Posts tagged as:

Twitter, the Monopolist? Is this Tim Wu’s “Threat Regime” In Action?

by on July 1, 2011 · 9 comments

According to a report today from SAI Business Insider, “The Federal Trade Commission is actively investigating Twitter and the way it deals with the companies building applications and services for its platform.”  Apparently the agency has reached out to some competing application / platform providers to ask questions about Twitter’s recent efforts to exert more control over the uses of its API by third parties. [The Wall Street Journal confirms the FTC’s interest in Twitter.]

It remains to be seen whether this leads to any serious regulatory action against Twitter by the FTC, but such a move wouldn’t necessarily be surprising considering the more activist tilt of the agency recently. It’s even less surprising considering that Columbia University law professor and prolific cyberlaw scholar Tim Wu was appointed as a senior advisor to the FTC earlier this year. When the announcement of Wu’s appointment was made, the Wall Street Journal kicked off an article with the warning, “Silicon Valley has a new fear factor.”  It seems the Journal may have been on to something!

It’s impossible to know how much of an influence Tim Wu is having on the agency, but as I have noted here before, Prof. Wu is man with a healthy appetite for regulatory activism. [See all my essays about Wu’s work here.] Moreover, he’s a man who has already determined that Twitter is a “monopolist” in his November 13, 2010 Wall Street Journal op-ed, “In the Grip of the New Monopolists.”

That essay prompted a fiery response from me [“Tim Wu Redefines Monopoly“] as well as a far more reasoned essay by antitrust gurus Geoff Manne and Josh Wright [“What’s An Internet Monopolist? A Reply to Professor Wu.”] Prof. Wu was kind enough to swing by the TLF and respond to my criticisms in an essay “On the Definition of Monopoly,” which he said served as a “corrective” to my earlier essay [even though I continue to believe that what I said fairly reflected the last four decades of economic wisdom on competition policy and that it is Wu who is well off the reservation with his expansionist views of antitrust enforcement].

Regardless of what one thinks about that exchange, if the FTC is moving forward with a case against Twitter, three practical questions need to be considered: (1) What’s the relevant market? (2) Where’s the harm? and (3) What’s the remedy?

I’ll briefly discuss each question below but should also mention that I already explored many of these issues in my essay,  “A Vision of (Regulatory) Things to Come for Twitter,” so I apologize in advance for the repetition.  I will then discuss all this in the context of Tim Wu’s latest law review article on “Agency Threats” and what he approvingly refers to as regulatory “threat regimes.” Continue reading →

SHARE: 9 comments

What’s really motivating the pursuit of Google?

by on June 14, 2011 · 3 comments

I have an op-ed up at Main Justice on FTC Chairman Leibowitz’ recent comment in response the a question about the FTC’s investigation of Google that the FTC is looking for a “pure Section Five case.”  With Main Justice’s permission, the op-ed is re-printed here:

There’s been a lot of chatter around Washington about federal antitrust regulators’ interest in investigating Google, including stories about an apparent tug of war between agencies. But this interest may be motivated by expanding the agencies’ authority, rather than by any legitimate concern about Google’s behavior.

Last month in an interview with Global Competition Review, FTC Chairman  Jon Leibowitz was asked whether the agency was “investigating the online search market” and he made this startling revelation:

“What I can say is that one of the commission’s priorities is to find a pure Section Five case under unfair methods of competition. Everyone acknowledges that Congress gave us much more jurisdiction than just antitrust. And I go back to this because at some point if and when, say, a large technology company acknowledges an investigation by the FTC, we can use both our unfair or deceptive acts or practice authority and our unfair methods of competition authority to investigate the same or similar unfair competitive behavior . . . . ”

“Section Five” refers to Section Five of the Federal Trade Commission Act. Exercising its antitrust authority, the FTC can directly enforce the Clayton Act but can enforce the Sherman Act only via the FTC Act, challenging as “unfair methods of competition” conduct that would otherwise violate the Sherman Act. Following Sherman Act jurisprudence, traditionally the FTC has interpreted Section Five to require demonstrable consumer harm to apply.

But more recently the commission—and especially Commissioners Rosch and Leibowitz—has been pursuing an interpretation of Section Five that would give the agency unprecedented and largely-unchecked authority. In particular, the definition of “unfair” competition wouldn’t be confined to the traditional measures–reduction in output or increase in price–but could expand to, well, just about whatever the agency deems improper. Continue reading →

SHARE: 3 comments

Government Control of Language and Other Protocols

by on June 6, 2011 · 1 comment

It might be tempting to laugh at France’s ban on words like “Facebook” and Twitter” in the media. France’s Conseil Supérieur de l’Audiovisuel recently ruled that specific references to these sites (in stories not about them) would violate a 1992 law banning “secret” advertising. The council was created in 1989 to ensure fairness in French audiovisual communications, such as in allocation of television time to political candidates, and to protect children from some types of programming.

