions to important problems” and Mike Cushing has referred to them as “innovation that achieves the previously unthinkable.” “Deep technology” is another buzzword being used to describe such revolutionary and important innovations. Swati Chaturvedi of investment firm Propel[x] says deep technologies are innovations that are “built on tangible scientific discoveries or engineering innovations” and “are trying to solve big issues that really affect the world around them.”

“Disruptive technology” or “game-changing innovations” are other terms that are often used in reference to technologies and inventions with major societal impacts. “Transformative technologies” is another increasingly popular term, albeit one focused mostly on health and wellness-related innovations.

However one defines them and whatever one calls them, it is clear, as a 2015 report from the World Economic Forum (WEF) argued, that, “the list of potentially disruptive technologies keeps getting longer.” “Inventions previously seen only in science fiction,” the WEF report said, “will enable us to connect and invent in ways we never have before.”

More concretely, when people use these terms in reference to existing technologies, or ones currently on the drawing board, they often mention innovations like:

• Artificial intelligence / machine learning / robotics
• 3D printing / additive manufacturing
• Self-repairing / self-building objects
• Driverless cars / flying cars (VTOL), supersonic transport
• Private space travel / lunar mining
• Clean power / alternative energy production
• Genetic editing & life extension technologies
• Implantable tech / human augmentation
• Hyper-connected devices / wearable fitness / sensor tech / IoT
• Precision medicine
• Neural networks
• Quantum computing
• Nanotechnology / synthetic biology
• Immersive technology (AT & VR)

This is just a partial list of the type of technologies that experts mention when discussing “moonshots,” deep tech,” and other “disruptive” or “transformative innovations.” What unifies them more than anything else is the potential for major improvements in human well-being. Significant advancements in these areas could lead to substantial jumps in human welfare, health, and longevity.

Definitional Limitations

These terms have some problems and limitations, however. For example,“moonshots” conjures up thoughts of large, expensive government programs that are centrally-directed in a top-down fashion. Writing in The New Atlantis last year, Mark P. Mills argued that the notion of “ technological miracles ” can be taken to unrealistic extremes and he specifically cautioned against getting caught up in “moonshot fallacies” as well as “Moore’s Law fallacy.”

The “moonshot fallacy” is commonly heard in policy discussions whenever a policymaker or pundit insists that, “If we can put a man on the moon, then we can…” fill in the blank with your prefered aspirational goal du jour . But as Mills points out, this sort of talk often represents highly unrealistic, wishful thinking. “It is true that engineers have achieved amazing feats when tasked with particular, practical goals. But not all goals are equally achievable,” he correctly argues.  

“Moore’s Law fallacy” refers to the fact that innovation in the physical world of atoms is usually much harder and more costly than innovation in the digital world of bits. “If energy technology had followed a Moore’s Law trajectory, today’s car engine would have shrunk to the size of an ant while producing a thousandfold more horsepower,” Mills observes. The time horizons for big change are almost always going to be significantly longer in the physical world even with the increasing digitization in society and “ software eating the world .”

“Disruptive technology” is also a problematic term because its common use is quite different from Clayton M. Christensen’s original explanation of the term in his widely-cited Harvard Business Review articles from 1995 and then 2015 . “The original notion of disruption aimed to describe why great firms can fail,” Josh Gans explained in his recent book, The Disruption Dilemma . “Today, use of the term has gotten out of control,” he says. “As a concept, disruption has become so persuasive this it is at risk of becoming useless.”

Gans makes a good point. Not everything can be disruptive. Moreover, some techno-evangelists get carried away with such rhetoric regarding the “disruptive,” “transformative,” and “miracle”-working” potential of various technologies.  

But Sometimes Dreams Come True

Despite these definitional controversies or rhetorical excesses from some overly-exuberant tech boosters, these terms retain real meaning and significance.  

It is easy to ridicule dreamers, but quite a bit of life-changing innovation begins as a dream of some sort. Without a doubt, a great many “moonshots” will never get off the ground, and many “deep” technologies will end up sinking into the ocean of irrelevant or failed technologies. But that’s OK! It is in the process of risk-taking, experimentation, and failure that wisdom is generated and meaningful improvements in social and economic well-being come about.

It’s easy to talk about “trial-and-error” without thinking much about the “error” part of the process. It is only through constant experimentation and failure that we learn how to do things more efficiently and create or improve goods and services.

Perhaps the most straightforward definition of “technology” is Ian Barbour’s: “the application of organized knowledge to practical tasks by ordered systems of people and machines.” But organized knowledge requires lots of trials and lots of errors–by both people and machines–in order to find workable solutions to the tasks we hope to accomplish.

To the extent that we would like to see more technological improvements, we need more “dreamers” who hope to change the world. Entrepreneurs are the key to this process because, by their very nature, they refuse to settle for the status quo. They dream of a world that can work differently; one in which they can improve their own lot and (whether intentionally or not) improve the lot of humanity simultaneously. “What entrepreneurs do,” venture capitalist Vinod Khosla argues , “is they imagine what feels impossible to most people, and take it all the way from impossible, to improbable, to possible but unlikely, to plausible, to probable, to real!”  

That is why entrepreneurialism is so important , and it is also why shouldn’t roll our eyes when people dream about “moonshots” and the ways in which “deep technology” might “disrupt” and “transform” society for the better.  

While we should always keep both feet firmly rooted on the ground, there is nothing wrong with looking skyward and dreaming of a better future. Indeed, as a society, we should seek to foster a culture of innovation that rewards entrepreneurial dreaming and daring, because in seeking to make the world a better place, progress and prosperity become reality.  

Additional Reading

Donald J. Boudreaux, “What’s Your Moonshot?” Mercatus Center at George Mason University, Mercatus Original Video , November 16, 2017, https://www.mercatus.org/videos/whats-your-moonshot .

Joseph L. Bower & Clayton M. Christensen, “Disruptive Technologies: Catching the Wave,” Harvard Business Review , January-February 1995,   https://hbr.org/1995/01/disruptive-technologies-catching-the-wave .

Clayton M. Christensen, Michael E. Raynor & Rory McDonald, “What Is Disruptive Innovation?”  Harvard Business Review,December 2015, https://hbr.org/2015/12/what-is-disruptive-innovation.

Tyler Cowen, “Is Innovation Over? The Case against Pessimism,” Foreign Affairs , March/April 2016, https://www.foreignaffairs.com/reviews/review-essay/2016-02-15/innovation-over .

Swati Chaturvedi, “So What Exactly is ‘Deep Technology’?” LinkedIn , July 28, 2015, https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/so-what-exactly-deep-technology-swati-chaturvedi .

Mike Cushing, “Moonshot Projects – Innovation or Wishful Thinking?” Enterprise Innovation , http://www.enterpriseinnovation.com/articles/moonshot-projects-innovation-or-wishful-thinking .

Vinod Khosla, “We Need Large Innovations,” Medium , January 1, 2018, https://medium.com/@vkhosla/we-need-large-innovations-58e3eaaf8138 .

Josh Gans, The Disruption Dilemma (MIT Press, 2016), https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/disruption-dilemma .

Mark P. Mills, “Making Technological Miracles,” The New Atlantis , (Spring 2017): 37-55, http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/making-technological-miracles .

Albert H. Segars, “Seven Technologies Remaking the World,” MIT Sloan Management Review, March 9, 2018, https://sloanreview.mit.edu/projects/seven-technologies-remaking-the-world .  

Adam Thierer, Permissionless Innovation: The Continuing Case for Comprehensive Technological Freedom , (Mercatus Center at George Mason University, 2016),   https://www.mercatus.org/publication/permissionless-innovation-continuing-case-comprehensive-technological-freedom

Adam Thierer and Trace Mitchell, “The Many Forms of Entrepreneurialism,” The Bridge , August 30, 2018, https://www.mercatus.org/bridge/commentary/many-forms-entrepreneurialism  

Adam Thierer, “Making the World Safe for More Moonshots,” The Bridge , February 5, 2018, https://www.mercatus.org/bridge/commentary/making-world-safe-more-moonshots

World Economic Forum , Deep Shift: Technology Tipping Points and Societal Impact (Geneva, Switzerland: September 2015), 3, http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GAC15_Technological_Tipping_Points_report_2015.pdf .

The Obama Administration has just released a draft “Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights Act of 2015.” Generally speaking, the bill aims to translate fair information practice principles (FIPPs) — which have traditionally been flexible and voluntary guidelines — into a formal set of industry best practices that would be federally enforced on private sector digital innovators. This includes federally-mandated Privacy Review Boards, approved by the Federal Trade Commission, the agency that will be primarily responsible for enforcing the new regulatory regime.

Many of the principles found in the Administration’s draft proposal are quite sensible as best practices, but the danger here is that they could soon be converted into a heavy-handed, bureaucratized regulatory regime for America’s highly innovative, data-driven economy.

No matter how well-intentioned this proposal may be, it is vital to recognize that restrictions on data collection could negatively impact innovation, consumer choice, and the competitiveness of America’s digital economy.

Online privacy and security is vitally important, but we should look to use alternative and less costly approaches to protecting privacy and security that rely on education, empowerment, and targeted enforcement of existing laws. Serious and lasting long-term privacy protection requires a layered, multifaceted approach incorporating many solutions.

That is why flexible data collection and use policies and evolving best practices will ultimately serve consumers better than one-size-fits all, top-down regulatory edicts. Instead of imposing these FIPPs in a rigid regulatory fashion, privacy and security best practices will need to evolve gradually to new marketplace realities and be applied in a more organic and flexible fashion, often outside the realm of public policy.

Regulatory approaches, like the Obama Administration’s latest proposal, will instead impose significant costs on consumers and the economy. Data is the fuel that powers our information economy. Privacy-related mandates that curtail the use of data to better target or personalize new services could raise costs for consumers. There is no free lunch. Something has to pay for all the wonderful free sites and services we enjoy today. If data can’t be used to cross-subsidize those services, prices will go up.

Data regulations could also indirectly cost consumers by diminishing the abundance of content and culture now supported by the data-driven economy. In other words, even if prices and paywalls don’t go up, quantity or quality could suffer if data collection is restricted.

Data regulations could also hurt the competitiveness of domestic markets and the global competitive advantage that America’s tech sector has in this space. That regulatory burden would fall hardest on smaller operators and new start-ups. Today’s “app economy” has given countless small innovators a chance to compete on even footing with the biggest players. Burdensome data collection restrictions could short-circuit the engine that drives entrepreneurial innovation among mom-and-pop companies if ad dollars get consolidated in the hands of only the larger companies that can afford to comply with new rules.

We don’t want to go down the path the European Union charted in the 1990s with heavy-handed data directives. That suffocated high-tech entrepreneurialism and innovation there. America’s Internet sector came to be the envy of the world because our more flexible, light-touch regulatory regime leaves more breathing room for competition and innovation compared to Europe’s top-down regime. We should not abandon that approach now.

Finally, the Obama Administration’s proposal deals exclusively with private sector data collection and has nothing to say about government surveillance activities. The Administration would be wise to channel its energies into that far more significant privacy problem first.

Additional Reading from Adam Thierer of the Mercatus Center

Law Review Articles:

• “The Pursuit of Privacy in a World Where Information Control is Failing,” Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, Vol. 36, No. 2, (2013).
• “A Framework for Benefit-Cost Analysis in Digital Privacy Debates,” George Mason Law Review, Vol. 20, No. 4, (2013).
• “Privacy Law’s Precautionary Principle Problem,” Maine Law Review, Vol. 66, No. 2 (2014).
• “The Internet of Things and Wearable Technology: Addressing Privacy and Security Concerns without Derailing Innovation,” Richmond Journal of Law and Technology, Vol. 21 (2015).
• “Technopanics, Threat Inflation, and the Danger of an Information Technology Precautionary Principle,” Minnesota Journal of Law, Science & Technology, Vol. 14, No. 1, (2013).

Testimony / Filings

• Testimony before the Senate Commerce Committee on the Internet of Things, February 11, 2015.
• Testimony before the Senate Commerce Committee on Privacy, Data Collection & Do Not Track, April 24, 2013.
• Filing to the Federal Trade Commission on Privacy & Security Implications of the Internet of Things, May 31, 2013.
• Filing to the Federal Trade Commission on Protecting Consumer Privacy in an Era of Rapid Change, February 22, 2011.

The Mercatus Center at George Mason University has just released my latest working paper, “The Internet of Things and Wearable Technology: Addressing Privacy and Security Concerns without Derailing Innovation.” The “Internet of Things” (IoT) generally refers to “smart” devices that are connected to both the Internet and other devices. Wearable technologies are IoT devices that are worn somewhere on the body and which gather data about us for various purposes. These technologies promise to usher in the next wave of Internet-enabled services and data-driven innovation. Basically, the Internet will be “baked in” to almost everything that consumers own and come into contact with.

Some critics are worried about the privacy and security implications of the Internet of Things and wearable technology, however, and are proposing regulation to address these concerns. In my new 93-page article, I explain why preemptive, top-down regulation would derail the many life-enriching innovations that could come from these new IoT technologies. Building on a recent book of mine, I argue that “permissionless innovation,” which allows new technology to flourish and develop in a relatively unabated fashion, is the superior approach to the Internet of Things.

As I note in the paper and my earlier book, if we spend all our time living in fear of the worst-case scenarios — and basing public policies on them — then best-case scenarios can never come about. As the old saying goes: nothing ventured, nothing gained. Precautionary principle-based regulation paralyzes progress and must be avoided.  We instead need to find constructive, “bottom-up” solutions to the privacy and security risks accompanying these new IoT technologies instead of top-down controls that would limit the development of life-enriching IoT innovations.

The better alternative is to deal with concerns creatively as they develop, using a balanced, layered approach  involving many different solutions, including: educational efforts, technological empowerment tools, social norms, public and watchdog pressure, industry best practices and self-regulation, transparency, torts and products liability law, and targeted enforcement of existing legal standards as needed.

Generally speaking, patience, humility, and forbearance by policymakers is crucial to allowing greater innovation and consumer choice in this arena. Importantly, policymakers should not forget that societal and individual adaptation will play a role here, just as it has during so many other turbulent technological transformations.

This article can be downloaded on my Mercatus Center page, on SSRN, or at Research Gate. I am hoping to find a law or policy journal interested in publishing this paper soon. If you with a journal and are interested, please contact me. [UPDATE 12/3/14: This paper has been accepted for publication in the Richmond Journal of Law & Technology, Vol. 21, Issue 6 (2015).]

Finally, if you are interested in this topic, you might want to flip through these slides I prepared for a presentation on this topic that I made at the Federal Communications Commission in September:

On Thursday, it was my great pleasure to present a draft of my forthcoming paper, “The Internet of Things & Wearable Technology: Addressing Privacy & Security Concerns without Derailing Innovation,” at a conference that took place at the Federal Communications Commission on “Regulating the Evolving Broadband Ecosystem.” The 3-day event was co-sponsored by the American Enterprise Institute and the University of Nebraska College of Law.

The 65-page working paper I presented is still going through final peer review and copyediting, but I posted a very rough first draft on SSRN for conference participants. I expect the paper to be released as a Mercatus Center working paper in October and then I hope to find a home for it in a law review. I will post the final version once it is released. [UPDATE:The final version of this working paper was released on November 19, 2014.]

In the meantime, however, I thought I would post the 46 slides I presented at the conference, which offer an overview of the nature of the Internet of Things and wearable technology, the potential economic opportunities that exist in this space, and the various privacy and security challenges that could hold this technological revolution back. I also outlined some constructive solutions to those concerns. I plan to be very active on these issues in coming months.

Additional Reading

• “The Growing Conflict of Visions over the Internet of Things & Privacy,” January 14, 2012
• “Can We Adapt to the Internet of Things?” IAPP Privacy Perspectives, June 19, 2013
• My Filing to the FTC in its ‘Internet of Things’ Proceeding, May 31, 2013
• Permissionless Innovation: The Continuing Case for Comprehensive Technological Freedom (2014)
• [Video] Cap Hill Briefing on Emerging Tech Policy Issues (June 2014)

My latest law review article is entitled, “Privacy Law’s Precautionary Principle Problem,” and it appears in Vol. 66, No. 2 of the Maine Law Review. You can download the article on my Mercatus Center page, on the Maine Law Review website, or via SSRN. Here’s the abstract for the article:

Privacy law today faces two interrelated problems. The first is an information control problem. Like so many other fields of modern cyberlaw—intellectual property, online safety, cybersecurity, etc.—privacy law is being challenged by intractable Information Age realities. Specifically, it is easier than ever before for information to circulate freely and harder than ever to bottle it up once it is released.

This has not slowed efforts to fashion new rules aimed at bottling up those information flows. If anything, the pace of privacy-related regulatory proposals has been steadily increasing in recent years even as these information control challenges multiply.

This has led to privacy law’s second major problem: the precautionary principle problem. The precautionary principle generally holds that new innovations should be curbed or even forbidden until they are proven safe. Fashioning privacy rules based on precautionary principle reasoning necessitates prophylactic regulation that makes new forms of digital innovation guilty until proven innocent.

This puts privacy law on a collision course with the general freedom to innovate that has thus far powered the Internet revolution, and privacy law threatens to limit innovations consumers have come to expect or even raise prices for services consumers currently receive free of charge. As a result, even if new regulations are pursued or imposed, there will likely be formidable push-back not just from affected industries but also from their consumers.

In light of both these information control and precautionary principle problems, new approaches to privacy protection are necessary. We need to invert the process of how we go about protecting privacy by focusing more on practical “bottom-up” solutions—education, empowerment, public and media pressure, social norms and etiquette, industry self-regulation and best practices, and an enhanced role for privacy professionals within organizations—instead of “top-down” legalistic solutions and regulatory techno-fixes. Resources expended on top-down regulatory pursuits should instead be put into bottom-up efforts to help citizens better prepare for an uncertain future.

In this regard, policymakers can draw important lessons from the debate over how best to protect children from objectionable online content. In a sense, there is nothing new under the sun; the current debate over privacy protection has many parallels with earlier debates about how best to protect online child safety. Most notably, just as top-down regulatory constraints came to be viewed as constitutionally-suspect and economically inefficient, and also highly unlikely to even be workable in the long-run for protecting online child safety, the same will likely be true for most privacy related regulatory enactments.

This article sketches out some general lessons from those online safety debates and discusses their implications for privacy policy going forward.

Read the full article here [PDF].

Related Material:

• Book: Permissionless Innovation: The Continuing Case for Comprehensive Technological Freedom
• Law review article: “The Pursuit of Privacy in a World Where Information Control Is Failing,” Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, 36 (2013): 409–55.
• Law review article: “A Framework for Benefit-Cost Analysis in Digital Privacy Debates,” George Mason University Law Review, 20, no. 4 (Summer 2013): 1055–105.
• Law review article: “Technopanics, Threat Inflation, and the Danger of an Information Technology Precautionary Principle,” Minnesota Journal of Law, Science & Technology, 14 (2013): 309–86.

Adam Thierer – Privacy Law’s Precautionary Problem (Maine Law Review, 2014) by Adam Thierer

Last December, it was my pleasure to take part in a great event, “The Disruptive Competition Policy Forum,” sponsored by Project DisCo (or The Disruptive Competition Project). It featured several excellent panels and keynotes and they’ve just posted the video of the panel I was on here and I have embedded it below. In my remarks, I discussed:

• benefit-cost analysis in digital privacy debates (building on this law review article);
• the contrast between Europe and America’s approach to data & privacy issues (referencing this testimony of mine);
• the problem of “technopanics” in information policy debates (building on this law review article);
• the difficulty of information control efforts in various tech policy debates (which I wrote about in this law review article and these two blog posts: 1, 2);
• the possibility of less-restrictive approaches to privacy & security concerns (which I have written about here as well in those other law review articles);
• the rise of the Internet of Things and the unique challenges it creates (see this and this as well as my new book); and,
• the possibility of a splintering of the Internet or the rise of “federated Internets.”

The panel was expertly moderated by Ross Schulman, Public Policy & Regulatory Counsel for CCIA, and also included remarks from John Boswell, SVP & Chief Legal Officer at SAS, and Josh Galper, Chief Policy Officer and General Counsel of Personal, Inc. (By the way, you should check out some of the cool things Personal is doing in this space to help consumers. Very innovative stuff.) The video lasts one hour. Here it is:

Last week, it was my great pleasure to be invited on NPR’s “On Point with Tom Ashbrook,” to debate Jeffrey Rosen, a leading privacy scholar and the president and chief executive of the National Constitution Center. In an editorial in the previous Sunday’s New York Times (“Madison’s Privacy Blind Spot”), Rosen proposed “constitutional amendment to prohibit unreasonable searches and seizures of our persons and electronic effects, whether by the government or by private corporations like Google and AT&T.” He said his proposed amendment would limit “outrageous and unreasonable” collection practices and would even disallow consumers from sharing their personal information with private actors even if they saw an advantage in doing so.

I responded to Rosen’s proposal in an essay posted on the IAPP  Privacy Perspectives blog, “Do We Need A Constitutional Amendment Restricting Private-Sector Data Collection?” In my essay, I argued that there are several legal, economic, and practical problems with Rosen’s proposal. You can head over to the IAPP blog to read my entire response but the gist of it is that “a constitutional amendment [governing private data collection] would be too sweeping in effect and that better alternatives exist to deal with the privacy concerns he identifies.” There are very good reasons we treat public and private actors differently under the law and there “are all far more practical and less-restrictive steps that can be taken without resorting to the sort of constitutional sledgehammer that Jeff Rosen favors. We can protect privacy without rewriting the Constitution or upending the information economy,” I concluded.

But I wanted to elaborate on one particular thing I found particularly interesting about Rosen’s comments when we were on NPR together. During the show, Rosen kept stressing how we needed to adopt a more European construction of privacy as “dignity rights” and he even said his proposed privacy amendment would even disallow individuals from surrendering their private data or their privacy because he viewed these rights as “unalienable.” In other words, from Rosen’s perspective, privacy pretty much trumps  everything, even if you want to trade it off against other values. 

Privacy Paternalism?

I’ve been seeing more and more privacy advocates and scholars adopt this attitude, including Anita Allen, Julie Cohen, Siva Vaidhyanathan, and others. Allen, for example, says that privacy is such a “foundational” human right that it some cases the law should override individual choice when consumers act against their own privacy interests. Cohen and Vaidhyanathan make similar arguments in their recent books. Vaidhyanathan claims that consumers are being tricked by the “smokescreen” of “free” online services and “freedom of choice.” Although he admits that no one is forced to use online services and that consumers are also able to opt-out of most of services or data collection practices, he argues that “such choices mean very little” because “the design of the system rigs it in favor of the interests of the company and against the interests of users.” “Celebrating freedom and user autonomy is one of the great rhetorical ploys of the global information economy,” he says.“We are conditioned to believe that having more choices–empty though they may be–is the very essence of human freedom. But meaningful freedom implies real control over the conditions of one’s life.” These are the sort of arguments I increasingly hear made by privacy scholars when claiming that consumers simply can’t be left free to make choices for themselves in this regard.  In an interesting recent article in the Harvard Law Review , privacy scholar  Daniel Solove notes that what binds these thinkers and their work together is, in essence, a sort of privacy paternalism. The point of most modern privacy advocacy has been to better empower consumers to make privacy decisions for themselves. But, Solove notes, “t he implication [of these privacy scholar’s work] is that the law must override individual consent in certain instances.” Yet, if that choice is taken away from us by law, Solove notes, then privacy regulation, “risks becoming too paternalistic. Regulation that sidesteps consent denies people the freedom to make choices,” Solove argues.

Jeff Rosen now appears to be adopting the sort of approach Solove identifies by claiming that privacy is an “unalienable right” such that it cannot be traded away for other things. By making that choice for us, Rosen’s proposed amendment would, therefore, suffer from that same sort of privacy paternalism Solove identifies. In a forthcoming law review aritcle that will appear in the  Maine Law Review, I identify some of the problems associated with privacy paternalism. Most obviously, these scholars should keep in mind that not everyone shares the same privacy values as they do and that many of us will voluntarily trade some of our data for the innovative information services and devices that we desire. If imposed in the form of legal sanctions, privacy paternalism would open the door to almost boundless controls on the activities of both producers and consumers of digital services, potentially limiting future innovations in this space.

For example, when we were on  NPR together, Rosen mentioned wireless geolocation technology as a potential source of serious privacy harm, although he did not make it clear whether he wanted it stopped entirely or what. If used improperly, wireless geolocation technology certainly can raise serious privacy concerns. But wireless geolocation technology is also what powers the mapping and traffic services that most of us now take for granted. Many of us expect — no, we demand — that our digital devices be able to give us real-time mapping and traffic notification capabilities. And most of us are willing to make the minor privacy trade-off associated with sharing our location constantly in exchange for the right to receive these services, which are also provided to us free of charge.

So, what would Rosen’s proposed amendment have to say about this trade-off? Would these wireless geolocation technologies be banned altogether, even if consumers desire them? It isn’t really clear at this point because he hasn’t offered us many details about his proposal. But, to the extent it would preempt these technological capabilities on the grounds that our locational privacy is somehow in unalienable right, then that seems like a fairly paternalistic approach to policy and it it would seem to confirm Thomas Lenard and Paul Rubin’s claim that “many of the privacy advocates and writers on the subject do not trust the consumers for whom they purport to advocate.”

Such paternalism is particularly problematic in this case since privacy is such a highly subjective value and one that evolves over time. As Solove notes, “the correct choices regarding privacy and data use are not always clear. For example, although extensive self-exposure can have disastrous consequences, many people use social media successfully and productively.” Privacy norms and ethics are changing faster than ever today. One day’s “creepy” tool or service is often the next day’s “killer app.”

Balancing Values; Considering Costs

As I will discuss in my forthcoming  Maine Law Review article and I also discussed in my recent George Mason University Law Review  article, at least here in the United States, consumer protection standards have traditionally depended on a clear showing of actual, not prospective or hypothetical, harm. In some cases, when the potential harm associated with a particular practice or technology is extreme in character and poses a direct threat to physical well-being, law has preempted the general presumption that ongoing experimentation and innovation should be allowed by default. But these are extremely rare scenarios, at least as it pertains to privacy concerns under American law, and they mostly involved health and safety measures aimed at preemptively avoiding catastrophic harm to individual or environmental well-being. In the vast majority of other cases, our culture has not accepted that paternalistic idea that law must “save us from ourselves” (i.e., our own irrationality or mistakes). As Solove notes in his recent essay, “People make decisions all the time that are not in their best interests. People relinquish rights and take bad risks, and the law often does not stop them.” Sometimes privacy advocates also ignore the costs of preemptive policy action and don’t bother conducting a serious review of the potential costs of their regulatory proposals. As a result, preemptive policy action is almost always the preferred remedy to any alleged harm. “By limiting or conditioning the collection of information, regulators can limit market manipulation at the activity level,” Ryan Calo argues in a recent paper. “We could imagine the government fashioning a rule — perhaps inadvisable for other reasons―that limits the collection of information about consumers in order to reduce asymmetries of information.” [*Clarification: In a comment down below and a subsequent Twitter exchange, Ryan clarifies that he ultimately does not come down in favor of such a rule, preferring instead to find various other incentives to solve these problems. I thank him for this clarification — and definitely welcome it! — although I found his position somewhat murky after debating him personally on these issues recently. Nonetheless, I apologize if I mischaracterized his position in any way here.]

Unfortunately, Professor Calo does not fully consider the corresponding cost of such regulatory proposals in calling for the enactment of such a rule. If preemptive regulation slowed or ended certain information practices, it could stifle the provision of new and better services that consumers demand, as I have noted elsewhere. It might also trump other choices or values that consumers care about. While privacy is obviously an incredibly important value, we cannot assume that it is the only value, or the most important value, at stake here. Consumers also care about having access to a constantly growing array of innovative goods and services, and they also care about getting those goods and services at a reasonable price.

Moving from “Rights Talk” to Practical Privacy Solutions

This is the point in the essay where some readers are getting pretty frustrated with me and thinking I am some sort of nihilist who doesn’t give a damn about privacy. I assure you that nothing is further from the truth and that I care very deeply about privacy.

But if you really care about expanding the horizons of privacy protection in our modern world, at some point you have to accept that all the “rights talk” and top-down enforcement efforts in the world are not necessarily going to help as much as you wish they would. The same thing is true for online safety, digital security, and IP protection efforts: No matter how much you might wish the opposite was true, information control is just really, really hard. Legal and regulatory approaches to bottling up information flows will inevitably be several steps behind cutting-edge technological developments. (I’ve discussed these issues in several essays here, including: “Privacy as an Information Control Regime: The Challenges Ahead,” “Copyright, Privacy, Property Rights & Information Control: Common Themes, Common Challenges,” and “When It Comes to Information Control, Everybody Has a Pet Issue & Everyone Will Be Disappointed.”)

That doesn’t mean we should surrender in our efforts to identify more concrete privacy harms, but we should recognize that it will always be a hugely contentious matter and that a great many people will gladly trade away their privacy in a way that others will consider outrageous. In a free society, we must allow them to do so if they derive greater utility from other things. A paternalistic approach based on a sort of privacy fundamentalism will deny them the right to make that choice for themselves. And, practically speaking, no matter how much some might think that privacy values are “unalienable,” the reality is that there will be no way to stop many others from making different choices and relinquishing their privacy all the time.

Educating and empowering citizens is the better way to address this issue. We can try to teach them to make better privacy choices and treat their information, and information about others, with far greater care. We should also work to provide citizens more tools to help accomplish those goals. And if the problem is “information asymmetry” or some general lack of awareness about certain data collection and use practices, then let’s work even harder to make sure consumers are aware of those practices and what they can do about them.

It’s all part of the media literacy and digital citizenship agenda that we need to be investing much more of time and resources into. I outlined that approach in much more detail in this law review article. We need diverse tools and strategies for a diverse citizenry. We need to be talking to both consumers and developers about smarter data hygiene and sensible digital ethics. We need more transparency. We need more privacy privacy professionals working inside organizations to craft sensible data collection and use policies. And so on. Only by working to change attitudes about privacy, online “Netiquette,” and more ethical data use, can we really start to make a dent in this problem.

If nothing else, we must understand the limitations of information control in such highly context-specific harm scenarios. Prof. Rosen might want to ask himself how long it would take to even get his proposed constitutional amendment in place and what the chances are such a movement would even been successful. But, again, and far more importantly, Prof. Rosen and advocates of similar regulatory approaches should remember that their values are not shared by everyone and that, in a free society, a value as inherently subjective as privacy is likely to remain a hugely contentious, every-changing matter, especially when elevated to the level of constitutional rights talk. We need practical solutions to our privacy problems, not pie-in-the-sky Hail Mary schemes that are unlikely to go anywhere and, even if they did, would end up being too heavy-handed and potentially override individual autonomy in the process.

I’m pleased to announce the release of my latest law review article, “A Framework for Benefit-Cost Analysis in Digital Privacy Debates.” It appears in the new edition of the George Mason University Law Review. (Vol. 20, No. 4, Summer 2013)

This is the second of two complimentary law review articles I am releasing this year dealing with privacy policy. The first, “The Pursuit of Privacy in a World Where Information Control is Failing,” was published in Vol. 36 of the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy this Spring. (FYI: Both articles focus on privacy claims made against private actors — namely, efforts to limit private data collection — and not on privacy rights against governments.)

My new article on benefit-cost analysis in privacy debates makes a seemingly contradictory argument: benefit-cost analysis (“BCA”) is extremely challenging in online child safety and digital privacy debates, yet it remains essential that analysts and policymakers attempt to conduct such reviews. While we will never be able to perfectly determine either the benefits or costs of online safety or privacy controls, the very act of conducting a regulatory impact analysis (“RIA”) will help us to better understand the trade-offs associated with various regulatory proposals.

However, precisely because those benefits and costs remain so remarkably subjective and contentious, I argue that we should look to employ less-restrictive solutions — education and awareness efforts, empowerment tools, alternative enforcement mechanisms, etc. — before resorting to potentially costly and cumbersome legal and regulatory regimes that could disrupt the digital economy and the efficient provision of services that consumers desire. This model has worked fairly effectively in the online safety context and can be applied to digital privacy concerns as well.

The article is organized as follows. Part I examines the use of BCA by federal agencies to assess the utility of government regulations. Part II considers how BCA can be applied to online privacy regulation and the challenges federal officials face when determining the potential benefits of regulation. Part III then elaborates on the cost considerations and other trade-offs that regulators face when evaluating the impact of privacy-related regulations. Part IV discusses alternative measures that can be taken by government regulators when attempting to address online safety and privacy concerns. This article concludes that policymakers must consider BCA when proposing new rules but also recognize the utility of alternative remedies such as education and awareness campaigns, to address consumer concerns about online safety and privacy.

I’ve embedded the full article down below in a Scribd reader, but you can also download it from my SSRN page and my Mercatus author page.

A Framework for Benefit-Cost Analysis in Digital Privacy Debates by Adam Thierer

It was my pleasure last night to take part in an hour-long conversation on “Privacy, Security, and the Digital Age,” which was co-sponsored by Mediaite and the Koch Institute. The discussion focused on a wide range of issues related to government surveillance powers, Big Data, and the future of privacy. It opened with dueling remarks from former U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. John Bolton and Ben Wizner of the ACLU. You can view their respective remarks here.

I then sat on a panel that included Atlantic Media CTO Tom Cochrane and Michael R. Nelson, who is affiliated with with Bloomberg Government and Georgetown University. The entire session was expertly moderated by Andrew Kirell of Mediaite. He did an amazing job facilitating the discussion. Anyway, the videos for my panel are below, split into two parts.  My comments focused heavily on the importance of separating the government uses of data from private sector uses and explaining the need to create a high and tight firewall between State and Industry when it comes to information sharing. I also argued that we will never get a handle on government-related privacy concerns until we get control of the scope of government power. I used the example of the drug war and our government’s constantly-expanding militaristic activities both abroad and here at home. So long as government is expanding without any rational, constitutional constraint, we are going to have serious surveillance and privacy problems. (See this essay, “It’s About Power, not Privacy,” by my colleague Eli Dourado for more on that theme.)

Last month, it was my great pleasure to serve as a “provocateur” at the IAPP’s (Int’l Assoc. of Privacy Professionals) annual “Navigate” conference. The event brought together a diverse audience and set of speakers from across the globe to discuss how to deal with the various privacy concerns associated with current and emerging technologies.

My remarks focused on a theme I have developed here for years: There are no simple, silver-bullet solutions to complex problems such as online safety, security, and privacy. Instead, only a “layered” approach incorporating many different solutions–education, media literacy, digital citizenship, evolving society norms, self-regulation, and targeted enforcement of existing legal standards–can really help us solve these problems. Even then, new challenges will present themselves as technology continues to evolve and evade traditional controls, solutions, or norms. It’s a never-ending game, and that’s why education  must be our first-order solution. It better prepares us for an uncertain future. (I explained this approach in far more detail in this law review article.)

Anyway, if you’re interested in an 11-minute video of me saying all that, here ya go. Also, down below I have listed several of the recent essays, papers, and law review articles I have done on this issue.