Sure, laugh at the French. But not for too long. The United States has similarly busy-bodied regulators, who, for example, have primly regulated such advertising themselves. American regulators carefully oversee non-secret advertising, too. Our government nannies equal the French in usurping parents’ decisions about children’s access to media. And the Federal Communications Commission endlessly plays footsie with speech regulation.

In the United States, banning words seems too blatant an affront to our First Amendment, but the United States has a fairly lively “English only” movement. Somehow, regulating an entire communications protocol doesn’t have the same censorious stink.

So it is that our Federal Communications Commission asserts a right to regulate the delivery of Internet service. The protocols on which the Internet runs are communications protocols, remember. Withdraw private control of them and you’ve got a more thoroughgoing and insidious form of speech control: it may look like speech rights remain with the people, but government controls the medium over which the speech travels.

The government has sought to control protocols in the past and will continue to do so in the future. The “crypto wars,” in which government tried to control secure communications protocols, merely presage struggles of the future. Perhaps the next battle will be over BitCoin, an online currency that is resistant to surveillance and confiscation. In BitCoin, communications and value transfer are melded together. To protect us from the scourge of illegal drugs and the recently manufactured crime of “money laundering,” governments will almost certainly seek to bar us from trading with one another and transferring our wealth securely and privately.

So laugh at France. But don’t laugh too hard. Leave the smugness to them.

SHARE: 1 comment

Lauren Weinstein on Privacy & “Do Not Track”

by on May 2, 2011 · 2 comments

I’ve already Tweeted about it, but if you are following Internet privacy debates and have not yet had the chance to read Lauren Weinstein‘s new paper, “Do-Not-Track, Doctor Who, and a Constellation of Confusion,” it is definitely worth a look.  Weinstein, founder of the Privacy Forum, zeroes in on two related issue that I have made the focus of much of my work on this issue: (1) the fact that Do Not Track is seemingly viewed by some as a silver-bullet quick fix to online privacy concerns but will really be far more complicated in practice to enforce, and (2) that Do Not Track regulation will likely have many unintended consequences, most of which are going unexplored by proponents.

For example, Weinstein says:

Do-not-track in actuality encompasses an immensely heterogeneous mosaic of issues and considerations, not appropriately subject to simplistic approaches or “quick fix” solutions.   Approaching this area without a realistic appreciation of such facts is fraught with risks and the potential for major undesirable collateral damages to businesses, organizations, and individuals. Attempts to portray these controversies as “black or white” topics subject to rapid or in some cases even unilaterally imposed resolutions may be politically expedient, but are ultimately both childish and dangerous. […] Above all, we should endeavor to remember that tracking issues both on and off the Internet are in reality part of a complicated whole, a multifaceted  set of problems — and very importantly — potentials as well. The decisions that we make now regarding these issues will likely have far-ranging implications and effects on the Internet for many years to come, perhaps for decades.

Continue reading →

SHARE: 2 comments

A Vision of (Regulatory) Things to Come for Twitter?

by on March 13, 2011 · 2 comments

Twitter could be in for a world of potential pain. Regulatory pain, that is. The company’s announcement on Friday that it would soon be cracking down on the uses of its API by third parties is raising eyebrows in cyberspace and, if recent regulatory history is any indicator, this high-tech innovator could soon face some heat from regulatory advocates and public policy makers. If this thing goes down as I describe it below, it will be one hell of a fight that once again features warring conceptions of “Internet freedom” butting heads over the question of whether Twitter should be forced to share its API with rivals via some sort of “open access” regulatory regime or “API neutrality,” in particular. I’ll explore that possibility in this essay. First, a bit of background.

Understanding Forced Access Regulation

In the field of communications law, the dominant public policy fight of the past 15 years has been the battle over “open access” and “neutrality” regulation. Generally speaking, open access regulations demand that a company share its property (networks, systems, devices, or code) with rivals on terms established by law. Neutrality regulation is a variant of open access regulation, which also requires that systems be used in ways specified by law, but usually without the physical sharing requirements. Both forms of regulation derive from traditional common carriage principles / regulatory regimes. Critics of such regulation, which would most definitely include me, decry the inefficiencies associated with such “forced access” regimes, as we prefer to label them. Forced access regulation also raises certain constitutional issues related to First and Fifth Amendment rights of speech and property. Continue reading →

SHARE: 2 comments

Targeted Advertising for Cable TV & Skype

by on March 7, 2011 · 4 comments

We’ve said it here before too may times to count: When it comes to the future of content and services — especially online or digitally-delivered content and services — there is no free lunch. Something has to pay for all that stuff and increasingly that something is advertising.  But not just any type of advertising — targeted advertising is the future. We see that again today with Skype’s announcement that it is rolling out an advertising scheme as well as in this Wall Street Journal story (“TV’s Next Wave: Tuning In to You“) about how cable and satellite TV providers are ramping up their targeted advertising efforts.