Some of My Recent Essays on Privacy & Data Collection

Testimony / Filings:

• Senate Testimony on Privacy, Data Collection & Do Not Track – April 24, 2013
• Comments of the Mercatus Center to the FTC in Privacy & Security Implications of the Internet of Things
• Mercatus filing to FAA on commercial domestic drones

Law Review Articles:

• “The Pursuit of Privacy in a World Where Information Control is Failing” – Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy
• “Technopanics, Threat Inflation, and the Danger of an Information Technology Precautionary Principle” – Minnesota Journal of Law, Science & Technology
• “A Framework for Benefit-Cost Analysis in Digital Privacy Debates” – George Mason University Law Review

Blog posts:

• A Better, Simpler Narrative for U.S. Privacy Policy – March 19, 2013
• On the Pursuit of Happiness… and Privacy – March 31, 2013
• Let’s Not Place All Our Eggs in the Do Not Track Basket (IAPP Privacy perspectives blog)
•  Can We Adapt to the Internet of Things? – June 19, 2013 (IAPP Privacy perspectives blog)
• Isn’t “Do Not Track” Just a “Broadcast Flag” Mandate for Privacy? – Feb. 20, 2011
• Two Paradoxes of Privacy Regulation – Aug. 25, 2010
• Privacy as an Information Control Regime: The Challenges Ahead – Nov. 13, 2010
• When It Comes to Information Control, Everybody Has a Pet Issue & Everyone Will Be Disappointed – Apr. 29, 2011
• Lessons from the Gmail Privacy Scare of 2004 – March 25, 2011
• Who Really Believes in “Permissionless Innovation”? – March 4, 2013
• The Problem of Proportionality in Debates about Online Privacy and Child Safety – Nov. 28, 2009
• Obama Admin’s “Let’s-Be-Europe” Approach to Privacy Will Undermine U.S. Competitiveness– Jan. 5, 2011

Ronald J. Deibert is the director of The Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto’s Munk School of Global Affairs and the author of an important new book, Black Code: Inside the Battle for Cyberspace, an in-depth look at the growing insecurity of the Internet. Specifically, Deibert’s book is a meticulous examination of the “malicious threats that are growing from the inside out” and which “threaten to destroy the fragile ecosystem we have come to take for granted.” (p. 14) It is also a remarkably timely book in light of the recent revelations about NSA surveillance and how it is being facilitated with the assistance of various tech and telecom giants.

The clear and colloquial tone that Deibert employs in the text helps make arcane Internet security issues interesting and accessible. Indeed, some chapters of the book almost feel like they were pulled from the pages of techno-thriller, complete with villainous characters, unexpected plot twists, and shocking conclusions. “Cyber crime has become one of the world’s largest growth businesses,” Deibert notes (p. 144) and his chapters focus on many prominent recent examples, including cyber-crime syndicates like Koobface, government cyber-spying schemes like GhostNet, state-sanctioned sabotage like Stuxnet, and the vexing issue of zero-day exploit sales.

Deibert is uniquely qualified to narrate this tale not just because he is a gifted story-teller but also because he has had a front row seat in the unfolding play that we might refer to as “How Cyberspace Grew Less Secure.” Indeed, he and his colleagues at The Citizen Lab have occasionally been major players in this drama as they have researched and uncovered various online vulnerabilities affecting millions of people across the globe. (I have previously reviewed and showered praise on a couple important books that Deibert co-edited with scholars from The Citizen Lab and Harvard’s Berkman Center, including: Access Controlled: The Shaping of Power, Rights, and Rule in Cyberspace and Access Denied: The Practice and Policy of Global Internet Filtering. They are truly outstanding resources worthy of your attention.)

Black Code’s Many Meanings

So, what is “black code” and why should we be worried about it? Deibert uses the term as a metaphor for many closely related concerns. Most generally it includes “that which is hidden, obscured from the view of the average Internet user.” (p. 6) More concretely, it refers to “the criminal forces that are increasingly insinuating themselves into cyberspace, gradually subverting it from the inside out.” (p. 7) “Those who take advantage of the Internet’s vulnerabilities today are not just juvenile pranksters or frat house brats,” Deibert notes, “they are organized criminal groups, armed militants, and nation states.” (p. 7-8) Which leads to the final way Deibert uses the term “black code.” It also, he says, “refers to the growing influence of national security agencies, and the expanding network of contractors and companies with whom they work.” (p. 8)

Deibert is worried about the way these forces and factors are working together to undermine online stability and security, and even delegitimize liberal democracy itself. His thesis is probably most succinctly captured in this passage from Chapter 7:

We live in an era of unprecedented access to information, and many political parties campaign on platforms of transparency and openness. And yet, at the same time, we are gradually shifting the policing of cyberspace to a dark world largely free from public accountability and independent oversight. In entrusting more and more information to third parties, we are signing away legal protections that should be guaranteed by those who have our data. Perversely, in liberal democratic countries we are lowering the standards around basic rights to privacy just as the center of cyberspace gravity is shifting to less democratic parts of the world. (p. 130-1)

What Deibert is grappling with in this book is the same fundamental problem that has long plagued the Internet: How do you preserve the benefits associated with the most open and interconnected “network of networks” the world has ever known while also remedying the various vulnerabilities and pathologies created by that same openness and interconnectedness?  Deibert acknowledges this problem, noting:

Ever since the Internet emerged from the world of academia into the world of the rest of us, its growth trajectory has been shadowed by a grey economy that thrives on opportunities for enrichment made possible by an open, globally connected infrastructure. (p. 141)

The Paradox of the Net’s Open, Interconnected Nature

Again, paradoxically, this inherent instability and vulnerability is due precisely to the Net’s open and globally interconnected nature. And many governments are looking to exploit that fact. “These unfortunate by-products of an open, dynamic network are exacerbated by increasing assertions of state power,” Deibert notes. (p. 233)

More generally, this uncomfortable fact—that the Net’s open, interconnected nature leads to both enormous benefits as well as huge vulnerabilities—isn’t just true for criminal online activity or the cyber-espionage activities that various nation-states are pursuing today. It is equally true for everything online today. There is a sort of yin and the yang to the Net that is simply undeniable and completely unavoidable. For one issue after another we find that the Net’s greatest blessing—its open, interconnected nature—is also its greatest curse.

For example, as I noted here recently in my review of Abraham H. Foxman and Christopher Wolf ‘s new book, Viral Hate: Containing Its Spread on the Internet, the open and interconnected Internet gives us “the most widely accessible, unrestricted communications platform the world has ever known” but also  means we have to tolerate a great many imbeciles “who use it to spew insulting, vile, and hateful comments.” The same is true for other types of online speech and content: You have access to an abundance of informational riches, but there’s also no avoiding all the garbage out there now, too.

Similarly, as I noted in my essay, “Privacy as an Information Control Regime: The Challenges Ahead,” the open and interconnected Internet has given us historically unparalleled platforms for social interaction and commerce. But that same openness and interconnectedness has left us with a world of hyper-exposure and a variety of privacy and surveillance threats—not just from governments and large corporations, but also from each other.

And then there’s the never-ending story of digital copyright. On one hand, the open and globally interconnected network or networks has provided us with an amazing platform for sharing knowledge, art, and expression. On the other hand, as I noted in this essay on “The Twilight of Copyright,” creators of expressive works have less security than ever before in terms of how they can control and monetize their artistic and scientific inventions.

I could go on and on—as I did in my essays on “Copyright, Privacy, Property Rights & Information Control: Common Themes, Common Challenges” and “When It Comes to Information Control, Everybody Has a Pet Issue & Everyone Will Be Disappointed”—but the moral of the story is pretty clear: The Internet giveth and the Internet taketh away. Openness and interconnectedness offer us enormous benefits but also force us to confront major risks as the price of admission to this wonderful network.

Will the Whole System Collapse?

The uncomfortable question that Deibert’s book tees up for discussion is: When will this balance get completely out of whack in terms of online security? Or, has it already? In some portions of the text, he hints that may already be the case. Consider this passage in Chapter 11 in which Deibert discusses whether the Chicken Little-ism of digital security worry-warts like Eugene Kaspersky and Richard Clarke is warranted:

Eugene Kaspersky, Richard Clarke, and others may sound like broken records or self-serving fear mongers, but there is no denying the evolving cyberspace ecosystem around us: we are building a digital edifice for the entire planet, and it sits above us like a house of cards. We are wrapping ourselves in expanding layers of digital instructions, protocols, and authentication mechanisms, some them open scrutinized, and regulated, but many closed, amorphous, and poised for abuse, buried in the black arts of espionage, intelligence gathering, and cyber and military affairs. Is it only a matter of time before the whole system collapses? (p. 186)

That sounds horrific, but is it really the case that the entire system really about to collapse? And, if so, what are we going to do about it?

This raises a small problem with Deibert’s book. He does such a nice job itemizing and describing these security vulnerabilities that by the time the reader wades through 230 pages and nears the end of the book, they are left in a highly demoralized state, searching for some hope and a concrete set of practical solutions. Unfortunately, they won’t find an abundance of either in Deibert’s brief closing chapter, “Toward Distributed Security and Stewardship in Cyberspace.”

Don’t get me wrong; I agree with the general thrust of Deibert’s framework, which I describe below. The problem is that it is highly aspirational in nature and lacks specifics. Perhaps that is simply because there are no easy answers here. Digital security is damn hard and, as with most other online pathologies out there, no silver-bullet solutions exist.

Deibert notes that some government officials will seek to exploit those vulnerabilities—many of which they created themselves—to expand their authority over the Internet. “Faced with mounting problems and pressures to do something, too many policy-makers are tempted by extreme solutions,” he notes. (p. 234) He worries about “a movement towards clamp down” that would be “antithetical to the principles of liberal democratic government” by undermining checks and balances and accountability. (p. 235) In turn, this will undermine the “mixed common-pool resource” that is the current Internet.

Deibert’s alternative cyber security strategy to counter the push to “clamp down” is based on three interrelated notions or components:

1. Principles of restraint or “mutual restraint”: “Securing cyberspace requires a reinforcement, rather than a relaxation, of restraint on power, including checks and balances on governments, law enforcement, intelligence agencies, and on the private sector,” he argues. (p. 239)
2. “Distributed security”: “The Internet functions precisely because of the absence of centralized control, because of thousands of loosely coordinated monitoring mechanisms,” Deibert notes. “While these decentralized mechanisms are not perfect and can occasionally fail, they form the basis of a coherent distributed security strategy. Bottom-up, ‘grassroots’ solutions to the Internet’s security problems are consistent with principles of openness, avoid heavy-handedness, and provide checks and balances against the concentrations of power,” he observes. (p. 240)
3. “Stewardship” which Deibert defines as “an ethic of responsible behavior in regard to shared resources” and which, he argues, “would moderate the dangerously escalating exercise of state power in cyberspace by defining limits and setting thresholds of accountability and mutual restraint.” (p. 243)

Again, as an aspirational vision statement this all generally sounds fairly sensible, but the details are lacking. I think Deibert would have been wise to spend a bit more time developing this alternative “bottom-up” vision of how online security should work and bolstering it with case studies.

Digital Security without Top-Down Controls

Luckily, as my Mercatus Center colleague Eli Dourado noted in an important June 2012 white paper, distributed security and stewardship strategies are already working reasonably well today. Dourado’s paper, “Internet Security Without Law: How Service Providers Create Order Online,” documented the many informal institutions that enforce network security norms on the Internet and shows how cooperation among a remarkably varied set of actors improves online security without extensive regulation or punishing legal liability. “These informal institutions carry out the functions of a formal legal system—they establish and enforce rules for the prevention, punishment, and redress of cybersecurity-related harms,” Dourado noted.

For example, a diverse array of computer security incident response teams (CSIRTs) operates around the globe and share their research and coordinate their responses to viruses and other online attacks. Individual Internet service providers (ISPs), domain name registrars, and hosting companies, work with these CSIRTs and other individuals and organizations to address security vulnerabilities. A growing market for private security consultants and software providers also competes to offer increasingly sophisticated suites of security products for businesses, households, and governments.

A great deal of security knowledge is also “crowd-sourced” today via online discussion forums and security blogs that feature contributions from experts and average users alike. University-based computer science and cyberlaw centers (like Citizen Lab) and experts have also helped by creating projects like “Stop Badware,” which originated at Harvard University but then grew into a broader non-profit organization with diverse financial support.

Dourado continues on in his paper to show how these informal, bottom-up efforts to coordinate security responses offer several advantages over top-down government solutions, such as administrative regulation or punishing liability regimes.

Dourado’s description of the ideal approach to online security is entirely consistent with Deibert’s vision in Black Code. In fact, Deibert notes, “It is important to remind ourselves that in spite of the threats, cyberspace runs well and largely without persistent disruption. On a technical level, this efficiency is founded on open and distributed networks of local engineers who share information as peers,” he observes. (p. 240) That is exactly right, but I wish Deibert would have spent more time discussing how this system works in practice today and how it can be tweaked and improved to head off the heavy-handed and very costly top-down solutions that we both dread.

Toward Resiliency

But there’s one other thing I wish Deibert would have explored in the book: resiliency, or how we have adapted to various cyber-vulnerabilities over time.

For example, in another recent Mercatus Center study entitled “Beyond Cyber Doom: Cyber Attack Scenarios and the Evidence of History,” Sean Lawson, an assistant professor in the Department of Communication at the University of Utah, has stressed the importance of resiliency as it pertains to cybersecurity and concerns about “cyberwar.” “Research by historians of technology, military historians, and disaster sociologists has shown consistently that modern technological and social systems are more resilient than military and disaster planners often assume,” he writes. “Just as more resilient technological systems can better respond in the event of failure, so too are strong social systems better able to respond in the event of disaster of any type.”

More generally, as I noted in my recent law review article on “technopanics” and “threat inflation” in information technology policy debates:

while it is certainly true that “more could be done” to secure networks and critical systems, panic is unwarranted because much is already being done to harden systems and educate the public about risks. Various digital attacks will continue, but consumers, companies, and others organizations are learning to cope and become more resilient in the face of those threats.

What Professor Lawson and I are getting at in our respective articles is that the ability of organizations, institutions, and individuals to bounce back from adversity is a frequently unheralded feature of various systems and that it deserves more serious study. (See Andrew Zolli and Ann Marie Healy’s nice book, Resilience: Why Things Bounce Back, for more on this general topic). In the context of online security, what is most remarkable to me is not that the Internet suffers from vulnerabilities due to its open and interconnected nature; it’s that we don’t suffer far more damage as a result.

This gets us back to that very profound question that Deibert poses in Black Code: “Is it only a matter of time before the whole system collapses?” The better question, I think, is: why hasn’t the system already collapsed? Perhaps the answer is, because things haven’t gotten bad enough yet. But I believe that the more realistic answer is that: individuals and institutions often learn how to cope and become resilient in the face of adversity. This is partially the case online because of the stewardship and distributed, decentralized security we already see at work today that makes digital life tolerable.

But it has to be something more than that. After all, many of the security problems that Deibert describes in his book are quite serious and already affect millions of us today. How, then, are we getting by right now? Again, I think the answer has to be that adaptation and resiliency are at work on many different levels of online life.

Consider, for example, how we have learned to deal with spam, viruses, online porn, various online advertising and privacy concerns, and so on. Our adaptation to these threats and annoyances has not been perfectly smooth, of course. No doubt, some people would still like “something to be done” about these things. But isn’t it remarkable how we have, nonetheless, carried on with online commerce and interactive social life even as these problems have persisted?

Conclusion

Going forward, therefore, perhaps there are some reasons for hope. Perhaps the various generic strategies that Deibert outlines in his book, coupled with the remarkable ability of humans to roll with the punches and adapt, will help us come out of this just fine (or at least reasonably well).

Of course, it could also be the case that these security concerns just multiply and that the Internet then morphs into sometime quite different than the interconnected “network of networks” we know today. As I noted in my 2009 essay on “Internet Security Concerns, Online Anonymity, and Splinternets,” we might be moving toward a world with more separate dis­connected digital networks and online “gated communities.” This could take place spontaneously over time and be driven by corporations seeking to satisfy the demand of some consumers for safer and more secure online experiences. As I noted in my review of Jonathan Zittrain’s book, The Future of the Internet, I am actually fine with some of that. I think we can live in a hybrid world of “walled gardens” alongside of the “Wild West” open Internet, so long as this occurs in a spontaneous, organic, bottom-up fashion. [For a more extensive discussion, see my book chapter, “The Case for Internet Optimism, Part 2 – Saving the Net From Its Supporters.”]

If, however, this “splintering” of the Net is done from the top-down through intentional (or even incidental) government action, then it is far more problematic. We already see signs, for example, that Russia is pushing even more strongly in that direction in the wake of the NSA leaks. (See “N.S.A. Leaks Revive Push in Russia to Control Net,” New York Times, July 14.) The Russians have been using amorphous security concerns to push for greater Internet control for some time now. Of course, China has been there for years. So have many Middle Eastern countries. Of course, there’s no guarantee that their respective “splinternets” are, or would be, any more secure than today’s Internet, but it sure would make those networks far more susceptible to state control and surveillance. If that’s our future, then it certainly is a dismal one.

Anyway, read Ron Deibert’s Black Code for an interesting exploration of these and other issues. It’s an excellent contribution to field of Internet policy studies and a book that I’ll be recommending to others for many years to come.

Additional resources:

• the official website for Black Code
• the Citizen Lab website at the University of Toronto
• follow Ronald Deibert and The Citizen Lab on Twitter
• video of Washington, D.C. book launch for Black Code (held at the National Endowment for Democracy on 6/24/13)

Other books you should read alongside “Black Code” (links are for my reviews of each book):

• Access Controlled: The Shaping of Power, Rights, and Rule in Cyberspace edited by Ronald J. Deibert, John G. Palfrey, Rafal Rohozinski, and Jonathan Zittrain
• Consent of the Networked: The Worldwide Struggle for Internet Freedom , by Rebecca MacKinnon
• Cyber War: The Next Threat to National Security and What to Do About It, by Richard A. Clarke and Robert K. Knake
• Liars & Outliers: Enabling the Trust that Society Needs to Thrive, by Bruce Schneier
• Regulating Code: Good Governance and Better Regulation in the Information Age, by Ian Brown & Christopher T. Marsden
• Networks and States: The Global Politics of Internet Governance, by Milton Mueller
• Resilience: Why Things Bounce Back, by Andrew Zolli & Ann Marie Healy

Adam Thierer, Senior Research Fellow at the Mercatus Center discusses his recent working paper with coauthor Brent Skorup, A History of Cronyism and Capture in the Information Technology Sector. Thierer takes a look at how cronyism has manifested itself in technology and media markets — whether it be in the form of regulatory favoritism or tax privileges. Which tech companies are the worst offenders? What are the consequences for consumers? And, how does cronyism affect entrepreneurship over the long term?

Download

Related Links

• A History of Cronyism and Capture in the Information Technology Sector, Thierer
• Video: A History of Cronysim and Capture in the Information Technology Sector, Thierer
• Adam Thierer Biography, Mercatus Center
• Adam Thierer on Anti-Tech Grump Evgeny Morozov, Thierer

Ian Brown and Christopher T. Marsden’s new book, Regulating Code: Good Governance and Better Regulation in the Information Age, will go down as one of the most important Internet policy books of 2013 for two reasons. First, their book offers an excellent overview of how Internet regulation has unfolded on five different fronts: privacy and data protection; copyright; content censorship; social networks and user-generated content issues; and net neutrality regulation. They craft detailed case studies that incorporate important insights about how countries across the globe are dealing with these issues. Second, the authors endorse a specific normative approach to Net governance that they argue is taking hold across these policy arenas. They call their preferred policy paradigm “prosumer law” and it envisions an active role for governments, which they think should pursue “smarter regulation” of code.

In terms of organization, Brown and Marsden’s book follows the same format found in Milton Mueller’s important 2010 book Networks and States: The Global Politics of Internet Governance; both books feature meaty case studies in the middle bookended by chapters that endorse a specific approach to Internet policymaking. (Incidentally, both books were published by MIT Press.) And, also like Mueller’s book, Brown and Marsden’s Regulating Code does a somewhat better job using case studies to explore the forces shaping Internet policy across the globe than it does making the normative case for their preferred approach to these issues.

Thus, for most readers, the primary benefit of reading either book will be to see how the respective authors develop rich portraits of the institutional political economy surrounding various Internet policy issues over the past 10 to 15 years. In fact, of all the books I have read and reviewed in recent years, I cannot think of two titles that have done a better job developing detailed case studies for such a diverse set of issues. For that reason alone, both texts are important resources for those studying ongoing Internet policy developments.

That’s not to say that both books don’t also make a solid case for their preferred policy paradigms, it’s just that the normative elements of the texts are over-shadowed by the excellent case studies. As a result, readers are left wanting more detail about what their respective policy paradigms would (or should) mean in practice. Regardless, in the remainder of this review, I’ll discuss Brown and Marsden’s normative approach to digital policy and contrast it with Mueller’s since they stand in stark contrast and help frame the policy battles to come on this front.

Governing Cyberspace: Mueller vs. Brown & Marsden

Mueller’s normative goal in Networks and States was to breathe new life into the old cyber-libertarian philosophy that was more prevalent during the Net’s founding era but which has lost favor in recent years. He made the case for a “cyberliberty” movement rooted in what he described as a “denationalized liberalism” vision of Net governance. He argued that “we need to find ways to translate classical liberal rights and freedoms into a governance framework suitable for the global Internet. There can be no cyberliberty without a political movement to define, defend, and institutionalize individual rights and freedoms on a transnational scale.”

I wholeheartedly endorsed that vision in my review of Mueller’s book, even if he was a bit short on the details of how to bring it about. But it is useful to keep Mueller’s paradigm in mind because it provides a nice contrast with the approach Brown and Marsden advocate, which is quite different.

Generally speaking, Brown and Marsden reject most forms of “Internet exceptionalism” and certainly reject the sort of “cyberliberty” ethos that Mueller and I embrace. They instead endorse a fairly broad role for governments in ordering the affairs of cyberspace. In their self-described “prosumer” paradigm, the State is generally viewed as benevolent actor, well-positioned to guide the course of code development toward supposedly more enlightened ends.

Consistent with the strong focus on European policymaking found throughout the book, the authors are quite enamored with the “co-regulatory” models that have become increasing prevalent across the continent. Like many other scholars and policy advocates today, they occasionally call for “multi-stakeholderism” as a solution but they do not necessarily mean the sort of truly voluntary, bottom-up multi-stakeholderism of the Net’s early days. Rather, they are usually thinking of multi-stakeholderism as what is essentially pluralistic politics; it’s the government setting the table, inviting the stakeholders to it, and then guiding (or at least “nudging”) policy along the way. “We are convinced that fudging with nudges needs to be reinforced with the reality of regulation and coregulation, in order to enable prosumers to maximize their potential on the broadband Internet,” they say. (p. 187)

Meet the New Boss, Same as the Old Boss?

Thus, despite the new gloss, their “prosumer law” paradigm ends up sounding quite a bit like a rehash of traditional “public interest” law and common carrier regulation, albeit with a new appreciation of just how dynamics markets built on code can be. Indeed, Brown and Marsden repeatedly acknowledge how often law and regulation fails to keep pace with the rapid evolution of digital technology. “Code changes quickly, user adoption more slowly, legal contracting and judicial adaptation to new technologies slower yet, and regulation through legislation slowest of all,” they correctly note (p. xv). This reflects what Larry Downes refers to as the most fundamental “law of disruption” of the digital age: “technology changes exponentially, but social, economic, and legal systems change incrementally.”

At the end of the day, however, that insight doesn’t seem to inform Brown and Marsden’s policy prescriptions all that much. Theirs is a world in which policy tinkering errors will apparently be corrected promptly and efficiently by still more policy tinkering, or “smarter regulation.” Moreover, like many other Internet policy scholars today, they don’t mind regulatory interventions that come early and often since they believe that will help regulators get out ahead of the technological curve and steer markets in preferred directions. “If regulators fail to address regulatory objects at first, then the regulatory object can grow until its technique overwhelms the regulator,” they say (p. 31).

This is the same mentality that is often on display in Tim Wu’s work, which I have been quite critical of here and elsewhere. For example, Wu has advocated informal “agency threats” and the use of “threat regimes” to accomplish policy goals that prove difficult to steer though the formal democratic rulemaking process. As part of his “defense of regulatory threats in particular contexts,” Wu stresses the importance of regulators taking control of fast-moving tech markets early in their life cycles. “Threat regimes,” Wu argues, “are best justified when the industry is undergoing rapid change — under conditions of ‘high uncertainty.’ Highly informal regimes are most useful, that is, when the agency faces a problem in an environment in which facts are highly unclear and evolving. Examples include periods surrounding a newly invented technology or business model, or a practice about which little is known,” Wu concludes.

This is essentially where most of the “co-regulation” schemes that Brown and Marsden favor would take us: Code regulators would take an active role in shaping the evolution of digital technologies and markets early in its life cycle. What are the preferred regulatory mechanisms? Like Wu and many other cyberlaw professors today, Brown and Marsden favor robust interconnection and interoperability mandates bolstered by antitrust actions as well. And, again, they aren’t willing to wait around and let the courts adjudicate these issues in an ex post fashion. “Essential facilities law is a very poor substitute for the active role of prosumer law that we advocate, especially in its Chicago school minimalist phase” (p. 185). In other words, we shouldn’t wait for someone to bring a case and litigate it through the courts when preemptive, proactive regulatory interventions can sagaciously steer us to a superior end.

More specifically, they propose that “competition authorities should impose ex ante interoperability requirements upon dominant social utilities… to minimize network barriers” (p. 190) and they model this on traditional regulatory schemes such as must-carry obligations, API interface disclosure requirements, and other interconnection mandates (such as those imposed on AOL/Time Warner a decade ago to alleviate fears about instant messaging dominance). They also note that “Effective, scalable state regulation often depends on the recruitment of intermediaries as enforcers” to help achieve various policy objectives (p. 170).

The Problem with Interoperability Über Alles

So, in essence, the Brown-Marsden Internet policy paradigm might be thought of as interoperability über alles. Interoperability and interconnection in pursuit of more “open” and “neutral” systems is generally considered an unalloyed good and most everything else is subservient to this objective.

This is a serious policy error and one that I address in great detail in my absurdly long review of John Palfrey and Urs Gasser’s Interop: The Promise and Perils of Highly Interconnected Systems. I’m not going to repeat all 6,500 words of that critique here when you can just click back and read it, but here’s the high level summary: There is no such thing as “optimal interoperability” that can be determined in an a priori fashion. Ongoing marketplace experimentation with technical standards, modes of information production and dissemination, and interoperable information systems, is almost always preferable to the artificial foreclosure of this dynamic process through state action. The former allows for better learning and coping mechanisms to develop while also incentivizing the spontaneous, natural evolution of the market and market responses. The latter (regulatory foreclosure of experimentation) limits that potential.

More importantly, when interoperability is treated as sacrosanct and forcibly imposed through top-down regulatory schemes, it will often have many unintended consequences and costs. It can even lock in existing market power and market structures by encouraging users and companies to flock to a single platform instead of trying to innovate around it. (Go back and take a look at how the “Kingsbury Commitment” — the interconnection deal from the early days of the U.S. telecom system — actually allowed AT&T to gain greater control over the industry instead of assisting independent operators.)

Citing Palfrey and Gasser, Brown and Marsden do note that “mandated interoperability is neither necessary in all cases nor necessarily desirable” (p. 32), but they don’t spend as much time as Palfrey and Gasser itemizing these trade-offs and the potential downsides of some interoperability mandates. But what frustrates me about both books is the almost quasi-religious reverence accorded to interoperability and open standards when such faith is simply not warranted after historical experience is taken into consideration.

Plenty of the best forms of digital innovation today are due to a lack of interoperability and openness. Proprietary systems have produced some of the most exciting devices (iPhone) and content (video games) of modern times. Then again, voluntary interoperable and “open” services and devices thrive, too. The key point here — and one that I develop in far greater detail in my book chapter, “The Case for Internet Optimism, Part 2 – Saving the Net From Its Supporters” — is that the market for digital services is working marvelously and providing us with choices of many different flavors. Innovation continues to unfold rapidly in both directions along the “open” vs. “closed” continuum. (Here are 30 more essays I have written on this topic if you need more proof.)

Generally speaking, we should avoid mandatory interop and openness solutions. We should instead push those approaches and solutions in a truly voluntary, bottom-up fashion. And, more importantly, we should be pushing for outside-the-box solutions of the Schumpeterian (creative destruction / disruptive innovation) variety instead of surrendering so quickly on competition through forced sharing mandates.

The Case for Patience & Policy Restraint

But Brown and Marsden clearly do not subscribe to that sort of Schumpeterian thinking. They think most code markets tip and lock into monopoly in fairly short order and that only wise interventions can rectify that. For example, they claim that Facebook’s “monopoly is now durable,” which will certainly come as a big surprise to the millions of us who do not use it all. And the story of MySpace’s rapid rise and equally precipitous fall has little bearing on this story, they argue.

But, no matter how you define the “social networking market,” here are two facts about it: First, it is still very, very young. It’s only about a decade old. Second, in that short period of time, we have already witnessed the entire first generation of players fall by the wayside. While the second generation is currently dominated by Facebook, it is by no means alone. Again, millions like me don’t use it at all and get along just fine with other “social networking” technologies, including Twitter, LinkedIn, Google+, and even older tech like email, SMS, and yes, phone calls! Accusations of “monopoly” in this space strain credulity in the extreme. I invite you to read my Mercatus working paper, “The Perils of Classifying Social Media Platforms as Public Utilities,” for a more thorough debunking of this logic. (Note: The final version of that paper will be published in the CommLaw Conspectus shortly.)

Such facts should have a bearing on the debate about regulatory interventions. We continue to witness the power of Schumpeterian rivalry as new and existing players battle in a race for the prize of market power. Brown and Marsden fear that the race is already over in many sectors and that it is time to throw in the towel and get busy regulating. But when I look around at the information technology marketplace today, I am astonished just how radically different it looks from even just a few years ago, and not just in the social media market. I have written extensively about the smartphone marketplace, where innovation continues at a frantic pace. As I noted in my essay here on “Smartphones & Schumpeter,” it’s hard to remember now, but just 6 short years ago:

• The iPhone and Android had not yet landed.
• Most of the best-selling phones of 2007 were made by Nokia and Motorola.
• Feature phones still dominated the market; smartphones were still a luxury (and a clunky luxury at that).
• There were no app stores and what “apps” did exist were mostly proprietary and device or carrier-specific; and,
• There was no 4G service.

It’s also easy to forget just how many market analysts and policy wonks were making absurd predictions at the time about how the telecom operators at the time had so much market power that they would crush new innovation without regulation. Instead, in very short order, the market was completely upended in a way that mobile providers never saw coming. There was a huge shift in relative market power flowing from the core of these markets to the fringes, especially to Apple, which wasn’t even a player in that space before the launch of the iPhone.

As I noted in concluding that piece last year, these facts should lead us to believe that this is a healthy, dynamic marketplace in action. Not even Schumpeter could have imagined creative destruction on this scale. (Just look as BlackBerry). But much the same could be said of many other sectors of the information economy.  While it is certainly true that many large players exist, we continue to see a healthy amount of churn in these markets and an astonishing amount of technological innovation.

Public Choice Insights: What History Tells Us

One would hope these realities would have a greater bearing on the policy prescriptions suggested by analysts like Brown and Marsden, but they don’t seem to. Instead, the attitude on display here is that governments can, generally speaking, act wisely and nudge efficiently to correct short-term market hiccups and set us on a better course. But there are strong reasons to question that presumption.

Specifically, what I found most regrettable about Brown and Marsden’s book was the way — like all too many books in this field these days — the authors briefly introduce “public choice” insights and concerns only to summarily dismiss them as unfounded or overblown. (See my review of Brett Frischmann’s book, Infrastructure: The Social Value of Shared Resources for a more extended discussion of this problem as it pertains to discussions about not just infrastructure regulation by the regulation of all complex industries and technologies.)

Brown and Marsden make it clear that their intentions are pure and that their methods would incorporate the lessons of the past, but they aren’t very interested in dwelling on the long, lamentable history of regulatory failures and capture in the communications and media policy sectors. They do note the dangers of a growing “security-industrial complex” and argue that “commercial actors dominate technical actors in policy debates.” They also say that the “potential for capture by regulated interests, especially large corporate lobbies, is an essential insight” that informs their approach. The problem is that it really doesn’t. They largely ignore those insights and instead imply that, to the extent this is a problem at all, we can build a better breed of bureaucrats going forward who will craft “smarter regulation” that is immune from such pressures. Or, they claim that “multi-stakeholderism” — again, the new, more activist and government-influenced conception of it — can overcome these public choice problems.

A better understanding of power politics that is informed by the wisdom of the ages would instead counsel that minimizing the scope of politicization of technology markets is the better remedy. Capture and cronyism in communications and media markets has always grown in direct proportion to the overall scope of law governing those sectors. (I invite you to read all the troubling examples of this that Brent Skorup and I have documented in our new 72-page working paper, “A History of Cronyism and Capture in the Information Technology Sector.” Warning: It makes for miserable reading but proves beyond any doubt that there is something to public choice concerns.)

To be clear, it’s not that I believe that “market failures” or “code failures” never occur, rather, as I noted in this debate with Larry Lessig, it’s that such problems are typically “better addressed by voluntary, spontaneous, bottom-up, marketplace responses than by coerced, top-down, governmental solutions. Moreover, the decisive advantage of the market-driven approach to correcting code failure comes down to the rapidity and nimbleness of those response(s).” It’s not just that traditional regulatory remedies cannot keep pace with code markets, it’s that those attempting to craft the remedies do not possess the requisite knowledge needed to know how to steer us down a superior path. (See my essay, “Antitrust & Innovation in the New Economy: The Problem with the Static Equilibrium Mindset,” for more on that point.)

Regardless, at a minimum, I expect scholars to take seriously the very real public choice problems at work in this arena. You cannot talk about the history of these sectors without acknowledging the horrifically anti-consumer policies that were often put in place at the request of one industry or another to shield themselves from disruptive innovation. No amount of wishful thinking about “prosumer” policies will change these grim political realities. Only by minimizing chances to politicize technology markets and decisions can we overcome these problems.

Conclusion

For those of us who prefer to focus on freeing code, Brown and Marsden’s Regulating Code is another reminder that liberty is increasingly a loser in Internet policy circles these days. Milton Mueller’s dream of decentralized, denationalized liberalism seems more and more unlikely as armies of policymakers, regulators, special interests, regulatory advocates, academics, and others all line up and plead for their pet interest or cause to be satisfied through pure power politics. No matter what you call it — fudging, nudging, coregulation, smart regulation, multistakeholderism, prosumer law, or whatever else, — there is no escaping the fact that we are witnessing the complete politicization of almost every facet of code creation and digital decisionmaking today.

Despite my deep reservations about a more politicized cyberspace, Brown and Marsden’s book is an important text because it is one of the most sophisticated articulations and defenses of it to date. Their book also helps us better understand the rapidly developing institutional political economy of Internet regulation in both broad and narrow policy contexts. Thus, it is worth your time and attention even if, like me, you are disheartened to be reading yet another Net policy book that ultimately endorses mandates over of markets as the primary modus operandi of the information age.

Additional Resources about the book:

• the official MIT Press website for Regulating Code
• shorter Brown & Marsden paper on “Prosumer Law” (via SSRN)
• Little Atoms podcast featuring Brown & Marsden discussing Regulating Code
• Ian Brown edited this beefy Research Handbook On Governance Of The Internet, which makes a nice complement to Regulating Code. It offers even more detailed case studies on the major issues featured in the book. A terrific resource (if you can afford it!)
• a video of Brown & Marsden discussing the book at the Oxford Internet Institute (also embedded below):

Other books you should read alongside “Regulating Code” (links are for my reviews of each):

• Milton Mueller’s Networks and States: The Global Politics of Internet Governance
• John Palfrey & Urs Gasser’s Interop: The Promise and Perils of Highly Interconnected Systems
• Rebecca MacKinnon’s Consent of the Networked: The Worldwide Struggle for Internet Freedom
• David G. Post’s In Search of Jefferson’s Moose: Notes on the State of Cyberspace
• Christopher Yoo’s The Dynamic Internet: How Technology, Users, and Businesses are Transforming the Network
• Larry Lessig’s Code (my 2-part exchange with Lessig upon Code’s 10^th anniversary: Part 1, Part 2)

I’m excited to announce the release of my latest law review article, “The Pursuit of Privacy in a World Where Information Control is Failing,” which appears in the next edition (vol. 36) of the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy. This is the first of two complimentary law review articles that I will be releasing this year dealing with privacy policy. The second, which will be published later this summer by the George Mason University Law Review, is entitled, “A Framework for Benefit-Cost Analysis in Digital Privacy Debates.” (FYI: Both articles focus on privacy claims made against private actors — namely, efforts to limit private data collection — and not on privacy rights against governments.)