No doubt, we’ll soon hear the same old complaints and fears trotted out about these developments.  We’ll hear about how “annoying” such ads are or how “creepy” they are.  Yet, few will bother detailing what the actual harm is in being delivered more tailored or targeted commercial messages.  After all, there’s actually a benefit to receiving ads that may be of more interest to us. Much traditional advertising was quite “spammy” in that it was sent to the mass market without a care in the world about who might see or hear it. But in a diverse society, it would be optimal if the ads you saw better reflected your actual interests / tastes. And that’s a primary motivation for why so many content and service providers are turning to ad targeting techniques. As Skype noted in its announcement today: “We may use non-personally identifiable demographic data (e.g. location, gender and age) to target ads, which helps ensure that you see relevant ads. For example, if you’re in the US, we don’t want to show you ads for a product that is only available in the UK.”  Similarly, the Journal article highlights a variety of approaches that television providers are using to better tailor ads to their viewers.

Some will still claim it’s too “creepy.” But, as I noted in my recent filing to the Federal Trade Commission on its new privacy green paper: Continue reading →

SHARE: 4 comments

Congrats Tim Wu! But Please Don’t Toss “The Regulatory Switch”

by on February 8, 2011 · 6 comments

Congrats are due to Tim Wu, who’s just been appointed as a senior advisor to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). Tim is a brilliant and gracious guy; easily one of the most agreeable people I’ve ever had the pleasure of interacting with in my 20 years in covering technology policy. He’s a logical choice for such a position in a Democratic administration since he has been one of the leading lights on the Left on cyberlaw issues over the past decade.

That being said, Tim’s ideas on tech policy trouble me deeply. I’ll ignore the fact that he gave birth to the term “net neutrality” and that he chaired the radical regulatory activist group, Free Press. Instead, I just want to remind folks of one very troubling recommendation for the information sector that he articulated in his new book, The Master Switch: The Rise and Fall of Information Empires. While his book was preoccupied with corporate power and the ability of media and communications companies to posses a supposed “master switch” over speech or culture, I’m more worried about the “regulatory switch” that Tim has said the government should toss.

Tim has suggested that a so-called “Separations Principle” govern our modern information economy. “A Separations Principle would mean the creation of a salutary distance between each of the major functions or layers in the information economy,” he says. “It would mean that those who develop information, those who control the network infrastructure on which it travels, and those who control the tools or venues of access must be kept apart from one another.”  Tim calls this a “constitutional approach” because he models it on the separations of power found in the U.S. Constitution.

I critiqued this concept in Part 6 of my ridiculously long multi-part review of his new book, and I discuss it further in a new Reason magazine article, which is due out shortly. As I note in my Reason essay, Tim’s blueprint for “reforming” technology policy represents an audacious industrial policy for the Internet and America’s information sectors. Continue reading →

SHARE: 6 comments

new paper: “Unappreciated Benefits of Advertising and Commercial Speech”

by on January 14, 2011 · 0 comments

Today the Mercatus Center has released a short new paper I have authored on “Unappreciated Benefits of Advertising and Commercial Speech.”  I begin the piece by noting that:

Federal policy makers, state legislators, and state attorneys general have recently shown interest in regulating commercial advertising and marketing. Several new regulatory initiatives are being proposed, or are already underway, that could severely curtail or restrict advertising or marketing on a variety of platforms. The consequences of these stepped-up regulatory efforts will be profound and will hurt consumer welfare both directly and indirectly.

I go on to note that “advertising can be an easy target for politicians or regulatory activist groups who make a variety of (typically unsubstantiated) claims about its negative impact on society,” but then continue on to explain how “the role of commercial speech in a free-market economy is often misunderstood or taken for granted.” I outline how, despite regulators’ concerns, consumers actually derive three important types of benefits from advertising and marketing: (1) Informational / Educational Benefits; (2) Market Choice / Pro-Competitive Benefits; and (3) Media Promotion / Cross-Subsidization.  After discussing each benefit, I conclude that:

For these reasons, a stepped-up regulatory crusade against advertising and marketing will hurt consumer welfare since it will raise prices, restrict choice, and diminish marketplace competition and innovation—both in ad-supported content and service markets, and throughout the economy at large.  Simply stated, there is no free lunch.