The new Harvard Journal article is divided into three major sections. Part I focuses on some of normative challenges we face when discussing privacy and argues that there may never be a widely accepted, coherent legal standard for privacy rights or harms here in the United States. It also explores the tensions between expanded privacy regulation and online free speech. Part II turns to the many enforcement challenges that are often ignored when privacy policies are being proposed or formulated and argues that legislative and regulatory efforts aimed at protecting privacy must now be seen as an increasingly intractable information control problem. Most of the problems policymakers and average individuals face when it comes to controlling the flow of private information online are similar to the challenges they face when trying to control the free flow of digitalized bits in other information policy contexts, such as online safety, cybersecurity, and digital copyright.

If the effectiveness of law and regulation is limited by the normative considerations discussed in Part I and the practical enforcement complications discussed in Part II, what alternatives remain to assist privacy-sensitive individuals? I address that question in Part III of the paper and argue that the approach America has adopted to deal with concerns about objectionable online speech and child safety offers a path forward on the privacy front as well. A so-called “3-E” solution that combines consumer education, user empowerment, and selective enforcement of existing targeted laws and other legal standards (torts, anti-fraud laws, contract law, and so on), has helped society achieve a reasonable balance in terms of addressing online safety while also safeguarding other important values, especially freedom of expression.  That does not mean perfect online safety exists, not only because the term means very different things to different people, but because it would be impossible to achieve in the first instance as a result of information control complications. But the “3-E” approach has the advantage of enhancing online safety without sweeping regulations being imposed that could undermine the many benefits information networks and online services offer individuals and society.  This same framework can guide online privacy decisions—both at the individual household level and the public policy level.

I’ve embedded the full article down below in a Scribd reader, but you can also download it from my SSRN page and it should be available on the HJLPP website shortly. [Update 4/16: It is now live on the site.] In coming weeks, I hope to do some blogging that builds on the themes and arguments I develop in this article.

The Pursuit of Privacy in a World Where Information Control is Failing

The number of major cyberlaw and information tech policy books being published annually continues to grow at an astonishing pace, so much so that I have lost the ability to read and review all of them. In past years, I put together end-of-year lists of important info-tech policy books (here are the lists for 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011) and I was fairly confident I had read just about everything of importance that was out there (at least that was available in the U.S.). But last year that became a real struggle for me and this year it became an impossibility. A decade ago, there was merely a trickle of Internet policy books coming out each year. Then the trickle turned into a steady stream. Now it has turned into a flood. Thus, I’ve had to become far more selective about what is on my reading list. (This is also because the volume of journal articles about info-tech policy matters has increased exponentially at the same time.)

So, here’s what I’m going to do. I’m going to discuss what I regard to be the five most important titles of 2012, briefly summarize a half dozen others that I’ve read, and then I’m just going to list the rest of the books out there. I’ve read most of them but I have placed an asterisk next to the ones I haven’t.  Please let me know what titles I have missed so that I can add them to the list. (Incidentally, here’s my compendium of all the major tech policy books from the 2000s and here’s the running list of all my book reviews.)

As I do each year, I need to repeat a few disclaimers.  First, what qualifies as an “important” info-tech policy book is highly subjective, but I would define it as a title that many people — especially scholars in the field — are currently discussing and that we will likely be referencing for many years to come.  But I “weight” books in the sense that narrowly-focused titles lose a few points. For example, books that deal mostly with privacy issues, copyright law, or antitrust policy are docked a few points relative to “big picture” info-tech policy books that offer a broader exploration of policy issues and which offer more wide-ranging recommendations.

Second, almost all of the books included have something profound to say about Internet policy (either directly or indirectly) and the more profound and clear the policy recommendations or implications, the higher the titles rank in terms of importance on my list.

Third, and most importantly: Just because a book appears on this list that does not necessarily mean I agree with everything in it.  In fact, as was the case in previous years, I found much with which to disagree in most of the books listed here. Simply put, the cyber-liberty I cherish is a real loser in both academic and public policy circles these days. It has very few defenders today. So, if this was simply a list of my personal favorite books, there would only be 2 or 3 titles on it. Instead, this is my effort to list important books in the field, regardless of whether I agree with the content and conclusions found in those titles.

OK, on to the list.

(1) Rebecca MacKinnon – Consent of the Network: The Worldwide Struggle for Internet Freedom

Rebecca MacKinnon’s book was the most important information technology policy book released in 2012 because it: (1) presented a splendid history of the ideas and forces shaping Internet policy debates globally; (2) offered policy insights that were extremely relevant to breaking developments in this field; and (3) set forth a call-to-arms to global Internet activists and gave them a new way of framing their issue advocacy.

MacKinnon is a former journalist and her outstanding reporting skills are on display throughout the text. Her coverage of China’s efforts to regulate the Net is outstanding. She also surveys some of the recent policy fights here and abroad over issues such as online privacy, Net neutrality regulation, free speech matters, and the copyright wars. The book demands attention for this historical work and analysis alone.

Even more importantly, however, MacKinnon makes a forceful argument for how to think about Internet freedom and democracy in new digital worlds. Her book is an attempt to take the Net freedom movement to the next level; to formalize it and to put in place a set of governance principles that will help us hold the “sovereigns of cyberspace” more accountable. Many of her proposals are quite sensible. But, as I noted in my much longer review of the book, I had a real problem with MacKinnon’s use of the term “digital sovereigns” or “sovereigns of cyberspace” and the loose definition of “sovereignty” that pervades her narrative. She too often blurs and equates private power and political power, and she sometimes leads us to believe that the problem of the dealing with the mythical nation-states of “Facebookistan” and “Googledom” is somehow on par with the problem of dealing with actual sovereign power — government power — over digital networks, online speech, and the world’s Netizenry.

Despite these nitpicks, MacKinnon has many other ideas about Net governance in the book that are less controversial and entirely sensible in my opinion. She wants to “expand the technical commons” by building and distributing more tools to help activists and make organizations more transparent and accountable. These would include circumvention and anonymization tools, software and programs that allow both greater data security and portability, and devices and network systems to expand the range of communication and participation, especially in more repressed countries. She would also like to see neitzens “devise more systematic and effective strategies for organizing, lobbying, and collective bargaining with the companies whose service we depend upon — to minimize the chances that terms of service, design choices, technical decisions, or market entry strategies could put people at risk or result in infringement of their rights.” This also makes sense as part of a broader push for improved corporate social responsibility.

Regarding the role of law, MacKinnon has a mixed view. She says: “There is a need for regulation and legislation based on solid data and research (as opposed to whatever gets handed to legislative staffers by lobbyists) as well as consultation with a genuinely broad cross-section of people and groups affected by the problem the legislation seeks to solve, along with those likely to be affected by the proposed solutions.” Of course, that’s a fairly ambiguous standard that could open the door to excessive political meddling with the Net if we’re not careful. Overall, though, she acknowledges how regulation so often lags far behind innovation. “A broader and more intractable problem with regulating technology companies is that legislation appears much too late in corporate innovation and business cycles,” she rightly notes.

MacKinnon’s book will be of great interest to Internet policy scholars and students, but it is also accessible to a broader audience interested in learning more about the debates and policies that will shape the future of the Internet and digital networks for many years to come. One other note: MacKinnon’s clearly-worded prose and cool-headed tone deserve praise and emulation. It serves as a model for how to write a thoughtful Internet policy book, even if you don’t agree with all her conclusions or recommendations.

My complete review of Consent of the Networked can be found here.

(2) Susan Crawford – Captive Audience: The Telecom Industry and Monopoly Power in the New Gilded Age

Susan Crawford’s book was probably my least favorite title of 2012, but that doesn’t mean I can discount its significance within this field. Crawford has made herself a widely-recognized and highly-charged figure in the world of Internet policy through her work as an activist, an academic, and even a government official. In Captive Audience, she doesn’t even try to hide her self-described “radicalized” views on communications policy anymore and in the process she solidifies her role as the ringleader of the growing movement to impose centralized, top-down government control on America’s broadband infrastructure.

What is most astonishing about Captive Audience is the way Crawford so audaciously waxes nostalgic for the days of regulated monopoly. Simply put, Crawford doesn’t believe that capitalism or competition have any role to play in the provision of broadband networks and services. “No competitive pressure will force these companies to act [in the public interest],” she argues on the last page of the manifesto. “Americans,” she claims, “have allowed a naive belief in the power and beneficence of the free market to cloud their vision.” She suggests we should just give up our false hope that markets can deliver such an important service and get on with the task of converting broadband into a full-blown regulated public utility.

Her proposed solutions read like the typical Big Government grab-bag of policy proposals: more government spending, more government ownership, and more government regulation (forced access regulation and rate controls) for any private carriers that are allowed to remain in operation as de facto handmaidens of the state. Crawford’s perfect world scenario would seem to be some sort of amalgam of the U.S. Postal Service and the federal highway program. While both programs have sought to provide an important service to the masses, it goes without saying that both are also an absolute basket case in terms of service management and economic viability. But, for the sake of argument, let’s say that Crawford is right and that public ownership and comprehensive government management is the way to go. Where will all this money come from for all the new government activity Crawford desires? Apparently it grows on trees because she isn’t ever willing to admit that we find ourselves in the midst of major fiscal crisis that likely constrains the ability of governments to make these investments themselves. Luckily, private wireline and wireless broadband providers have been investing tens of billions in infrastructural upgrades in recent years (don’t take my word for it, read what the Progressive Policy Institute has to say), a fact that Crawford conveniently ignores.

More importantly, Crawford never fully confronts the fact that the era of regulated monopoly she cherishes was an unmitigated croynist disaster for consumers. That era had nothing to do with the “public interest” and everything to do with protecting the private interests of regulated entities — namely, Ma Bell on the communications side and broadcasters on the media side. She also doesn’t address the lackluster state of innovation during the 70 or so years during which time communications and media markets were under the tight grip of federal and state regulators, who controlled rates, restricted new entry, and discouraged innovation at virtually every juncture. If one is going to recommend a return to the regulatory past, they had better grapple with that uncomfortable, anti-consumer, anti-innovation history. Crawford utterly fails to in Captive Audience.

While the book is nominally about broadband regulation, the bulk of it is actually dedicated to taking on one company — Comcast — and specifically picking apart its recent merger with NBC Universal. For Crawford, the Comcast-NBC deal represented something akin to the Mayan apocalypse of media policy. She wants us to believe that the deal has forever solidified Comcast’s grasp on both programming and broadband markets. Comcast chief Brian Roberts is presented as the nefarious villain of the narrative; Crawford paints him as a cross between Gordon Gecko and Mr. Burns from “The Simpsons.” Usually such neurotic narratives are reserved for Rupert Murdoch and how he is supposedly plotting mass media domination to brainwash the minds of the masses. But Crawford suggests that Roberts is the new Bond villain du jour and chapter after chapter are devoted to demonizing him, his father, and other execs at Comcast. She argues that “Comcast now owns the Internet in America” and that the company is “squeezing independent online video” providers out of the market.

Despite all this hand-wringing, the situation in the video marketplace has never looked brighter. Crawford fails to put things in historical perspective and examine consumer choices in this market today relative to the past — a point I made in this debate with her last year. Of course, she probably didn’t want to seriously examine that evidence because by every metric available — and I published an entire report called Media Metrics a few years ago proving this — Americans have more and better viewing options at their disposal than ever before in history. We have more channels and more content available over more platforms (cable, satellite, telco, online, DVD, mail, etc) and more devices than ever before. Consumers have an unprecedented ability to access, record, time-shift, interact with, and even manipulate and redistribute video content. Of course, all this choice and quality comes at a cost, as Crawford continuously complains throughout the text. Apparently, in her view, all these great new programming options and technologies should just fall to us like manna from heaven with no price tag attached.

If you want to see what the opposite of Internet freedom and digital capitalism looks like, look no further than this book. It is the definitive articulation of the cyber-planner’s ethos. Of course, that’s also what makes Captive Audience one of the most important books of 2012. But if you really must read such one-sided propaganda — since this book will, no doubt, be assigned in many cyberlaw and media studies classes across America — then I encourage you to also read Christopher Yoo’s Dynamic Internet and Randy May’s edited collection of essays on Communications Law and Policy in the Digital Age, both of which are mentioned below. Both of those books offer a refreshingly level-headed examination of the true state of this marketplace. I’d also recommend you check out these recent essays by Bret Swanson and Richard Bennett for a hard look at the shoddy numbers and assumptions underlying many of the broadband policy critiques you hear out there today from Crawford and others.

(3) John Palfrey & Urs Gasser – Interop: The Promise and Perils of Highly Interconnected Systems

What makes Palfrey & Gasser’s book so important is that the authors aim to develop “a normative theory identifying what we want out of all this interconnectivity” that the information age has brought us. They correctly note “there is no single, agreed-upon definition of interoperability” and that “there are even many views about what interop is and how it should be achieved.” Generally speaking, they argue increased interoperability — especially among information networks and systems — is a good thing because it “provides consumers greater choice and autonomy,” “is generally good for competition and innovation,” and “can lead to systemic efficiencies.”

But they wisely acknowledge that there are trade-offs, too, noting that “this growing level of interconnectedness comes at an increasingly high price.” Whether we are talking about privacy, security, consumer choice, the state of competition, or anything else, Palfrey and Gasser argue that “the problems of too much interconnectivity present enormous challenges both for organizations and for society at large.” Their chapter and privacy and security offers many examples, but one need only look around at their own digital existence to realize the truth of this paradox. The more interconnected our information systems become, and the more intertwined our social and economic lives become with those systems, the greater the possibility of spam, viruses, data breaches, and various types of privacy or reputational problems. Interoperability giveth and it taketh away.

Ultimately, however, the authors fail to develop a clear standard for when interoperability is good and when governments should take steps to facilitate or mandate it. They argue that “there is no single form or optimal amount of interoperability that will suit every circumstance” and that “most of the specifics of how to bring interop about [must] be determined on a case-by-case basis. Yet, Palfrey and Gasser also make it clear they want government(s) to play an active role in ensuring optimal interoperability. They say they favor “blended approaches that draw upon the comparative advantages of the private and public sector,” but they argue that government should feel free to tip or nudge interoperability determinations in superior directions to satisfy “the public interest.” “If deployed with skill,” they argue, “the law can play a central role in ensuring that we get as close as possible to optimal levels of interoperability in complex systems.”

The fundamental problem this “public interest” approach to interoperability regulation is that it is no better than the “I-know-it-when-I-see-it” standard we sometimes at work in the realm of speech regulation. It’s an empty vessel, and if it is the lodestar by which policymakers make determinations about the optimal level of interoperability, then it leaves markets, innovators, and consumers subject to the arbitrary whims of what a handful of politicians or regulators think constitutes “optimal interoperability,” “appropriate standards,” and “best available technology.”

In my absurdly long review of their book, I offered an alternative framework that suggests patience, humility, and openness to ongoing marketplace experimentation as the primary public policy virtues that lawmakers should instead embrace. Ongoing marketplace experimentation with technical standards, modes of information production and dissemination, and interoperable information systems, is almost always preferable to the artificial foreclosure of this dynamic process through state action. The former allows for better learning and coping mechanisms to develop while also incentivizing the spontaneous, natural evolution of the market and market responses. The latter (regulatory foreclosure of experimentation) limits that potential.

Defining “optimal interoperability,” is not just difficult as Palfrey and Gasser suggest, but I would argue that it is a pipe dream. Sometimes consumers demanded a certain amount interoperability and they usually get it. But it seems equally obvious that consumers don’t always demand perfect interoperability. Just look at your iPhone or Xbox for proof. Quite often, a lack of interoperability helps firms finance important new products and services while simultaneously ensuring users a tailored and potentially more secure and satisfying experience. Importantly, however, non-interoperability also spurs new forms of innovation from rivals looking to leap-frog the old front-runners. Progress flows from this never-ending cycle of technological change and industrial churn.

In sum, we cannot define or determine “optimal interoperability” in an a priori fashion; only ongoing experimentation can help us determine what truly lies in “the public interest.” Despite my different approach and conclusions, Palfrey and Gasser’s book perfectly frames what should be a very interesting ongoing debate over these issues and for that reason will be required reading on this subject for years to come.

Again, my longer review of Palfrey and Gasser’s book can be found here, and listen to John Palfrey’s podcast discussion with Jerry Brito here.]

(4) Christopher Yoo – The Dynamic Internet: How Technology, Users, and Businesses are Transforming the Network

Christopher Yoo’s book was my personal favorite of the year, but it won’t capture as much interest and recognition as some of the other titles on this list. The book offers a concise overview of how Internet architecture has evolved and a principled discussion of the public policies that should govern the Net going forward. Yoo makes two straight-forward arguments. First, the Internet is changing. In Part 1 of the book, Yoo offers a layman-friendly overview of the changing dynamics of Internet architecture and engineering. He documents the evolving nature of Internet standards, traffic management and congestion policies, spam and security control efforts, and peering and pricing policies. He also discusses the rise of peer-to-peer applications, the growth of mobile broadband, the emergence of the app store economy, and what the explosion of online video consumption means for ongoing bandwidth management efforts. Those are the supply-side issues. Yoo also outlines the implications of changes in the demand-side of the equation, such as changing user demographics and rapidly evolving demands from consumers. He notes that these new demand-side realities of Internet usage are resulting in changes to network management and engineering, further reinforcing changes already underway on the supply-side.

Yoo’s second point in the book flows logically from the first: as the Internet continues to evolve in such a highly dynamic fashion, public policy must as well. Yoo is particularly worried about calls to lock in standards, protocols, and policies from what he regards as a bygone era of Internet engineering, architecture, and policy. “The dramatic shift in Internet usage suggests that its founding architectural principles form the mid-1990s may no longer be appropriate today,” he argues. “[T]he optimal network architecture is unlikely to be static. Instead, it is likely to be dynamic over time, changing with the shifts in end-user demands,” he says. Thus, “the static, one-size-fits-all approach that dominates the current debate misses the mark.”

Yoo makes a particular powerful case for flexible network pricing policies. His outstanding chapter on “The Growing Complexity of Internet Pricing” offers an excellent overview of the changing dynamics of pricing in this arena and explains why experimentation with different pricing methods and business models must be allowed to continue. Getting pricing right is essential, Yoo notes, if we hope to ensure ongoing investment in new networks and services. He also notes how foolish it is to expect the government to come in and save the day thought massive infrastructure investment to cover the hundreds of billions of dollars needed to continue to build-out high-speed services.

Throughout the second half of his book, Yoo explains why it would be a disaster for consumers and high-tech innovation if policymakers limited pricing flexibility and experimentation with new business models and technological standards. He argues that public policy should generally seek to avoid ex ante forms of preemptive, prophylactic Internet regulation and instead rely on an ex post approach when and if things go wrong. Essentially, he wants policymakers to embrace “techno-agnosticism” toward ongoing debates over standards, protocols, business models, pricing methods, and so on. Lawmakers should not be preemptively tilting the balance in one direction or the other or, worse yet, restricting experimentation that can help us find superior solutions.

And even under that model of retrospective review, Yoo makes it clear throughout the book that there should be a very high bar established before any regulation is pursued. This is particularly true because of the First Amendment values at stake when the government attempts to regulate speech platforms. In Chapter 9 of the book, Yoo walks the reader through all the relevant case law on this front and makes it clear how “the Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized that the editorial discretion exercised by intermediaries serves important free speech values.” Yoo also makes the case that a certain degree of intermediation helps serve consumer needs by helping them more easily find the content and services they desire. Law should not seek to constrain that and, under current Supreme Court First Amendment jurisprudence, it probably cannot.

To me, Yoo’s approach strikes the right balance for Net governance and public policy in the information age. It all comes down to flexibility and freedom. If the Internet and all modern digital technologies are to thrive, we must reject the central planner’s mindset that dominated the analog era and forever bury all the static thinking it entailed.

My complete review of Yoo’s Dynamic Internet is here.

(5) Brett Frischmann – Infrastructure: The Social Value of Shared Resources

Frischmann’s book offers a nice contrast with Yoo’s in that it suggests a far more ambitious role for the state in shaping the future of digital networks and online platforms. Although not strictly a book about information technology infrastructure, Frischmann spends a great deal of time making the case for a greater government action in the realm of communications policy and for open access and Net neutrality regulation in particular. (There’s also a chapter on intellectual property issues that tech policy wonks will find of interest). The book is a veritable paean to open access regulation; Frischmann aims to persuade the reader that “society is better off sharing infrastructure openly” and devotes considerable energy to hammering that point home in one context after another.

In my review of the book, which was part of 2-day symposium on the book over at the Concurring Opinions blog, I took Frischmann’s book to task for its almost complete absence of public choice insights and his general disregard for thorny “supply-side” questions.  Frischmann is so single-mindedly focused on making the “demand-side” case for better appreciating how open infrastructures “generate spillovers that benefit society as a whole” and facilitate various “downstream productive activities,” that he short-changes the supply-side considerations regarding how infrastructure gets funded and managed to begin with.

The book also ignored the omnipresent threat of regulatory capture and the fact that any major infrastructure regulatory system big enough and important to be captured by special interests and affected parties often will be. Frischmann acknowledges the problem of capture in just a single footnote in the book and admits that “there are many ways in which government failures can be substantial,” but he asks the reader to quickly dispense with any worries about government failure since he believes “the claims rest on ideological and perhaps cultural beliefs rather than proven theory or empirical fact.”  I found that assertion outrageous and argued that, to the contrary, decades of scholarship has empirically documented the reality of government failure and its costs to society, as well as the plain old-fashioned inefficiency often associated with large-scale government programs. For infrastructure projects in particular, the combination of these public choice factors usually adds up to massive inefficiencies and cost overruns.

For those reasons, I argued in my review that society would be better off adopting a “3-P” approach to infrastructure management: privatize, property-tize, and price. But Frischmann is dead set against such thinking and makes it clear that everything must be subservient to the goal of “openness” and commons-based management. Unsurprisingly, therefore, this leads him to suggest that we need “a dramatic shift — perhaps a paradigm shift — away from the conventional position favoring market provisioning and markets ‘free’ from government intervention.” But the problem with that reasoning, as I pointed out in my review, is that most of the infrastructure that Frischmann cites as failing us today is already managed in the fashion he favors! Nonetheless, he wants to pile on still more commons-based government control / ownership solutions even though they are the primary cause of our infrastructure problems today. In this sense, Frischmann’s approach parallels Susan Crawford’s in her book Captive Audience, discussed above. They both seek to gloss over the ugly realities of traditional public infrastructure (mis-)management and they imply that we just need to build a better breed of bureaucrats who will somehow be immune to all the problems of the past. Needless to say, I don’t place much faith in such efforts.

Despite these serious deficiencies, students and scholars studying infrastructure theory will benefit from Frischmann’s excellent treatment of public goods and social goods; spillovers and externalities; proprietary versus commons systems management; common carriage policies and open access regulation; congestion pricing strategies; and the debate over price discrimination for infrastructural resources. He at least does a nice job outlining these concepts and controversies, even if he ultimately fails to make the case for radically expanding government control of infrastructural resources.

Again, you can read my entire review of Frischmann’s book here.

— Other Major Releases in 2012 —

Julie E. Cohen – Configuring the Networked Self: Law, Code, and the Play of Everyday Practice

Cohen’s book represents an effort to move “beyond the bounds of traditional liberal political theory” by transcending what she labels the traditional “information-as-freedom” versus “information-as-control” paradigms. Her aim is to promote “cultural environmentalism” and “the structural conditions of human flourishing.” She argues that “a commitment to human flourishing demands a more critical stance toward the market-driven evolution of network architectures.” In other words, don’t trust markets.

I didn’t find her case very convincing and it didn’t help that the book is filled with impenetrable prose that sometimes leaves the reader’s head a bit numb. (Two representative samples: “With respect to space, surveillance employs a twofold dynamic of containerization and affective modulation in order to pursue large-scale behavioral modification.” … and… “Here the performative impulse introduces static into the circuits of the surveillant assemblage; it seeks to reclaim bodies and reappropriate spaces.” Say what? Write in plain English, professor!)

The closing chapter also includes a strange reinterpretation of Ludditism. Cohen argues: “the tale of the Luddites poses an important challenge for scholars and policy makers in the emerging networked information society. If technologies do not have natural trajectories, it is our obligation to seek pathways of development that promote the well-being of situated, embodied users and communities. When our preferred policy prescriptions persistently produce information architectures and institutions that undermine human flourishing in critical ways, it is time to question them and to experiment with ways of doing better.”  Hmmm… I’m not sure I want to know what that would mean in practice!

Regardless, Cohen’s book has a lot to say about modern privacy and copyright battles and will be of great interest to scholars in those specific fields of study.  You can find all the chapters online here.

Cole Stryker – Hacking the Future: Privacy, Identity, and Anonymity on the Web

Stryker’s Hacking the Future provides a concise overview of the battles over online anonymity that have raged since the Net’s early days and he outlines the many new threats to it. “What we are seeing is an all-out war on anonymity, and thus free speech, waged by a variety of armies with widely diverse motivations, often for compelling reasons,” he says. The book will be a great use to those covering ongoing policy debates over cybersecurity, the “nymwars” and online authentication / identification debates, post-Arab Spring political activism & “hactivism,” encryption issues, social networking privacy, troll culture and cyberbullying, and much more. Stryker makes a strong case for the continuing importance of online anonymity but isn’t scared to ask hard questions about the trade-offs society faces when some can mask their online identities. But he also explores the question of whether anonymity can survive given recent technological and policy-related developments, both of which aim to make individuals more identifiable online. I particularly enjoyed Chapter 10’s breakdown of the “Faces of Anonymity,” in which Stryker crafts a detailed taxonomy of anonymous character types online.

He also offers a run-down of the tools and steps that people can take advantage of if they want to ensure their anonymity / privacy online, including: cookie blocking, private browsing tools, disabling HTML in email and limiting or disabling broswer extensions, clearing browser histories, and using encryption tools, proxy servers, and VPN tunneling. “The question we have to ask ourselves,” Stryker notes, is “Does the accessibility of these anonymizing technologies make the world a safer, more equitable place, better place?” He answers: “It’s difficult to measure, but their abolition certainly wouldn’t.” He also draws this interesting parallel with efforts to regulate firearms: “The logic here is not unlike that used by those who oppose gun control: if guns are made illegal, then only criminals will have guns, leaving well-meaning folks defenseless. The reasoning is compelling within the identity space,” he argues, “regardless of what you might think about the merits of gun control.”

Two other notes: First, Wide Open Privacy: Strategies For The Digital Life by J.R. Smith & Siobhan MacDermott makes a nice compliment to Hacking the Future. It also offers a breakdown of privacy-enhancing technologies and outlines other strategies to safeguard your online anonymity. Second, if you are interested in digging even deeper in the Luzsec side of this story, you should check out Parmy Olson’s W e are Anonymous: Inside the Hacker Wor ld of Lulzsec, Anonymous and the Global Cyber Insurgency. It’s a splendid history but doesn’t have as much to say about the various policy issues that Stryker tackles in Hacking the Future. Or just listen to Olson’s podcast discussion with Jerry Brito. Speaking of that Brito character…

Jerry Brito (ed.) – Copyright Unbalanced: From Incentive to Excess

My Mercatus Center colleague Jerry Brito put together this important collection of essays by various conservatives and libertarian authors to highlight growing concerns about copyright policy. Contributors include Tom W. Bell, David G. Post, Reihan Salam, Patrick Ruffini, Tim Lee, Christina Mulligan, and Eli Dourado (also of Mercatus). Their essays suggest that the tide may be turning against copyright among free market analysts. Their chapters explore the increasingly complexity of copyright law and the rising costs associated with its enforcement and make a powerful case for reform of, or at least restraints on, the current copyright system. The consensus seemed to revolve around a few key reforms: significantly shortened copyright terms, the reintroduction of formalities (i.e., registration), and limits on criminal prosecution and civil asset forfeiture. The authors also make a strong case that public choice problems pervade today’s copyright system and that we should be concerned that cronyism is increasing creeping into the politics of copyright law and its seemingly endless expansion.

If you interested in a different take on IP issues to balance out Brito’s collection, I’d recommend picking up the forthcoming Laws of Creation: Property Rights in the World of Ideas by Ronald A. Cass and Keith N. Hylton. It’s a 2013 release but it is already in stock. I’m reading an advance copy from the publisher right now and will likely have more to say about it in a forthcoming post.

Randolph J. May (ed.) – Communications Law and Policy in the Digital Age: The Next Five Years

My former colleague Randy May put together this nice collection of essays by some of America’s leading communications and media policy scholars, including Bruce Owen, Christopher Yoo, James Speta, Daniel Lyons and others. The authors offer a generally skeptical take on the expansion of communications and broadband regulation and the growing power of the Federal Communications Commission over these markets. In particular, many of the contributors take the FCC to task for sketchy assertions of jurisdiction and the agency’s efforts to expand its imperial regulatory ambitions without always having the clear statutory authority to do so. The chapters by James Speta and Seth Cooper are particularly good in that regard. Admin law geeks will eat them up.

Those analysts following the ongoing Net neutrality wars will also find the book informative, even if they disagree with the generally skeptical take on the issue from contributors. Spectrum and universal service policy wonks will also appreciate the excellent chapters on those two issues from Michele P. Connolly and Daniel A. Lyons, respectively. And the closing chapter by Bruce Owen is, like everything Bruce does, a masterpiece. Owen is probably the most respected media economist on the planet and his decades of experience in this field shines through in his powerful essay on “Communications Policy Reform, Interest Groups, and Legislative Capture.” He crafts a political economy of the regulatory state and points out that the explosion of rent-seeking and legislative/regulatory capture in this sector is unlikely to dissipate. “Therefore,” Owen argues, “communications policy likely will continue to be subject to welfare-suppressing regulation because such regulation is consistent with the interests of legislators,” who are often beholden to special interests and their campaign dollars.

Joshua Gans – Information Wants to Be Shared

I really enjoyed this book. It’s an insightful exploration of modern media economics filled with interesting questions and scenarios about how information markets will evolve in the future. What will sustain movies, music, book, local reporting, and so on in the future? Gans does a terrific job making these issues easy to understand and doesn’t try to evangelize as much as the many others who have written on these issues. If you’ve read and enjoyed Carl Shapiro and Hal Varian’s classic text, Information Rules, then you will find Gans’ book to be the perfect compliment.

Gans doesn’t have a lot to say about public policy, however. This is really more of a business book suited for industry analysts and business school students. Nonetheless, some of its implications for policy are clear since many of these business model debates boil over into the policy arena.

P.S. I should mention that, even if you don’t pick up his new book, you should be following Gans’ “Digitopoly” blog. It is always worth reading.

Andrew Keen – Digital Vertigo: How Today’s Online Social Revolution Is Dividing, Diminishing, and Disorienting Us

If you’re into ‘the-whole-world-is-going-to-Hell-and-the-Internet-is-to-blame’ screeds, Andrew Keen will never disappoint. In Digital Vertigo as well as his earlier book, The Cult of the Amateur, Keen is grumpy about, well, just about everything under the sun. In the earlier book, it was the Web 2.0 world of blogging and “amateur” content creation — most notably Wikipedia and YouTube — that earned Keen’s wrath. In the new book, it is users themselves and the social sharing sites and technologies that they favor that Keen goes off on.

Specifically, Keen is worried that our increased reliance on new online and interactive technologies is spawning a “hypervisible age of great exhibitionism” that sacrifices privacy and individuality at the altar of sharing and social status-seeking. He also makes sweeping claims that we are now living in “a world in which many of us have forgotten what it means to be human,” or that “we are forgetting who we really are.” As I noted in my Forbes review of the book, it’s classic technopanic talk. Not only does Keen fail to substantiate such claims, but he also doesn’t bother to even offer the reader any sort of practical plan for how to achieve a more balanced digital life.

Bruce Schneier – Liars & Outliers: Enabling the Trust that Society Needs to Thrive

Security expert Bruce Schneier’s latest book was a terrific read and easily one of my favorites of the year. It wasn’t a book about technology policy per se, but it certainly has important ramifications for it. Schneier explains four “societal pressures” combine to help create and preserve trust within society. Those pressures include: (1) Moral pressures; (2) Reputational pressures; (3) Institutional pressures; and (4) Security systems. By “dialing in” these societal pressures in varying degrees, trust is generated over time within groups. Of course, these societal pressures also fail on occasion, Schneier notes. He explores a host of scenarios — in organizations, corporations, and governments — when trust breaks down because defectors seek to evade the norms and rules the society lives by. These defectors are the “liars and outliers” in Schneier’s narrative and his book is an attempt to explain the complex array of incentives and trade-offs that are at work and which lead some humans to “game” systems or evade the norms and rules others follow.

Indeed, Schneier’s book serves as an excellent primer on game theory as he walks readers through complex scenarios such as prisoner’s dilemma, the hawk-dove game, the free-rider problem, the bad apple effect, principle-agent problems, the game of chicken, race to the bottom, capture theory, and more. These problems are all quite familiar to economists, psychologists, and political scientists, who have spent their lives attempting to work through these scenarios. Schneier has provided a great service here by making game theory more accessible to the masses and given it practical application to a host of real-world issues.

The most essential lesson Schneier teaches us is that perfect security is an illusion, and this is where the implications for tech policy come in. We can rely on those four societal pressures in varying mixes to mitigate problems like theft, terrorism, fraud, online harassment, and so on, but it would be foolish and dangerous to believe we can eradicate such problems completely. “There can be too much security,” Schneier explains, because, at some point, constantly expanding security systems and policies will result in rapidly diminishing returns. Trying to eradicate every social pathology would bankrupt us and, worse yet, “too much security system pressure lands you in a police state,” he correctly notes.

Despite these challenges, Schneier reminds us that there is cause for optimism. Humans adapt better to social change than they sometimes realize, usually by tweaking the four societal pressures Schneier identifies until a new balance emerges. While liars and outliers will always exist, society will march on.

See my longer review of Schneier’s excellent book over at Forbes. I highly recommend you pick up Liars & Outliers no matter what your field of study. It is outstanding.

… and still more titles from 2012 (* asterisk means I didn’t find time to finish them)…

• E. Gabriella Coleman – Coding Freedom: The Ethics and Aesthetics of Hacking *
• Sean A. Pager & Adam Candeub (eds.) – Transnational Culture in the Internet Age *
• John Naughton – From Gutenberg to Zuckerberg: What You Really Need to Know about the Internet
• Erik Brynjolfsson & Andrew McAfee – Race Against the Machine: How the Digital Revolution is Accelerating Innovation, Driving Productivity, and Irreversibly Transforming Employment and the Economy [listen to McAfee’s podcast discussion with Jerry Brito]
• Chris Reed – Making Laws for Cyberspace *
• J.R. Smith & Siobhan MacDermott – Wide Open Privacy: Strategies For The Digital Life
• Virginia Eubanks – Digital Dead End: Fighting for Social Justice in the Information Age *
• Lori Andrews – I Know Who You Are and I Saw What You Did: Social Networks and the Death of Privacy
• Hassan Masum and Mark Tovey (eds.) – The Reputation Society: How Online Opinions Are Reshaping the Offline World *
• Reed Hundt & Blair Levin – The Politics of Abundance: How Technology Can Fix the Budget, Revive the American Dream, and Establish Obama’s Legacy *
• Kal Raustiala & Christopher Sprigman – The Knockoff Economy: How Imitation sparks Innovation* [listen to Sprigman’s podcast discussion with Jerry Brito]
• Jason Mazzone, Copyfraud and Other Abuses of Intellectual Property Law * [listen to Mazzone’s podcast discussion with Jerry Brito]
• Clay A. Johnson – The Information Diet: A Case for Conscious Consumption
• Julian Assange – Cypherpunks: Freedom and the Future of the Internet
• Andy Greenberg – This Machine Kills Secrets: How WikiLeakers, Cypherpunks, and Hacktivists Aim to Free the World’s Information

… and, again, here are the lists of important books from 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011.