Read the entire 1,800-word essay here.  I have also embedded the document down below in a Scribd reader.

Continue reading →

SHARE: 0 comments

Adobe Improves Privacy Controls Before Regulators Can Saddle Up

by on January 14, 2011 · 6 comments

Via @csoghoian (who can be wrathful if you don’t attribute), Adobe buries the lede in its blog post about privacy improvements to the Flash player. They’re working with the most popular browser vendors on integrating control of “local shared objects”—more commonly known as “Flash cookies”—into the interface. Users control of Flash cookies will soon be similar to control of ordinary cookies.

It doesn’t end there:

Still, we know the Flash Player Settings Manager could be easier to use, and we’re working on a redesign coming in a future release of Flash Player, which will bring together feedback from our users and external privacy advocates. Focused on usability, this redesign will make it simpler for users to understand and manage their Flash Player settings and privacy preferences. In addition, we’ll enable you to access the Flash Player Settings Manager directly from your computer’s Control Panels or System Preferences on Windows, Mac and Linux, so that they’re even easier to locate and use. We expect users will see these enhancements in the first half of the year and we look forward to getting feedback as we continue to improve the Flash Player Settings Manager.

Mysterious, sinister “Flash cookies” were Exhibit A in the argument for a Do Not Track regulation. There is no way that people can cope with the endless array of tracking technologies advertisers are willing to deploy, the argument went, so the government must step in, define what it means to be “tracked,” and require it to stop—without kneecapping the free Internet. (Good luck with that!)

But Flash cookies are now quickly taking their place as a feature that users can control from the browser (or OS), customizing their experience of the Web to meet their individual privacy preferences. This is not a panacea, of course: People must still be made aware of the importance of controlling Flash cookies, as well as regular cookies. New tracking technologies will emerge, and consumer-friendly information controls meeting those challenges will be required in response.

But if this is what the drawn-out “war” against tracking technologies looks like, color me pro-war!

In a few short months, Adobe has begun work on the controls needed to put Flash cookies under peoples’ control. The Federal Trade Commission—prospective imposer of peace through complex, top-down regulation—took more than a year to produce a report querying whether a Do Not Track regulation might be a good idea. This problem will essentially be solved (and we’ll be on to the next one) before the FTC would have gotten saddled up.

Yes, Adobe may have acted because of the threat of damaging government regulation. That seems always to be what gets these companies moving. Of course it does, when the primary modus operandi of privacy advocacy is to push for government regulation. Were the privacy community to work as assiduously on boycotts as acting through intermediary government regulators, change might come even faster.

We could do without the standing army of regulators. Having a government sector powerful enough to cow the business sector is costly, both in terms of freedom and tax dollars.

With the failure of Do Not Track, the vision of a free and open Internet—populated by aware, empowered individuals—lives on.

SHARE: 6 comments

Obama Admin’s “Let’s-Be-Europe” Approach to Privacy Will Undermine U.S. Competitiveness

by on January 5, 2011 · 2 comments

Reading through the respective December 2010 privacy reports from the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and Department of Commerce (DoC), one cannot help but be struck by the Obama Administration’s seeming desire to make America’s tech sector — and the regulatory regime that governs it — more closely resemble Europe’s.  The push for an ambitious new “privacy framework” and set of “fair information practices” is just a riff borrowed from the EU data directive.  And although the Obama team stops short of calling privacy a “dignity right” as many European policymakers are prone to do, it’s clear from both the FTC and DoC reports that that’s were they want to take us.

It’s interesting to me, though, that the Obama Administration relies on two fundamentally flawed rationales for the “European-ification” of American privacy law.  In this regard, I’ll reference some passages from the DoC’s report that appear in the section on “The Economic Imperative” for a new regime, which appears on pages 13-16 of the report.

Myth #1: Privacy Regs Are Needed to Get More People Online or Using Digital Technology

First, the DoC pulls out the old saw about the need for expanded privacy regs to ensure greater online trust and, as a result, promote increased online interactions.  The report claims that “maintaining consumer trust is vital to the success of the digital economy” and that “an erosion of trust will inhibit the adoption of new technologies” (p. 15)  The problem with the theory that online commerce or consumer interactions online are somehow being thwarted by a lack of more privacy regulation is that it is plainly contradicted by the facts.  Continue reading →

SHARE: 2 comments

← Previous Entries

Next Entries →