Here’s a presentation I delivered on “The War on Vertical Integration in the Digital Economy” at the latest meeting of the Southern Economic Association this weekend. It outlines concerns about vertical integration in the tech economy and specifically addresses regulatory proposals set forth by Tim Wu (arguing for a “separations principle” for the tech economy) & Jonathan Zittrain (arguing for “API neutrality” for social media and digital platforms). This presentation is based on two papers published by the Mercatus Center at George Mason University: “Uncreative Destruction: The Misguided War on Vertical Integration in the Information Economy” (with Brent Skorup) & “The Perils of Classifying Social Media Platforms as Public Utilities.”

Is competition really a problem in the tech industry? That was the question the folks over at WebProNews asked me to come on their show and discuss this week. I offer my thoughts in the following 15-minute clip. Also, down below I have embedded a few of my recent relevant essays on this topic, a few of which I mentioned during the show.

• “On Fast Firms, Slow Regulators, Antitrust & the Digital Economy,” Technology Liberation Front, July 6, 2012
• “The Rule Of Three: The Nature of Competition In The Digital Economy,” Forbes, June 29, 2012.
• “Sunsetting Technology Regulation: Applying Moore’s Law to Washington,” Forbes, May 25, 2012.
• “Of “Tech Titans” and Schumpeter’s Vision,” Forbes, August 22, 2011.
• “Bye Bye BlackBerry. How Long Will Apple Last?” Forbes, April 1, 2012.
• “Gary Reback’s Antitrust Love Letter,” Technology Liberation Front, September 20, 2009.
• “What is “Optimal Interoperability”? A Review of Palfrey & Gasser’s’“Interop,’” Technology Liberation Front, June 11, 2012.

I’m pretty rough on all the Internet and info-tech policy books that I review. There are two reasons for that. First, the vast majority of tech policy books being written today should never have been books in the first place. Most of them would have worked just fine as long-form (magazine-length) essays. Too many authors stretch a promising thesis into a long-winded, highly repetitive narrative just to say they’ve written an entire book about a subject. Second, many info-tech policy books are poorly written or poorly argued. I’m not going to name names, but I am frequently unimpressed by the quality of many books being published today about digital technology and online policy issues.

The books of Harvard University cyberlaw scholars John Palfrey and Urs Gasser offer a welcome break from this mold. Their recent books, Born Digital: Understanding the First Generation of Digital Natives, and Interop: The Promise and Perils of Highly Interconnected Systems, are engaging and extremely well-written books that deserve to be books. There’s no wasted space or mindless filler. It’s all substantive and it’s all interesting. I encourage aspiring tech policy authors to examine their works for a model of how a book should be done.

In a 2008 review, I heaped praise on Born Digital and declared that this “fine early history of this generation serves as a starting point for any conversation about how to mentor the children of the Web.” I still recommend highly to others today. I’m going to be a bit more critical of their new book, Interop, but I assure you that it is a text you absolutely must have on your shelf if you follow digital policy debates. It’s a supremely balanced treatment of a complicated and sometimes quite contentious set of information policy issues.

In the end, however, I am concerned about the open-ended nature of the standard that Palfrey and Gasser develop to determine when government should intervene to manage or mandate interoperability between or among information systems. I’ll push back against their amorphous theory of “optimal interoperability” and offer an alternative framework that suggests patience, humility, and openness to ongoing marketplace experimentation as the primary public policy virtues that lawmakers should instead embrace.

Interop is Important, but Often Difficult & Filled with Trade-Offs

Palfrey and Gasser begin by noting that “there is no single, agreed-upon definition of interoperability” and that “there are even many views about what interop is and how it should be achieved” (p. 5). They set out to change that by developing “a normative theory identifying what we want out of all this interconnectivity” that the information age has brought us (p. 3).

Generally speaking, Palfrey and Gasser believe increased interoperability — especially among information networks and systems — is a good thing because it “provides consumers greater choice and autonomy” (p. 57), “is generally good for competition and innovation” (p. 90), and “can lead to systemic efficiencies” (p. 129).

But they wisely acknowledge that there are trade-offs, too, noting that “this growing level of interconnectedness comes at an increasingly high price” (p. 2). Whether we are talking about privacy, security, consumer choice, the state of competition, or anything else, Palfrey and Gasser argue that “the problems of too much interconnectivity present enormous challenges both for organizations and for society at large” (p. 2). Their chapter and privacy and security offers many examples, but one need only look around at their own digital existence to realize the truth of this paradox. The more interconnected our information systems become, and the more intertwined our social and economic lives become with those systems, the greater the possibility of spam, viruses, data breaches, and various types of privacy or reputational problems. Interoperability giveth and it taketh away.

When Does “the Public Interest” Demand Interoperability Regulation?

So, how do we know when increased interoperability is good for us or society? How do we strike a reasonable balance? And, most controversially, when should government intervene to tip the balance in one direction or another?

Palfrey and Gasser return to these questions repeatedly throughout the book but admit that their answers will be dissatisfying since “there is no single form or optimal amount of interoperability that will suit every circumstance” (p. 76). Thus, “most of the specifics of how to bring interop about [must] be determined on a case-by-case basis (p. 17). They elaborate:

That can feel unsatisfying. But it is an essential truth: the most interesting interop problems relate to society’s most complex and most fundamental systems. Their answers are never simple to come by, nor are they easy to implement. This characteristic of interop theory is a feature, not a bug. … The price to be paid for striving for a universal principle at the level of theory is that such a theory is full of nuances when it comes to application and practice (p. 17-18).

Fair enough. Yet, Palfrey and Gasser also make it clear they want government(s) to play an active role in ensuring optimal interoperability. They say they favor “blended approaches that draw upon the comparative advantages of the private and public sector” (p. 161), but they argue that government should feel free to tip or nudge interoperability determinations in superior directions. “If deployed with skill,” they argue, “the law can play a central role in ensuring that we get as close as possible to optimal levels of interoperability in complex systems” (p. 88).

That phrase — “optimal level of interoperability” — pops up repeatedly throughout the book. So, too, does the phrase “the public interest.” Palfrey and Gasser argue that governments must look out for “the public interest” and “optimal interoperability” since “market forces do not automatically lead to appropriate standards or to the adoption of the best available technology” (p. 167). Here they introduce two additional amorphous values that complicate the debate: “appropriate standards” and “best available technology.”

The fundamental problem this “public interest” approach to interoperability regulation is that it is no better than the “I-know-it-when-I-see-it” standard we sometimes at work in the realm of speech regulation. It’s an empty vessel, and if it is the lodestar by which policymakers make determinations about the optimal level of interoperability, then it leaves markets, innovators, and consumers subject to the arbitrary whims of what a handful of politicians or regulators think constitutes “optimal interoperability,” “appropriate standards,” and “best available technology.”

On the Limits of Knowledge

Palfrey and Gasser’s framework feels more than just “unsatisfying” in this regard; it feels downright insufficient. That’s because it is missing a major variable: the extent to which state actors are able to adequately define those terms or accurately forecast the future needs of markets or citizen-consumers.

Surprisingly, Palfrey and Gasser don’t really spend much time discussing the specific remedies the state might impose to achieve optimal interoperability. I would have liked to have seen them develop a matrix of interop options and then outline the strengths and weaknesses of each. But even absent a more detailed discussion of possible regulatory remedies, I would have settled for more concrete answers to the following questions: Why are we to assume that regulators possess the requisite knowledge needed to know when it makes sense to foreclose ongoing marketplace experimentation? And why should we trust that, by substituting their own will for that of countless other actors in the information technology marketplace, we will be left better off?

The closest Palfrey and Gasser get to defining a firm standard for when and why such state intervention is warranted comes on page 173 when they are discussing the need for the state to establish sound reasons for intervention. They argue:

The objective should not be interoperability per se but, rather, one or more public policy goal to which interoperability can lead. The goals that usually make sense are innovation and competition, but other objectives might include consumer choice, ease of use of a technology or system, diversity, and so forth (p. 173).

This is a bit better, but it still doesn’t fully grapple with the cost side of the cost-benefit calculus for intervention. Palfrey and Gasser are willing to at least acknowledge some of those problems when they remark that “the state is rarely in a position to call a winner among competing technologies” (p. 174). Moreover,

Lawmakers need to keep in view the limits of their own effectiveness when it comes to accomplishing optimal levels of interoperability. Case studies of government intervention, especially where complex information technologies are involved, show that states tend to be ill suited to determine on their own what specific technology will be the best option for the future (p. 175)

Quite right! Yet, that insight does not seem to influence their calls elsewhere in the book for regulatory activism. That’s a shame since the admonition about policymakers recognizing the “limits of their own effectiveness” should be able to help us devise some limiting principles regarding the state’s role.

Toward an Alternative Theory: Experimental, Evolutionary Interoperability

Allow me to offer a different theory of optimal interoperability that flows from these previous insights. It’s based on a more dynamic view of markets and the central importance of experimentation in the face of uncertainty. Let me just go ahead and articulate the core principles of what I will refer to as  “experimental, evolutionary interoperability theory.” Then I’ll explain it in more detail

• Experimental, evolutionary interoperability : The theory that ongoing marketplace experimentation with technical standards, modes of information production and dissemination, and interoperable information systems, is almost always preferable to the artificial foreclosure of this dynamic process through state action. The former allows for better learning and coping mechanisms to develop while also incentivizing the spontaneous, natural evolution of the market and market responses. The latter (regulatory foreclosure of experimentation) limits that potential.

Palfrey and Gasser would label this a “laissez-faire” theory of interoperability and oppose it since they believe “a pure laissez-faire approach to interop rarely works out well” (p. 160). But they are wrong, at least to the extent they include the sweeping modifier “rarely” to describe this model’s effectiveness. In reality, the vast majority of interoperability that occurs into today’s information economy happens in a completely natural, evolutionary fashion without any significant state intervention whatsoever. In countless small and big ways alike, interconnection and interoperability happens every day throughout society. Yes, it is true that interoperability often happens against the backdrop of a legal system that allows court action to enforce certain rights or address perceived harms, but I would not classify that as a significant direct state intervention to tip or nudge interconnection decisions in one direction or another. And when interoperability doesn’t happen naturally, there are often good reasons it doesn’t and, even if there aren’t, non-interop spawns beneficial marketplace reactions and innovations.

Experimental, evolutionary interoperability theory flows out of Schumpeterian competition theory and the related field of evolutionary economics, but it is also heavily influenced by public choice theory (which stresses the limitations of romanticized theories of politics, planning, and “public interest” regulation). This alternative theory begins by accepting the simple fact that, as Austrian economist F.A. Hayek taught us, “progress by its very nature cannot be planned.” The wiser man, Hayek noted, “is very much aware that we do not know all the answers and that he is not sure that the answers he has are certainly the right ones or even that we can find all the answers.”

Ongoing experimentation with varying business models and modalities of social and economic production allows us to see what consumer choice and trial and error experimentation yields naturally over time. Ongoing experiments with flexible, voluntary interop standards and negotiations also allows us to determine which technological standards seem to benefit consumers in the short-term while also encouraging innovators to leap-frog existing standards and platforms when they become locked-in for too long or seem sub-optimal.

In the short-term, it is entirely possible that such voluntary, evolutionary interop experiments “fail” in various ways. That is often a good thing. Failures are how individuals and a society learn to cope with change and devise systems and solutions to accommodate technological change. As Samuel Beckett once counseled: “Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try Again. Fail again. Fail better.” Progress depends upon an embrace of this uncertainty and acceptance of a world of constant upheaval if we are to learn how to cope, adapt, and move forward.

In this model, technological innovation often springs from the quest for the prize of market power.  Palfrey and Gasser generally reject this Schumpeterian vision of dynamic competition, but they at least do a nice job of describing it:

firms may have a stronger incentive to be innovative when low levels of interoperability promise higher or even monopoly profits. This sort of competition… creates incentives for firms to come up with entirely new generations of technologies or business methods that are proprietary (p. 121).

They reject this approach based on (1) the mistaken notion that the quest of the prize of market power ends in the attainment and preservation of that market power; and (2) the belief that policymakers possess the ability to set us on a better course through wise interventions.

In a moment, I’ll prove why that is misguided by examining a few real-world cases studies. For now, however, let’s return to Palfrey & Gasser’s central operating principle and contrast it with the vision I’ve articulated here. Recall that they argue “it is important to maintain and facilitate diversity in the marketplace. We simply want systems to work together when we want them to and to not work together when we do not.” Again, there is no standard here if one is suggesting this as the principle by which to determine when state intervention is desirable . But if one is looking at that aspirational statement as a description of the natural order of things — namely, that we do indeed “want systems to work together when we want them to and to not work together when we do not” — then that is a perfectly sound principle for understanding why state intervention should be disfavored in all but the most extreme circumstances. To reiterate: We should not allow the state to foreclose interoperability experiments because (a) those experiments have value in and of themselves, and (b) state action is likely to have myriad unintended consequences and unforeseen costs that are not easily remedied or reversed.

There are moments in the book when Palfrey and Gasser appear somewhat sympathetic to the sort of alternative “evolutionary interop” theory I have articulated here. For example, they note that:

The web is a great equalizer for technology firms. As consumers, we have come to expect that everything will work together without incident or interruption. We think it bizarre when something in the digitally networked world does not mesh with something else, perceiving whatever it is to be broken, in need of repair. This high degree of expectation is a powerful driver of interoperability. Market players are increasingly responding to this consumer demand and making these invisible links work for their customers without any government intervention” (p. 28) [italics added]

You won’t be surprised to hear that I agree wholeheartedly! Moreover, what it really proves is that ongoing marketplace experimentation and the evolution of norms and standards generally solve interoperability problems as they develop. That doesn’t mean markets are perfectly competitive or always produce perfect interoperability. But, again, why should we believe state intervention will do a better job? And isn’t it possible that intervention could negatively counter those natural instincts that Palfrey and Gasser describe about how consumers and market actors interact to make those “invisible links” work out as nicely as they do today?

Interop, Competition & Innovation: Some Cases Studies of Evolutionary Interoperability in Action

To better explain experimental, evolutionary interop theory and how it plays out in the real-world, let’s examine the complex relationship between interoperability, competition, and innovation in the information economy through the prism of three case studies: AOL and instant messaging, video game consoles, and smartphones.

AOL

America Online’s (AOL) case study is probably the most profound example of Schumpeterian creative destruction rapidly eroding the market power of a once “dominant” digital giant. Not long ago, AOL was cast as the great villain of online openness and interoperability. In fact, when Lawrence Lessig penned his acclaimed book Code in the late 1990s, AOL was supposedly set to become the corporate enslaver of cyberspace.

For a time, it was easy to see why Lessig and others were worried. Twenty five million subscribers were willing to pay $20 per month to get a guided tour of AOL’s walled garden version of the Internet. Then AOL and media titan Time Warner announced a historic mega-merger that had some predicting the rise of “new totalitarianisms” and corporate “Big Brother.”

Fearing the worst, several conditions were placed on approval of the merger by both the Federal Trade Commission and the Federal Communication Commission. These included “open access” provisions that forced Time Warner to offer the competing ISP service from the second largest ISP at that time (Earthlink) before it made AOL’s service available across its largest cable divisions.  Another provision imposed by the FCC mandated interoperability of instant messaging systems based on the fear that AOL was poised to monopolize that emerging technology.

Palfrey and Gasser suggest this was a necessary and effective intervention. “The AOL IM case is another instance in which the role of government was key in establishing a more interoperable ecosystem” and they credit the FCC’s action with cutting AOL’s share of the IM (p. 68-9). That’s a huge stretch. The reality is that markets and technologies evolved around AOL’s walled garden and decimated whatever advantage the firm had in either the web portal business or instant messaging market.

First, despite all the hand-wringing and regulatory worry, AOL’s merger with Time Warner quickly went off the rails and AOL’s online “dominance” quickly evaporated. Looking back at the deal with TW, Fortune magazine senior editor Allan Sloan called it the “turkey of the decade” since it cost shareholders hundreds of billions. Second, AOL’s attempt to construct the largest walled garden ever also failed miserably as organic search and social networking flourished. Consumers showed they demanded more than the hand-held tour of cyberspace.

Finally, the hysteria about AOL’s threat to monopolize instant messaging and deny interoperability proved particularly unwarranted and also serves as a cautionary tale for those who argue regulation is needed to solve interoperability problems. At the time, well-heeled major competitors like Yahoo and Microsoft already had significant competing IM platforms, and others were rapidly developing. Interoperability among those systems was also spontaneously developing as consumers demanded greater flexibility among and within their communications systems. The development of Trillian, which allowed IM users to see all their various IM feeds at once, was an early precursor of what was to come. Today, anyone can download a free chat client like Digsby or Adium to manage multiple IM and email services from Yahoo!, Google, Facebook and just about anyone else, all within a single interface, essentially making it irrelevant which chat service friends use.

In a truly Schumpetrian sense, innovators came in and disrupted AOL’s plans to dominate instant messaging with innovative offerings that few critics or regulators would have believed possible just a decade ago. Progress happened, and nobody planned it from above. The FCC’s IM interoperability provision was quietly sunset less than three years after its inception since the evolution of technology and markets had rapidly eliminated the perceived problem. That mandate, as it turned out, wasn’t needed at all, and all it probably accomplished during its short life span was to hobble AOL’s ability to find a way to remain relevant in the increasingly competitive Web. 2.0 world.

Video game consoles

At first blush, the video game console wars might seem like the ideal case study for those who favor greater interoperability regulation. After all, in a static sense, why do we really need several competing video game platforms that prevent consumers from playing their games on more than one system? The lack of console interoperability also drives up development costs for game makers. Many of those developers would prefer to just code games for a single, universal gaming platform. Therefore, isn’t this the perfect excuse for state intervention to ensure “optimal interoperability”?

To the contrary, this is another example of why government should generally avoid intervening to try to achieve some sort of artificial optimal interoperability. This market has undergone continuous, turbulent change and witnessed remarkable pro-consumer innovation despite a lack of interoperability.

The video game console wars have raged since the late 1970s. The first generation of consoles was dominated Atari (2600), Mattel (Intellivision), and Coleco (ColecoVision). By the mid-1980s, the industry saw a new cast of characters displace the old players. Nintendo (NES), and Sega (Genesis) took the lead. Atari attempted a rebirth with its “Jaguar” console but failed miserably.

The demise of Atari’s 2600 console was particularly notable. When it debuted in 1977, the system revolutionized the home game market on its way to selling more than 30 million units.  For a few years, it utterly dominated the console market and the company “rushed out games, assuming that its customers would play whatever it released,” notes New York Times reporters Sam Grobart and Ian Austen. But demand rapidly dried up as other consoles and personal computers took the lead with more powerful, flexible platforms and games. In the end, “millions of unsold games and consoles were buried in a New Mexico landfill in 1983. Warner Communications, which bought Atari in 1976 for $28 million, sold it in 1984 for no cash.”

The next generation of machines was dominated by Nintendo and Sega. But by the turn of the century, more new faces appeared and disrupted the second generation of market leaders. Sony (PlayStation) and Microsoft (Xbox) introduced powerful new consoles that continue to evolve to this day. Both consoles have already cycled through three iterations, each increasingly powerful and more functional. Sega dropped out of the console business and refocused on game development. Nintendo managed to survive with its innovative “Wii” system, but has fallen from its perch as king of the console market. Many also forget Apple’s failed run at the console business with its “Pippin” system in the late 1990s. Steve Jobs killed off the console when he returned to once again lead Apple in 1997. Ironically, just a decade later, with the rise of the iPhone and the Apple App Store, the company would emerge as a major player in the gaming market as smartphone gaming exploded.

Of course, PC gaming existed across these generations and handheld gaming devices and now smartphones are also providing competition to traditional consoles. Arcade games also existed both then and now. Thus, the video game market has always been broader than just home gaming consoles.

Nonetheless, at no time during the turbulent history of this sector have major consoles interoperated. The result has been a constant effort by major console developers to leap-frog the competition with increasingly innovative and powerful consoles and peripherals. Would Microsoft have developed the Kinect motion-sensing device if Nintendo had not previously developed their game-changing Wii motion controllers? It’s impossible to know but it would seem that non-interoperability had something to do with that beneficial development. Microsoft needed a game-changing peripheral of its own to meet the Nintendo challenge since Nintendo was not about to share its innovations with the competition. Meanwhile, Sony has developed its own motion-based “Move” system to compete Microsoft and Nintendo.

This is a highly dynamic marketplace at work. Could policymakers have determined that 3 major non-interoperable home consoles would have produced so much innovation? Would they have judged that to be too much or too little competition?  Would they have been able to foresee or help bring about the disruptive competition from portable gaming devices or smartphones? What sort of interop regulation would have made that happen?

As Palfrey and Gasser suggest in their book, there really “is no single form or optimal amount of interoperability that will suit every circumstance.” The video game case study seems to prove that. Yet, their framework leaves the door open a bit wider for state meddling to determine “optimal interop.” I have little faith that state planners could have given us a more innovative video game marketplace through interop nudging. And I also worry that if the door had been open for regulators at the FCC or elsewhere to influence interoperability decisions, it might have also opened to the door to content regulation since many lawmakers have long had an appetite for video game censorship.

Smartphones

The mobile phone handset and operating system marketplace has undergone continuous change over the past 15 years and is still evolving rapidly. There are some interoperable elements, such as the ability to make connecting calls and send texts and IMs. But other parts of the smartphone ecosystem are not interoperable, such as underlying operating systems or apps and app stores.

In the midst of this mixed system of interoperable and non-interoperable elements, innovation and cut-throat competition have flourished.

When cellular telephone service first started taking off in the mid-1990s, handsets and mobile operating systems were essentially one in the same, and Nokia and Motorola dominated the sector with fairly rudimentary devices. The era of personal digital assistants (PDAs) dawned during this period, but mostly saw a series of overhyped devices, including Apple’s “Newton,” that failed to catch on. In the early 2000s, however, a host of new players and devices entered the market, many of which are still on the scene today, including LG, Sony, Samsung, Siemens, and HTC. Importantly, the sector began splitting into handsets versus operating systems (OS). Leading mobile OS makers have included: Microsoft, Palm, Symbian, BlackBerry (RIM), Apple, and Android (Google).

The sector continues to undergo rapid change and interoperability norms have evolved at the same time. Looking back, it’s hard to know whether increased interoperability would have helped or hurt the state of competition and innovation.

Consider Palm, Blackberry, and Microsoft which all limited interoperability with other systems in various ways. Palm smartphones were wildly popular for a brief time and brought many innovations to the marketplace, for example. Palm underwent many ownership and management changes, however, and rapidly faded from the scene.  After buying Palm in 2010, HP announced it would use its webOS platform in a variety of new products.  That effort failed, however, and HP instead announced it would transition webOS to an open source software development mode.

Similarly, RIM’s BlackBerry was thought to be the dominant smartphone device for a time, but it has recently been decimated. BlackBerry’s rollercoaster ride has left it “trying to avoid the hall of fallen giants” in the words of an early 2012 New York Times headline.  The company once commanded more than half of the American smartphone market but now has under 10 percent, and that number continues to fall.

Microsoft also had a huge lead in licensing its Windows Mobile OS to high-end smartphone handset makers until Apple and Android disrupted its business. It’s hard to believe now, but just a few years ago the idea of Apple or Google being serious contenders in the smartphone business was greeted with suspicion, even scorn by popular handset makers such as Nokia and Motorola. This serves as another classic example of those with a static snapshot mentality disregarding the potential for new entry and technological disruption. Just a few years later, Nokia’s profits and market share have plummeted and a struggling Motorola was purchased by Google. Meanwhile, again, Palm seems dead, BlackBerry is dying, and Microsoft is struggling to win back market share it has lost to Apple and Google in this arena.

It would seem logical to conclude that the ebbs and flows of interoperable and non-interoperable elements of the smartphone world have created a turbulent but vibrantly innovative sector. Has the lack of interoperable operating systems or apps and apps stores hurt smartphone consumers? It’s hard to see how. Mandating interoperability at either level could lead to an OS or app store monopoly, most likely for Apple if such a policy were pursued today.

While Apple has had great success and earned endless kudos for their slick, user-friendly innovations from consumers and tech wonks alike, some critics decry their proprietary business model and more “controlled” user experience. Apple tightly controls almost every level of production of its iPhone smartphone and iPad tablet. Interoperability with competing systems, standards, or technologies is limited in many ways. Is that bad? Some critics think so, suggesting that greater “openness” — presumably in the form of greater device or program interoperability — is needed. But so what? Consumers seem extremely happy with Apple devices. Moreover, well-heeled rivals like Google (Android) and Microsoft continue to innovate at a healthy clip and offer consumers a decidedly different user experience. As with video games consoles, non-interop has had some important dynamic effects and advantages for consumers. It’s hard to know what “optimal interoperability” would even look like in the modern smartphone marketplace and how it would be achieved, but it’s equally hard to believe that consumers would be significantly better off if regulators were trying to achieve it through top-down mandates on such a dynamic, fast-moving market.  [For more on this topic, see my 2011 book chapter, “The Case for Internet Optimism, Part 2 – Saving the Net From Its Supporters,” from the book, The Next Digital Decade.]

Case Study Summary & Analysis

These case studies suggest that defining “optimal interoperability” is a pipe dream. In some cases, consumers demanded a certain amount interoperability and they got it. But it seems equally obvious that they did not demand perfect interoperability in every case. Few consumers are tripping over their own feet in a mad rush to toss out their XBoxs or iPhones just because they are not perfectly interoperable. On the other hand, since the days of the old “walled garden” hell of AOL, CompuServe, Prodigy, and so on, it would seem that information technology markets are growing more “open” in other ways. You can’t completely lock-down a user’s online experience and expect to win their business over the long haul.

Palfrey and Gasser make that point quite nicely in the book:

Increasingly, though, businesses are seeing the merits of strategies based on openness. A growing number of businesses are pursuing models that incorporate interoperability as a core principle. More and more firms, especially in the information business, are shedding their proprietary approaches in favor of interoperability at multiple levels. The goal is not to be charitable to competitors or customers, of course, but to maximize returns over time by building an ecosystem with others that holds greater promise than the go-it-alone approach (p. 149).

Quite right, but let’s not pretend that any mass market information platforms or systems will ever be perfectly “open” or interoperable. There will always be some limitations on how such systems are used or shared. And that’s just fine once you embrace a more flexible theory of evolutionary interoperability.  Ongoing experiments will get us to a better place.

Conclusion: Let Interop Experiments Continue!

So, let me wrap up by restating my alternative theory of optimal interoperability as succinctly as possible: When in doubt, ongoing, bottom-up, dynamic experimentation will almost always yield better answers than arbitrary intervention and top-down planning. Again, that is not to say that all interoperability experiments will leave society better off in the short-term. Some interoperability experiments and resulting market norms or outcomes can create challenging dilemmas for individuals and institutions. There may be short-term spells of “market power,” for example, and some standards may get locked in longer than some of us think makes sense. If, however, we have faith in humans to solve problems with information and technology, then still more experimentation — not state intervention — is the answer. And that is especially true once you accept the fact that those seeking to intervene have very limited knowledge of all the relevant facts needed to even make wise decisions about the future course of technology markets or information systems.

Some will find my alternative theory of optimal interoperability no more satisfying than Palfrey and Gasser’s since they may find the experimental interop framework too inflexible when it comes to state action. Whereas the frustration with Palfrey and Gasser’s theory will likely flow from their failure to define a coherent standard for when intervention is warranted, my approach solves that problem by suggesting we should largely abandon the endeavor and instead let ongoing market experiments solve interop problems over time. For me, we would need to find ourselves in a veritable whole-world-is-about-to-go-to-hell sort of moment before I could go along with state intervention to tip the interop scales in one direction or another. And, generally speaking, this is exactly the sort of thing that antitrust laws are supposed to address after a clear showing of harm to consumer welfare. Stated differently, to the extent any state intervention to address interoperability can be justified, ex post antitrust remedies should almost always trump ex ante regulatory meddling.

This alternative vision of evolutionary, experimental interoperability will be rejected by those who believe the state has the ability to wisely intervene and nudge markets to achieve “optimal interoperability” through some sort of Goldilocks principle that can supposedly get it just right. For those of us who have doubts about the likelihood of such sagacious state action — especially for fast-paced information sectors — the benefits of ongoing marketplace experimentation far outweigh the costs of letting those experiments run their course.

Regardless, we should be thankful that John Palfrey and Urs Gasser have provided us with a book that so perfectly frames what should be a very interesting ongoing debate over these issues. I encourage everyone to pick up a copy of Interop so you can join us in this important discussion.

Additional Reading:

• the official book site
• buy the book on Amazon or Barnes & Noble
• Follow the authors on Twitter: @JPalfrey & @UGasser
• a video of their Harvard book launch follows:

Yesterday on TechCrunch, Josh Constine posted an interesting essay about how some in the press were “Selling Digital Fear” on the privacy front. His specific target was The Wall Street Journal, which has been running an ongoing investigation of online privacy issues with a particular focus on online apps. Much of the reporting in their “What They Know” series has been valuable in that it has helped shine light on some data collection practices and privacy concerns that deserve more scrutiny. But as Constine notes, sometimes the articles in the WSJ series lack sufficient context, fail to discuss trade-offs, or do not identify any concrete harm or risk to users. In other words, some of it is just simple fear-mongering. Constine argues:

Reality has yet to stop media outlets from yelling about privacy, and because the WSJ writers were on assignment, they wrote the “Selling You On Facebook” hit piece despite thin findings. These kind of articles can make mainstream users so worried about the worst-case scenario of what could happen to their data, they don’t see the value they get in exchange for it. “Selling You On Facebook” does bring up the important topic of how apps can utilize personal data granted to them by their users, but it overstates the risks. Yes, the business models of Facebook and the apps on its platform depend on your personal information, but so do the services they provide. That means each user needs to decide what information to grant to who, and Facebook has spent years making the terms of this value exchange as clear as possible.

“While sensationalizing the dangers of online privacy sure drives page views and ad revenue,” Constine also noted, “it also impedes innovation and harms the business of honest software developers.” These trade-offs are important because, to the extent policymakers get more interested in pursing privacy regulations based on these fears, they could force higher prices or less innovation upon us with very little benefit in exchange.

Of course, the press generating hypothetical fears or greatly inflating dangers is nothing new. We have seen it happen many times in the past and it can be seen at work in many other fields today (online child safety is a good example). In my recent 80-page paper on “Technopanics, Threat Inflation, and the Danger of an Information Technology Precautionary Principle,” I discussed how and why the press and other players inflate threats and sell fear. Here’s a passage from my paper:

“The most obvious reason that doomsday fears get disproportionate public attention is that bad news is newsworthy, and frightening forecasts cause people to sit up and take notice,” Julian Simon astutely observed in 1996.[1] That is equally true today.[2] Many media outlets and sensationalist authors sometimes use fear-based rhetorical devices to gain influence or sell books. “Opportunists will take advantage of this fear for personal and institutional gain,” notes University of Colorado Law School professor Paul Ohm.[3] Fear mongering and prophecies of doom have always been with us, since they represent easy ways to attract attention and get heard. “Pessimism has always been big box office,” notes [Matt] Ridley.[4] This is even more true in the midst of the modern information age cacophony. Breaking through all the noise is hard when competition for our eyes and ears is so intense. It should not be surprising, therefore, that sensationalism and alarmism are used as media differentiation tactics. This is particularly true as it relates to kids and online safety.[5] “Unbalanced headlines and confusion have contributed to the climate of anxiety that surrounds public discourse on children’s use of new technology,” argues Professor Sonia Livingstone of the London School Economics. “Panic and fear often drown out evidence.”[6] Sadly, most of us are eager listeners and lap up bad news, even when it is overhyped, exaggerated, or misreported. [Michael] Shermer notes that psychologists have identified this phenomenon as “negativity bias,” or “the tendency to pay closer attention and give more weight to negative events, beliefs, and information than to positive.”[7] Negativity bias, which is closely related to the phenomenon of “pessimistic bias” …  is frequently on display in debates over online child safety, digital privacy, and cybersecurity.

The Mercatus Center at George Mason University has just released my new white paper, “The Perils of Classifying Social Media Platforms as Public Utilities.” [PDF] I first presented a draft of this paper last November at a Michigan State University conference on “The Governance of Social Media.” [Video of my panel here.]

In this paper, I note that to the extent public utility-style regulation has been debated within the Internet policy arena over the past decade, the focus has been almost entirely on the physical layer of the Internet. The question has been whether Internet service providers should be considered “essential facilities” or “natural monopolies” and regulated as public utilities. The debate over “net neutrality” regulation has been animated by such concerns.

While that debate still rages, the rhetoric of public utilities and essential facilities is increasingly creeping into policy discussions about other layers of the Internet, such as the search layer. More recently, there have been rumblings within academic and public policy circles regarding whether social media platforms, especially social networking sites, might also possess public utility characteristics. Presumably, such a classification would entail greater regulation of those sites’ structures and business practices.

Proponents of treating social media platforms as public utilities offer a variety of justifications for regulation. Amorphous “fairness” concerns animate many of these calls, but privacy and reputational concerns are also frequently mentioned as rationales for regulation. Proponents of regulation also sometimes invoke “social utility” or “social commons” arguments in defense of increased government oversight, even though these notions lack clear definition.

Social media platforms do not resemble traditional public utilities, however, and there are good reasons why policymakers should avoid a rush to regulate them as such. Treating these nascent digital services as regulated utilities would harm consumer welfare because public utility regulation has traditionally been the archenemy of innovation and competition. Furthermore, treating today’s leading social media providers as digital essential facilities threatens to convert “natural monopoly” or “essential facility” claims into self-fulfilling prophecies. Related proposals to mandate “API neutrality” or enforce a “Separations Principle” on integrated information platforms would be particularly problematic. Such regulation also threatens innovation and investment. Marketplace experimentation in search of sustainable business models should not be made illegal.

Remedies less onerous than regulation are available. Transparency and data-portability policies would solve many of the problems that concern critics, and numerous private empowerment solutions exist for those users concerned about their privacy on social media sites.

Finally, because social media are fundamentally tied up with the production and dissemination of speech and expression, First Amendment values are at stake, warranting heightened constitutional scrutiny of proposals for regulation. Social media providers should possess the editorial discretion to determine how their platforms are configured and what can appear on them.

This 63-page paper can be found on the Mercatus site here, on SSRN, or on Scribd.  I’ve also embedded it below in a Scribd reader. Eventually, a shorter version of this paper will appear as a chapter in a MIT Press book.

Social Networks as Public Utilities [Adam Thierer]

[UPDATE: 2/14/2013: As noted here, this paper was published by the Minnesota Journal of Law, Science & Technology in their Winter 2013 edition. Please refer to that post for more details and cite this final version of the paper going forward.]

I’m pleased to report that the Mercatus Center at George Mason University has just released my huge new white paper, “Technopanics, Threat Inflation, and the Danger of an Information Technology Precautionary Principle.” I’ve been working on this paper for a long time and look forward to finding it a home in a law journal some time soon.  Here’s the summary of this 80-page paper:

Fear is an extremely powerful motivating force, especially in public policy debates where it is used in an attempt to sway opinion or bolster the case for action. Often, this action involves preemptive regulation based on false assumptions and evidence. Such fears are frequently on display in the Internet policy arena and take the form of full-blown “technopanic,” or real-world manifestations of this illogical fear. While it’s true that cyberspace has its fair share of troublemakers, there is no evidence that the Internet is leading to greater problems for society. This paper considers the structure of fear appeal arguments in technology policy debates and then outlines how those arguments can be deconstructed and refuted in both cultural and economic contexts. Several examples of fear appeal arguments are offered with a particular focus on online child safety, digital privacy, and cybersecurity. The  various  factors  contributing  to  “fear  cycles”  in these policy areas are documented. To the extent that these concerns are valid, they are best addressed by ongoing societal learning, experimentation, resiliency, and coping strategies rather than by regulation. If steps must be taken to address these concerns, education and empowerment-based solutions represent superior approaches to dealing with them compared to a precautionary principle approach, which would limit beneficial learning opportunities and retard technological progress.

The complete paper can be found on the Mercatus site here, on SSRN, or on Scribd.  I’ve also embedded it below in a Scribd reader.

Technopanics and Threat Inflation [Adam Thierer – Mercatus Center]